Gillespie's Bullshit! on Immigration (Streaming Edition)

The episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! on immigration in which I appear as the pro-foreigner advocate is available at YouTube in three easy-to-watch chunks:

Part 1:

Part 2

 

Part 3: 

Reason's special issue (August-September 2006) on immigration reform is online here.

More on the topic here.

Comments

Jonathan Hohensee | April 28, 2007, 11:39am | #

Anyone know where I can find the Walmart episode?

Bwana Dik | April 28, 2007, 11:55am | #

Penn & Teller - Walmart Harted [sic] Is Bullshit

Ruthless | April 28, 2007, 12:31pm | #

Lichtenberg,
How about we should eliminate walls and immigration laws and vice laws?
Isn't there something to be said for discontinuing putting money into efforts which don't work and never will?
First we discontinue, next we say, "adjust." How 'bout that?

Grotius | April 28, 2007, 12:46pm | #

lichtenberg,

You know, the show did actually address some of the problems which are claimed to arise from immigration. So what's your point again?

Also, how are immigration and murder comparable?

crap-action-jackson | April 28, 2007, 12:51pm | #

“Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity,” - George S. Patton

Grotius | April 28, 2007, 12:53pm | #

Lichtenberg,

Why are you using such an obviously whacked analogy then?

And why don't you address the rest of statements?

Grotius | April 28, 2007, 12:55pm | #

crap-action-jackson,

The general conclusion at China's Great Wall is that it would have been far wiser to spend the money on China's military forces.

Grotius | April 28, 2007, 12:55pm | #

Lichtenberg,

Your point is that you have no point.

Grotius | April 28, 2007, 12:56pm | #

Lichtenberg,

For some reason you think that the motives haven't been addressed; well, they have been addressed. They were addressed in Penn & Teller's show and Reason has addressed them. Next?

Mulliga | April 28, 2007, 12:59pm | #

I wasn't sure what P&T were trying to communicate with all those close-ups of the holstered firearms of the Minute Men, or by calling their leader "Batman." I thought, after seeing the episode on gun control, that an armed citzenry was agreeable to these guys.

ktc2 | April 28, 2007, 1:01pm | #

As I've said before, and Nick said in the show, it really does all come down to racism.

He admits he's not comfortable saying so, probably for the same reason as I, there are many non bigots who are opposed to these people as well. They are just misinformed (often deliberately).

highnumber | April 28, 2007, 1:13pm | #

Mulliga,

Because one is in favor of the right to bear arms, one cannot be made uncomfortable by them as well?

mk | April 28, 2007, 1:26pm | #

Penn & Teller seldom, in a half hour, do a topic any real justice. It's enough that they manage to make a few good points in an entertaining way.
For a great half hour of pro-illegal immigration ranting, I'll take Anthony Bourdain's show on the topic. As a representative of the restaurant industry, he got right to one great point, that illegals contribute way more to the quality and affordability of food in this country than most people realize.

M | April 28, 2007, 1:27pm | #

Perhaps supporting the right to bear arms while discouraging glorifying them is a rational approach.

highnumber | April 28, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Bwana Dik,

I nominate you for "Person of the Weekend."

Thank you very, very much.

If you have a god, may it bless you.

If you have a significant other, may he/she do every naughty thing you have ever wished for.

If you are poor, may you be wealthy.

If you are wealthy, may you be happy.

May your next birthday be the happiest ever.

Thank you.

William R | April 28, 2007, 1:55pm | #

Walls work. Just ask Israel.

Importing milions of poor people only grows government. We have a huge welfare state.

What the Chamber of Commerce, Restaurant Association, WSJ Editorial page and Reason foundation advocat is, privatize all the gains that come with cheap poor unskilled labor from Mexico, and dump all the expense on the taxpayers. Destroyed schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_mexifornia.html

Mexifornia, 5 years later

Urkobold® | April 28, 2007, 2:02pm | #

Urkobold EATS SHIT LIKE William R FOR BREAKFAST!
Urkobold HAS ALREADY HAD BREAKFAST TODAY.



YES, Urkobold EATS SHIT FOR BREAKFAST.

Kwix | April 28, 2007, 3:20pm | #

I know Lichtenberg has already checked out but to address his points, P&T and Reason(on numerous occasions) have called for the relaxation or repeal of "illegal immigration" laws, not because illegals can scale walls but because there is no real reason for the laws to exist in the first place. P&T even threw up a nifty PowerPoint style graphic while talking about how since 1990 "illegal" immigrants have increased the population of our country by roughly 500k per year while the rate of unemployment by "legal citizens" has remained relatively constant. In fact, no modern Western country has been able to maintain less than an average 4%-6% unemployment rate. Even the US, during the hight of the post WWII boom (1951-1953) had a 3% unemployment rate. There will always be a portion of the population that can not or will not work.

Your conflation of the wall's ineffectiveness being a call for repeal of immigration laws is inaccurate. P&T just used the wall to show that the only "effective" method of keeping people from sneaking over the boarder isn't that effective and will cost a buttload of taxpayer money to build, much less maintain. The wall simply highlights the futility of immigration laws but is not itself a call for their repeal.

Xmas | April 28, 2007, 3:21pm | #

My favorite part of that show:

Boss guy (en espanol): "You're going to build a fence like the border fence."

Random illegal immigrant: "Again?"

Terrorific | April 28, 2007, 3:23pm | #

Bra. Fucking. Vo.

William R, I have no desire to follow in Israel's footsteps in any regard. Besides, the Southern border is a tad bit larger than what Israel has, and much much much more expensive to deal with. The wall in Israel isn't effective because it's a wall, but because of what will happen to your ass if you try to get past it.

Walls work. Just ask Berlin.
Walls work. Just ask Korea.
Walls work. Just ask me (My apartment has 4 walls, and all have managed to keep out unwanted visitors, but my concrete floor and roof play a large role as well.)

Kwix | April 28, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Reason foundation advocat is, privatize all the gains that come with cheap poor unskilled labor from Mexico, and dump all the expense on the taxpayers. Destroyed schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods.

William R,
You are one misinformed soul, at least with regards to the Reason foundation. I suppose you have missed the Reason Magazine archives where Reason has called for privatization of school systems, the disassembly of the welfare system and the end to taxpayer assisted emergency rooms. Here is the advanced search page for you to do some homework, though I feel you will decline my suggestion.

Alex Singleton | April 28, 2007, 3:28pm | #

Thank goodness for YouTube. (We don't get Penn and Teller on broadcast TV in the UK.)

Kwix | April 28, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Oh great Urkobold®!
Please forgive me for upsetting your shit filled stomach. I promise to not feed the trolls anymore if you take pity on me and ....

William R | April 28, 2007, 3:58pm | #

"Kwix | April 28, 2007, 3:26pm | #"


Ahhhh Geeeshhh Kwix, privatizing the school system and doing away with the welfare state has about as much chance of getting through congress and signed into law by a President as I have of being elected President. It just ain't gonna happen.

So in the meantime as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman said, "it makes no sense to have mass immigration with a welfare state."

Meet Penn & Teller's Number One fans! | April 28, 2007, 4:05pm | #

I only watched a couple minutes of the first episode before I got sick of the sub-MichaelMoore crap.

The bottom line is that Penn and Teller - like Gillespie - are simply lightweights. I doubt whether any of them did anything beyond hand-waving away valid concerns about the impacts.

For instance, did any of them describe how - even under the current situation - they intend to deal with the MexicanGovernment gaining PoliticalPower inside the U.S.?

I didn't think so.

Genghis Kahn | April 28, 2007, 4:19pm | #

kwix,

I know Lichtenberg has already checked out but to address his points, P&T and Reason(on numerous occasions) have called for the relaxation or repeal of "illegal immigration" laws, not because illegals can scale walls but because there is no real reason for the laws to exist in the first place.

Some of us are clear on the fact that this the pro-crowd's position.

We think that position is wrong.

But the rewind-replay tapes are blaring so loud around here that almost nobody hears anything else.

They've built their very own echo chamber.

Genghis Kahn | April 28, 2007, 4:25pm | #

As I've said before, and Nick said in the show, it really does all come down to racism.

No, it really doesn't just come down to racism. Those who believe that are confessing an incredible level of ignorance.

Perhaps, some of it deliberate.

Timothy West | April 28, 2007, 4:29pm | #

they are working on it. Once our economy and latin america's are the same, pay the same wages, and offers the same lack of opportunity as their host country, there will be no immigration problem.

You can fit a honest free trade agreement on a single 8 1/2 X 11 sheet of paper. NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT are not free trading agreements. They are trade welfare and subsidy agreements. Think Social Security wealth transfers from young to old - now apply that to trade.

You will never stop any activity as long as here is more money to be made doing that activity than not. if you want less of something, you have to take the reward away from what doing that something does.

Genghis Kahn | April 28, 2007, 4:32pm | #

Anyone who thinks that a large influx of immigrants can't destablize the existing order and way of life in this country, hasn't read nearly enough history. It's entirely possible and it has happened in other places in the world.

Anyone claiming that those Americans who are concerned about preserving the order we have here are just racists -- are just racists of another kind.

If you concede the argument that it's all just about racism, that is. If.

kebko | April 28, 2007, 4:34pm | #

Did anyone else think it said "Steaming Edition" the first time they read the title?

Eric Atkinson | April 28, 2007, 4:44pm | #

I have the first four seasons of Bullshit on DVDs, If this episode is typical of the rest of season five , I quess I will not be buying any more.
Too much Bullshit in this episode.
Too bad. I like P&T's show but this one stunk.

Taktix® | April 28, 2007, 4:49pm | #

Urkobold®,

Nice try, stealing my idea, but I officially did it first, sucka...

Ayn Randian | April 28, 2007, 4:51pm | #

It's entirely possible and it has happened in other places in the world.

Name one.

Genghis Kahn | April 28, 2007, 4:53pm | #

China.

Vietnam.

North America, of all places. You do remember those wild Indians that were running around before the white man came?

Urkobold® | April 28, 2007, 4:53pm | #

VERILY, IT IS TAKTIX WHO SUCKS.
Urkobold HAS A VERY REAL CONCERN ABOUT HIS IDENTITY BEING STOLEN. REGISTERING TRADEMARKS IS NOT JUST FOR YOU.

PUNISHMENT:

FIX MY WEED WHACKER.

Taktix® | April 28, 2007, 4:58pm | #

Humph... yes sir...

Genghis Kahn | April 28, 2007, 5:02pm | #

btw, was that steam of the odiferous, literal, or figurative type?

Ayn Randian | April 28, 2007, 5:03pm | #

In all those examples, you're talking about colonization through force. I don't see where that's going to happen through immigration (unless you see it as an invasion, as the King of Insanity aka Lonewacko does).

shecky | April 28, 2007, 5:20pm | #

When Teller said he was going to do something awful to the laborers after making them build the wall, I thought it was going to be, well, awful. Or shitty, like call La Migra on them. But it turned out entertaining.

shecky | April 28, 2007, 5:21pm | #

Oops, meant Penn.

Genghis Kahn | April 28, 2007, 5:25pm | #

In all those examples, you're talking about colonization through force.

There are many kinds of force besides literal weapons.

Les | April 28, 2007, 5:25pm | #

Anyone who thinks that a large influx of immigrants can't destablize the existing order and way of life in this country, hasn't read nearly enough history.

I love history!

So, there's been a large influx of immigrants into this country for, well, a long, long time. Where is the destabilization? Where's the trend, as Timothy suggested, of our economy looking like Mexico's?

Meet Penn & Teller's Number One fans! | April 28, 2007, 5:39pm | #

In all those examples, you're talking about colonization through force.

If we held a vote, very very few Americans would choose to allow IllegalImmigration. It is force: the corrupt elites vs. everyone else.

And, of course, the current influx is not like past influxes in many ways, specifically because of the MulticulturalismIndustry, the fact that the influx is coming from a neighboring country, and the fact that that country used to own part of our country.

As for that history thing, Texas springs to mind.

And, someone else posted this comment elsewhere a while back; I haven't confirmed it:

You can look at what they did in morrocco with the “great march” into the western sahara to skew the votes away from the locals, the polisario. Same thing with Tibet in China. They give tax and other financial incentives for chinese to move there in the hopes that even a local referendum would vote for chinese control. Flooding a region with your people by giving them incentives to move there as a way to ensure political control is nothing new.

Once again: the bottom line is that Gillespie, Reason, and P&T are lightweights. They have no real grasp of everything involved in this issue, and if I were allowed to ask NG several questions in a public forum I could help everyone see that.

Les | April 28, 2007, 5:45pm | #

Once again: the bottom line is that Gillespie, Reason, and P&T are lightweights. They have no real grasp of everything involved in this issue, and if I were allowed to ask NG several questions in a public forum I could help everyone see that.

See, I think this is not a good debating technique. Shouldn't the bottom line be the facts that support your argument? I'm assuming the people who have a "real grasp of everything involved" are the people who agree with you? Why not ask Gillespie the questions on this public forum? If he doesn't answer them, maybe some of us other lightweights can.

Meet Penn & Teller's Number One fans! | April 28, 2007, 6:20pm | #

Les: there's one question up above relating to PoliticalPower.

I'm not aware of NG even trying to answer any of the other questions I've posted here over the years.

For instance, here's a flashback to Aug 2006:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's a serious question for serious people only:

If we haven't been invaded, how exactly could we deport even just a few million IllegalAliens if we had to? Give me an outline of what we'd have to do and your contingency plans.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I got one (1) semi-serious response, but no details were provided.

uncle sam | April 28, 2007, 6:46pm | #

If we haven't been invaded, how exactly could we deport even just a few million IllegalAliens if we had to? Give me an outline of what we'd have to do and your contingency plans.

Build a real wall on all the borders, manned with armed guards in towers placed within sight of each other (or less), patrol the ground constantly, round up anyone that speaks with a foreign accent and ship them out. Tatoo everyone with an ID number/implant RFID tags or similar.

IOW, set up a police state.

uncle sam | April 28, 2007, 6:50pm | #

As far as the fear that Mexico will take over the US through immigration, I don't get that one. If immigrants wanted to live in a place like Mexico, why come here?

It would be foolish to go to a place of opportunity, for the opportunity, only to destroy all opportunity. The Mexican government can't manage Mexico, why would it attempt to manage the US as well?

jp | April 28, 2007, 7:20pm | #

That was a whole lot of unfunny for a small amount of the man in black (or, as Number One Fans would say, "ManinBlack"). Of course, it's not my show, but I think it would've been more entertaining just to have Nick and the other guy debate each other.

Genghis Kahn | April 28, 2007, 7:36pm | #

So, there's been a large influx of immigrants into this country for, well, a long, long time. Where is the destabilization?

Well we can start with the fact that the very first thing to do is pretend that hispanics have no political influence in this country. Because after all, even the legal ones have to wait a few years before they can vote.

Therefore the hispanic community in this country has zero political influence.

You believe that, right?

Then let's pretend that American citizens are just racist assholes if they don't want Mexican ghettos in their cities. See? That's proof of racism, isn't it?

The idea that the Americans who are here, might not want those ghettos, is something you have to really really REALLY pretend doesn't matter.

It is isn't relevant. Right? Fucking IRRELEVANT. Those Americans are just RACISTS.

No, those poor hispanics who want to come here have every right to do so. But we, who live here, have no more right to say "no", than the Indians had to tell the white man "go back home".

See, we took care of that one. Damned American racists anyway.

And let's pretend that if the US border really was wide open, there wouldn't be even one more immigrant here from south of the border, than we've got right now.

You see, if we pretend all of these things, then there's no problem.

It was only a little bit of pretending.



There isn't anyone here who has any idea how many of them it's going to take before it does change us.

Most can't even conceive of the question.

Genghis Kahn | April 28, 2007, 7:39pm | #

As far as the fear that Mexico will take over the US through immigration, I don't get that one.

Maybe because you haven't met very many real live Mexicans.

Immigrants may not want to live in their own countries anymore. But by and large, they don't really want to be Americans either. Nor do they want their children to become Americans.

If their numbers are small enough it won't matter. But when there's enough of them that they don't have to assimilate, because they can just keep living in their enclaves, it's a different story.

But you probably don't get that either.

Genghis Kahn | April 28, 2007, 7:43pm | #

It didn't take very many catholic missionaries to cause problems in Vietnam, long before the French took over that country.

The crest of that wave might have been when the Buddhist monks burned themselves in protest of Diem's regime.

The incompatibility in this case was far stronger than with hispanics coming north to the US. But if you can't see that there are idealogical incompatibilities, I can't help you.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 28, 2007, 7:48pm | #

That sign was designed by the Art Dept at Cal State Fullerton when Mrs TWC was a grad student there.

Although inflammatory to the anti-immigrant crowd it was kind of necessary with all those illegals running across I-5 and getting squished.

John Rhoads | April 28, 2007, 8:04pm | #

LW,

Why is this question serious?

If we haven't been invaded, how exactly could we deport even just a few million IllegalAliens if we had to? Give me an outline of what we'd have to do and your contingency plans.

The question is a non-sequitur. Whether or not we are capable of deporting millions of illegal immigrants (incidentally, that word should not be capitalized and should be two words) has no bearing on whether or not we are being invaded. Certainly mass-deportation is certainly not an easy task, but your question assumes that mass deportation is desirable and is unrelated to the introductory clause of your sentence.

I don't mean to pick on you, but you just sound really paranoid whenever you post about immigration. People have been predicting the downfall of American culture due to immigration since the country was founded, and they have been consistently incorrect in doing so. The anti-catholic, anti-immigration know-nothing movement in the nineteenth century was convinced that the pope was out to conquer the world and create a world government. Seems like one group of people at least managed to pick an apt name for their point of view.

In Texas, US citizens were invited to settle the Mexican owned Texas because there was not a significant sized Mexican population living there. The situation is not at all comparable to the modern one.

For instance, did any of them describe how - even under the current situation - they intend to deal with the MexicanGovernment gaining PoliticalPower inside the U.S.?

This is the main statement I don't understand. Is the Mexican government (again should be two words) gaining political power (two non-capitalized words) inside the US? If so, why do you believe this to be the case? Can you give specific examples that illustrate your point? If not, why do you believe that mass immigration makes this support inevitable? I ask because you have made these statements as if they are facts, and I am legitimately curious where they are coming from. Perhaps you might try explaining your position to us "lightweights" who have clearly given no thought to our own positions.

Cesar | April 28, 2007, 8:09pm | #

Yes, immigrants will change the culture of this country. But this country will also change *their* culture. Its not a zero sum game of "hispanic" culture vs. "american" culture (whatever those words mean, exactly).

Its amazing no one appreciates the miracle that Catholicism is the largest religion in America now. In the 1840s, it was assumed by many if that ever happened we would be a vassal of the Pope and the Constution would be destroyed.

I'm still waiting for the PapistArmy to gain ReligiousInfluence in this country due to PoliticalCorruption. After all the Catholic Church has ForeignLinks!

Les | April 28, 2007, 8:15pm | #

Well we can start with the fact that the very first thing to do is pretend that hispanics have no political influence in this country. Because after all, even the legal ones have to wait a few years before they can vote.

How does "political influence" equal "destabilization?"

Therefore the hispanic community in this country has zero political influence. You believe that, right?

Why would you think I believe that? And, again, how does "political influence" equal "destabilization?"

Then let's pretend that American citizens are just racist assholes if they don't want Mexican ghettos in their cities. See? That's proof of racism, isn't it?

I prefer the word "bigoted." Are Mexican ghettos worse than other kinds?

No, those poor hispanics who want to come here have every right to do so. But we, who live here, have no more right to say "no", than the Indians had to tell the white man "go back home".

Until immigrants start slaughtering natives and illegally taking their land, I don't think it's valid to compare what whites did to Indians to what illegal immigrants do to legal residents.

And let's pretend that if the US border really was wide open, there wouldn't be even one more immigrant here from south of the border, than we've got right now.

I smell straw. Who has suggested that?

There isn't anyone here who has any idea how many of them it's going to take before it does change us.

That's an old, old argument. Until we see evidence that negative change or "instability" is occurring, I don't think it's a valid argument.

Cesar | April 28, 2007, 8:17pm | #

Jobriath-

If you are looking for someone who thinks change is a bad thing, you are talking to the wrong person!

rockdalian | April 28, 2007, 8:37pm | #

I too didn't watch for very long. Is there no one here that knows or understands what the minutemen stand for? They stand against illegal immigration. Got that everybody? Illegal. Penn stated within the first few minutes that the minutemen were against immigration. Twice. After that it would have been a waste of time to watch the rest. If Penn can't get that basic fact right, what others might he be wrong about?

Ken | April 28, 2007, 8:47pm | #

"You mean like Italians changed it? Like Jews changed it? Like blacks changed it?

Because you know, pizza, meatball subs, Gerschwin tunes and blues and jazz music are horrible, evil, evil un-american things."

And the Mafia, AIPAC and 24% poverty rates have been great things for the nation, right? This seems harsh, I know. But its silly for pro-immigration folks to always point out the immigrant who dived into the lake to save the drowning kid and not the serial killer who rode the trains and killed folks...There are great immigrants (Einstein) and social drags (Capone). We've gotta move past this goofiness...Will many of today's immigrants, who tend to have amazingly low levels of education and come from cultures with amazingly high levels of acceptance of corruption and lack of rights, be pluses or minuses? Lord knows we could use a couple of million of less than high school education folks from cultures which never developed a respect for free minds and markets, right?

TLB | April 28, 2007, 8:49pm | #

John Rhoads ("Mr. Unbright") says: Can you give specific examples that illustrate your point?

I've posted dozens of entries about that very topic. You are self-admittedly ignorant of the topic. Shouldn't you do your research before discussing this issue?

As for one example, the MexicanGovernment appears to have initiated the prosecution of the BorderPatrol agents RamosAndCompean. I could provide many, many more examples, but I would suggest instead that you start learning how to do basic research.

I note also that - as in August 2006 - no one here is able to answer my question.

Ken | April 28, 2007, 9:12pm | #

"I'm still waiting for the PapistArmy to gain ReligiousInfluence in this country due to PoliticalCorruption. After all the Catholic Church has ForeignLinks!"
Now what, five of our Supreme Court are Catholics? And many of our political mags, such as NR are essentially conservative Catholic politcal mags. No, Catholicism, as an ideology, has no hold on our nations institutions and traditions :).

dhex | April 28, 2007, 9:14pm | #

"And the Mafia, AIPAC and 24% poverty rates have been great things for the nation, right?"

wow.

mind status: officially blown

Akira MacKenzie | April 28, 2007, 9:22pm | #

So THAT was the Minutemen, huh. All this time I was expected to be mainly composed of skin-heads and Ku-Kluxers, not octogenarian bigots in lawn chairs and binoculars.

Cesar | April 28, 2007, 9:32pm | #

Ken-

My point was not that Catholicism has no influence on the Untied States. My point was that that influence has not, contrary to the predictions of many in the past, destroyed the constitution or our republic. Nor does every Catholic politician do exactly what the Pope demands, again contrary to those dire predictions. How many pro-choice Catholics are there in the Senate again?

joe | April 28, 2007, 9:48pm | #

Holy shit, immigrants stole the leather jacket!

Asharak | April 28, 2007, 9:50pm | #

Firstly, WTF is the AIPAC?

AIPAC=American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

So Ken basically thinks the Jooos are to blame. That explains a lot.

Asharak | April 28, 2007, 9:54pm | #

Great Bullshit! episode, by the way.

I have to admit that I myself do not entirely agree with the Libertarian Party's stance on immigration, but the likes of TLB/lonewacko, Ken and the so-called Minutemen can kiss my ass.

joe | April 28, 2007, 9:54pm | #

Dude, I've seen Mexican immigrants at work.

"Fourteen feet of anti-climb mesh, topped by concertina wire, and buried two feet" isn't going to mean shit to these people. They work harder than that before they even drink from the hose!

ktc2 | April 28, 2007, 10:09pm | #

Something tells me GK gets his info from WorldNutDaily (www.wnd.com)

He sounds just like them.

Anybody who considers that a source of "news" is beyond hope.

joe | April 28, 2007, 10:12pm | #

"No, this isn't about terrorism, it's about racism and bigotry!"

"Eh, you know, I, I, actually I'm, I'm uncomfortable saying that flat out because I, I, um, you know there - I, um, I mean, you know, I'm not fully comfortable saying that cause I think some people - in the end, I mean, yeah it is."

Well put, Nick.

joe | April 28, 2007, 10:29pm | #

"All of the 9/11 hijackers were here on legal visas. This isn't about terrorism; it's about racism and bigotry."

To be perfectly fair to the minutmen and such...they don't want Mexicans and Arabs coming here on legal visas, either.

Asharak | April 28, 2007, 10:30pm | #

Supposing that illegal immigration is the problem that immigration reform supporters say it is, wouldn't it make more sense for them to focus on the negative effects of NAFTA and stick up for property rights instead of defending state-created borders and espousing tired "law and order" horseshit?

Furthermore, even if libertarians should be concerned about illegal immigration, why should they support Tom Tancredo, who is blatantly un-libertarian on nearly every other issue?

And looking at what lonewacko and Ken have written on immigration, it seems they're opposed to more than just immigrants without green cards.

Tacos mmm... | April 28, 2007, 10:57pm | #

For instance, did any of them describe how - even under the current situation - they intend to deal with the MexicanGovernment gaining PoliticalPower inside the U.S.?

You're right. And we can't have a Catholic president, because then the Pope would tell him what to do.

Brian Carnell | April 28, 2007, 11:24pm | #

That was one of the weaker Bullshit! shows. I agree that the wall is stupid and we should loosen up our immigration stance visa vis our neighbor to the south, but the show was just frakking dull.

DaveS | April 28, 2007, 11:55pm | #

I usually like Penn and Teller's show, but this one was really shaky. They and NG did what so many on that side of the argument do... they conflate immigration and immigrants--in the broad sense--with a specific subset of illegal immigrants. Basically, they were arguing against a straw man with a red herring.

Very few people on the "anti-immigration" side (a deliberate misnomer) are opposed to immigration. That's a silly assertion. The thing which many find offensive is the flagrant disregard of our immigration laws, which are among the most liberal to be found in western nations, and the abandon with which the illegal immigrants can flaunt their success in breaking those laws.

Penn and Teller, if anything, made a good case that our immigration laws should be modified to allow more legal immigrants--maybe even favoring Mexico--and that the process should perhaps be streamlined to give would-be immigrants an avenue for a quick and fair opportunity to come here. But to pretend that people who are offended by flaunting of our laws are "anti-immigration" or racist is disingenusous, insulting, and should offend anyone who values honest, intellectual discourse... it certainly has no place in a publication titled "Reason".

emerson | April 29, 2007, 12:12am | #

DRINK!

joe | April 29, 2007, 12:23am | #

Jobriath,

The term "racism" refers to more than an conscious ideology of hatred.

When "the other" in the phrase '"Irrational fear of the "other"' is defined in racial terms, that's racism.

DaveS | April 29, 2007, 12:55am | #

"With "mexican" immigrants, it is apprently the differentiation between "legal" and illegal" that apparently makes them "good" or "bad."

That is correct, and the law provides no exception or special status on the basis of race, so why are we still talking about it? Invocation of race in this discussion implies--in my eyes at least--that the invocant is fighting a battle that can't be one in a fair and intellectually honest fashion.

DaveS | April 29, 2007, 12:56am | #

Of course, "one" should read "won" in the last sentence of my previous posts. Just trying to avoid a few of the forthcoming logical fallacies.

ktc2 | April 29, 2007, 1:12am | #

Anyone making a "rule of law" argument just save your breath.

I think most of us have advanced sufficiently intellectually to realize there cannot be a moral obligation to obey an immoral law.

Think about it. Would you obey a law that meant your certain and painful death for no valid reason?

I sure wouldn't.

Paul | April 29, 2007, 1:18am | #

...which makes me wonder how any of the regular contributors here get any work done during the regular work-week...

Post on the weekend? What're you crazy? That's what the work-week is for.

mockmook | April 29, 2007, 2:05am | #

Ohh, glad you cleared it up. it's an "immoral law."

I guess it is also immoral for illegals to stay home and change their own countries to liberal/capitalist systems.

And, many here seem to argue that:

A) Illegal Mexican immigrants will assimilate with no problems

and

B) They will cause change (but don't fear it)

Seems contradictory.

You essentially deny US sovereignty. If the border is meaningless, why will the immigrants change to our ways?

Some immigration GOOD. Uncontrolled immigration BAD.

TallDave | April 29, 2007, 2:25am | #

This whole issue could be solved tomorrow if someone would just fix Mexico.

Remember when the crappy countries used to build their OWN walls, to keep their people from fleeing? That was more fun.

TallDave | April 29, 2007, 2:31am | #

FWIW, I thought Nick came over very well, wardrobe notwithstanding. Made good points.

Now if he'll just support liberal democracy for Iraqis, I'll re-subscribe.

Guy Montag | April 29, 2007, 2:32am | #

Skipped the comments, just giving my impression.

Nick is not the dork that they made him to be. I know part of the show is to make everybody interviewed to look kinda dorky and dressing like a guy from "Sprockets" did not help, but Nick is not a real-life dork and is much better spoken than what they showed.

I suspect that the Minetman guy is less dorky than he was shown too.

The misuse of "immigrant" for "illegal immigrant" was annoying.

So, how about we raise the visa quota by 500,000 (the number of illegals per year stated) so that anybody who wants to come here can do it legally?

I have much less of a problem with people who were "vetted" for a visa and overstay than I do with those who did not bother trying. And I do have a big problem with the vettors who do shoddy work.

Steven Andrew Miller | April 29, 2007, 2:46am | #

Penn says some thing like "but isn't that taking jobs away from poor people?"

To witch Gillespie replies: "If in fact illegal immigrants were destroying the labor market we would be seeing 10, 15, 20% unemployment, instead we are at like 5% unemployment."


While it is true we are at 5% unemployment nationally, is Gillespie aware that unemployment among Black males, one of the group that is being talked about, is around 18%?

You Got To Be Kidding Me | April 29, 2007, 2:57am | #

I think most of us have advanced sufficiently intellectually to realize there cannot be a moral obligation to obey an immoral law.


Immoral? By what standard of morality?

And since when did anyone on THIS site give a rat's ass fuck about morality, except to repudiate moral standards and judgements of any kind?! Morality? On Hit&Run? Ha! Ha! You were joking, right?

Brian | April 29, 2007, 3:52am | #

I'm still undecided on the issue, but the arguments presented by the show and those Jobriath are pushing me towards the anti-illegal immigration side.

Although the reasons to permit more immigration may outweigh the reasons to oppose it, I find here that perfectly valid concerns are only mocked and dismissed as xenophobia.

I love Mexico and have family there, so you can't accuse me of being afraid of the "other." I've also come to know many phenomenal immigrants here in the US.

And although the Reason foundation and most people on this site probably oppose the welfare state, WE LIVE IN A WELFARE STATE. Hospitals are closing all along the border because we have to pay for healthcare for people who have paid no taxes. Prior to the welfare state, we attracted immigrants who wanted to work. Today, we attract immigrants who want to work, but also immigrants who want a free ride (and I've met quite a few of them myself).

Another difference between now and previous waves of immigration is that today's immigrants are more homogeneous. When we were getting Italians and Poles and Irish, etc., each had their own neighborhoods, but all of them eventually had to learn to communicate with each other, and that meant great incentive to learn English. Today, you can travel for miles and miles in parts of Texas and hear only Spanish. This hinders assimilation. Yes, many children of immigrants learn English, but a lot don't. Just about all Italians did.

I love Mexico and its culture. I prefer hispanic women and could live exclusively on Mexican food. I admire the work ethic of most of the immigrants I have met. I have also seen the left help to instill a sense of entitlement into people who came here wanting to contribute but get convinced that the US owes them something.

I also find it horribly hypocritical for the Mexican govt. to demand we treat our immigrants better when they treat their immigrants like absolute mierda.

But I guess none of that stuff deserves to be mentioned--I'm just a xenophobe who's afraid to let my sister into my own country.

Quiet_Desperation | April 29, 2007, 4:42am | #

Ah, another episode of Penn & Teller's "Bad Analogies & Shallow Arguments"

I even agree with P&T on most things, but I cannot watch that show. It's rank amateur hour down at the Propaganda Mill.

>>> I suppose you have missed the Reason Magazine archives
>>> where Reason has called for privatization of school systems
>>> the disassembly of the welfare system and the end to
>>>taxpayer assisted emergency rooms.

OK. Great. A comprehensive solution.

However, in *THIS* parallel universe, none of those things will ever happen, and I'm still working 60 hour weeks at my job to pay for someone else's anchor baby.

Does Reason have a solution given the above magical events *don't* happen?

Although I agree with many that the real solution is to fix Mexico. Regime change, anyone?

But that isn't going to happen either.

So we all sit around gazing at our libertarian navels while it all goes to shit.

>>> Last time I checked, America isn't Italy, it isn't Ireland,
>>>it isn't Israel and it isn't Mexico.

No, but there are a lot of folks here in So Cal who would like to see it become Mexico, and are very open about it. Lots of rhetoric about driving the whites (and others) out and seizing the land. All very racist. Oops! I forgot. Only whites can be racist. Sorry. I'll go apologize to Al Sharpton in the morning.

Brian | April 29, 2007, 5:33am | #

The only other P & T show I've seen was the one on recycling, and I thought it was great. They took the opposing arguments, dissected them, gave credit where it was due (aluminum cans), and refuted the rest.

This time all they did was mock whoever disagreed with them. When the guy said that some people favor increased immigration because they don't like whites, they ripped into the guy.

Not ALL pro-immigration folks dislike whites, but some of them do (i.e. the Atzlan movement). What the guy said was truthful but they made it seem like he said that the entire pro-immigration movement was based on anti-white racism.

If logic and reason is on somebody's side, it makes me wonder why they have to resort to cheap shots like that.

John Rhoads | April 29, 2007, 5:33am | #

TLB,

Just for the record, saying I'm unaware of evidence of a certain thing is not necessarily a sign of a lack of research. If I say I am not aware of any evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, it probably means I am unconvinced that 9/11 was an inside job and that I expect you to convince me. If the evidence is so pervasive, it is not too much to ask that you provide a link or two to prove your point rather than an offhand reference to an event that most people are unaware of.

I'd address some of your other questions, but I don't particularly see any need to debate a person who engages in ridiculous personal attacks without even attempting to make a rational argument.

Brian | April 29, 2007, 6:31am | #

This is the second time I've had to write this--I lost my previous post.

Anyhow, to summarize, I don't blame poor immigrants for trying to come here to make a better life for themselves.

Who I do blame is the economic left that's been very successful at training the poor to see themselves as victims. Unless we rectify this, bringing in more poor will likely mean bringing in more victims. At first, they may just want to work, but if they don't climb up the economic ladder very quickly, there's an entire political movement ready and waiting to train their children to feel like they've got a right to "reconquista."

America has lost most of its sense of itself, in large part because the left has exploited ethnicity as a means to divide us. On one hand, I know that Juan Inmigrante just wants to get by and I welcome his contribution to my society. On the other hand, Juan Jr. may well be trained to develop an "ethnic identity" and a whole list of grievances we're supposed to rectify.

I know that immigrants are what built this country. I also know that during our previous immigration waves that America still understood certain basic things like property rights. There was something strong to assimilate into. That's less strong now, and that's why I'm worried.

emlak | April 29, 2007, 6:49am | #

thank you very nice topic, thanks (:

Mr. F. Le Mur | April 29, 2007, 9:09am | #

"No, it really doesn't just come down to racism. Those who believe that are confessing an incredible level of ignorance."
When one has no rational basis for a belief, one *should* stick to ad hominems, innuendoes, and sob stories about singing grandfathers; besides, it's a lot easier to call Sowell, Friedman, Hayek (a 'rule of law' guy), etc., racists than to counter their arguments. That's why Reason's coverage of immigration and 'school choice' is just fluff.

"Walls work. Just ask Israel."
If done properly - which probably won't be the case for a US/Mexico wall. Besides, Billary's in favor of it, and (s)he's always wrong.

"I only watched a couple minutes of the first episode before I got sick of the sub-MichaelMoore crap."
P & T are entertainers. The bigger one has great stage and camera presence.

"When "the other" in the phrase '"Irrational fear of the "other"' is defined in racial terms, that's racism."
Thus spake the guy who believes people should be treated differently based on their race.

"But I guess none of that stuff deserves to be mentioned--I'm just a xenophobe who's afraid to let my sister into my own country.."
Well, I'm extremely and irrationally prejudiced against my two best friends (from Mexico) and my own mother (an immigrant).

The best argument against open borders is very simple, and someone referred to it above: people will continue to move from crummy places to better places until the better place is no longer better.

Ken | April 29, 2007, 9:37am | #

"So Ken basically thinks the Jooos are to blame. That explains a lot."
Ah, nice jerk of the knee there Asharek, but I was simply giving AIPAC as an example of a harmful ethnic influence on the U.S., because, if you had been paying attention, I was trying to counter the "immigrants give us taco's and salsa dancing, which are good so immigration must be a good thing." Actually every group brings some good and some bad. The question is, do they bring more of the latter? I submit that current immigration is different from past immigration. 1. Welfare state-you don't have to come here wanting free minds and markets, you could come here looking to be taken care of. In 1900 there was not much of a welfare state to attract that kind of immigration. 2. Assimilation-or lack of pressure to, as opposed to earlier periods and 3. the nature of the immigration, there was a time when, to get to America, you usually had to have some vision/mojo and capital. Now you can just walk across. This does not ensure we are getting the best and the brightest for sure.

Ray Cist | April 29, 2007, 9:51am | #

To be perfectly fair to the minutmen and such...they don't want Mexicans and Arabs coming here on legal visas, either.

To be perfectly fair to the minutmen and such...they're racists.

anonymous coward | April 29, 2007, 9:57am | #

As far as the fear that Mexico will take over the US through immigration, I don't get that one. If immigrants wanted to live in a place like Mexico, why come here?

It would be foolish to go to a place of opportunity, for the opportunity, only to destroy all opportunity.

Californians have been doing it to other states for a while, now -- bringing their high housing prices, traffic problems, and political views with them.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=265747

#56: California is hemorrhaging liberals who infest conservative parts of the country until they outnumber the "locals" and institute the same leftist crap that ruined their home state.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 11:02am | #

best line

....Pilgrims....fuckin' buckles on their hats...

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 11:04am | #

Speaking of Lonewacko, who, exactly, did he have sex with to get a link on the LA Times Opinion Blog?

Maybe I should ask Cavanugh or Matt Welch.

Isaac Bartram | April 29, 2007, 11:18am | #

If we held a vote, very very few Americans would choose to allow IllegalImmigration.

Ummm, if it were allowed it wouldn't be illegal, now, would it?

And, yes, I think it's perfectly fair to say that those who think that the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical laws that now govern immigration are OK are in fact anti-immigration.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 11:20am | #

Good point Isaac, but I think he's right. If it were put to a vote, I'd bet on immediate cessation of immigration from anywhere for any reason.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 11:22am | #

One little side point (straw if you will)... lots of lefties claim that illegals aren't using social services but they will rarely agree that we should bar illegals from receiving social services.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 11:23am | #

California is hemorrhaging liberals who infest conservative parts of the country until they outnumber the "locals" and institute the same leftist crap that ruined their home state.

That's a fact Jack. My friends in Arizona don't care so much about a wall across the Mexican border, they want a wall along the California border.

thoreau | April 29, 2007, 11:25am | #

Speaking of Lonewacko, who, exactly, did he have sex with to get a link on the LA Times Opinion Blog?

Maybe he promised to not have sex with somebody in exchange for the link?

VM | April 29, 2007, 11:31am | #

hier is Mr. Crane?

IN OTHER NEWS, CHINESE MAN NOW PREFERS PEPSI PRODUCTS WHEN HE MAKE JOKE (SIGNED 5 YEAR DEAL)

Christopher Monnier | April 29, 2007, 11:38am | #

Are Penn and Teller (or maybe more accurately, is Showtime) not worried about copyright infringement via YouTube?

ktc2 | April 29, 2007, 11:52am | #

For the terminally stupid folks above.

I did NOT say immigration laws were immoral.

I said that basing an argument to obey ANY law on a strictly "rule of law" position is bullshit.

If "it's the law" is the best you can do just give up now.

ktc2 | April 29, 2007, 11:57am | #

Mexican Americans don't like to just get into gang fights,
they like flowers and music and white girls named Debbie too.

Mexican Americans are named Chata and Chella and chemma
and have a son in law named jeff.

Mexican Americans don't like to get up early in the morning
but they have to so they do it real slow.

Mexican Americans love education so they go to night school
and take spanish and get a B.

Mexican Americans love their Nana's and their Nono's and their
Nina's and their Nino's........ Nano Nano Nina Nono!

Mexican Americans don't like to go to the movies where the
dude has to wear contact lenses to make his blue eyes brown
cause don't it make my brown eyes blue.....

"And thats all i got, how do ya like it?"

*phone rings*
Mexican Americans like to answer telephone calls and say hello
to whoever's on the other end

Isaac Bartram | April 29, 2007, 12:11pm | #

If it were put to a vote, I'd bet on immediate cessation of immigration from anywhere for any reason.

Oh, true.

But, then, I'd be willing to bet that if the Bill of Rights were put up to a vote today it would be overturned.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Ktct

If "it's the law" is the best you can do just give up now.

Show of hands.

1. How many of us have broken any law today and don't care?

2. How many of us can cite one single we consider immoral and don't obey?

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 12:24pm | #

Dang it. Edit.

2. How many of us can cite one single LAW we consider immoral and don't obey?

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 12:32pm | #

DaveS, P&T's Vegas act is fabulous. This is the 1st time I've seen their BS show because I defuse to subscribe to HBO or Showtime. I didn't find the show all that entertaining and was a bit disappointed. It had it's moments and I did LOL a few times.

I thought the show made good points but if the goal was to change my mother's mind on immigration, good fargin' luck. In fact, I would say the show would have absolutely zero effect on the debate except that those of us on the right side can nod our heads and say, yep, that's right.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 12:38pm | #

I would say the show would have absolutely zero effect on the debate except that those of us on the right side can nod our heads and say, yep, that's right.

Everyone else will just say Bullshit!

Meant to say that...........

Jeff | April 29, 2007, 1:09pm | #

If letting damn near anyone who can sneak into the country stay is such a great idea, how come no other first-world country does it?

Hell, _Mexico_ sucures its southern border bettern than we do ours.

Jeff | April 29, 2007, 1:10pm | #

sEcures.

Rick H. | April 29, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Everyone else will just say Bullshit!

Don't you mean "EveryoneElse"?

Les | April 29, 2007, 1:30pm | #

TWC,

P&T aren't so good at objectively dissecting stuff because they're entertainers, I think, before they're educators. But the show was often really funny in the first few seasons. I've never seen their Vegas act, but it's the only thing I'd ever want to do in Vegas. People see Bullshit (which is often mediocre) and are unaware that these guys are simply masters of their chosen craft.

Rick H. | April 29, 2007, 1:42pm | #

If letting damn near anyone who can sneak into the country stay is such a great idea, how come no other first-world country does it?

Hell, _Mexico_ sucures its southern border bettern than we do ours.

I love how any hallmark of an authoritataran society (walled borders, no rule of law, torture, repression of speech, corruption, what have you) can be held up as either a negative or a positive, depending on which point a social conservative wishes to make.

"Ah tell you whut, they don't tolerate that kind of decadent speech in China!"

"Sure, they may have a fucked-up, corrupt, neosocialist regime, but you won't see any other third worlders sneaking into Mexico!"

Why should the most fucked-up governments in history be the moral model for U.S. behavior? Should we emulate the Soviet bloc when it comes to immigration?

Personally, I'm glad it hasn't gotten that far.

ktc2 | April 29, 2007, 1:59pm | #

We are currently awaiting my wife's LEGAL immigration paperwork to be done. We have been waiting now for SEVEN months with no end in sight.

The SOLE reason I've not simply sent her to Mexico and walked her across the border myself is the physical danger to her.

It ticks me off that all these others are "jumping the line" so to speak but I don't blame them a bit.

Mo | April 29, 2007, 2:06pm | #

The best argument against open borders is very simple, and someone referred to it above: people will continue to move from crummy places to better places until the better place is no longer better.

That's not true. There's a huge cost to moving to another country and leaving behind your culture, friends and family. It takes balls and hard work to move to a new country (especially if they speak a different language) and those the type of people are the ones we want.

And it's patently untrue that illegal immigration supporters support replacing illegals with legal immigrants. They want fewer immigrants period. This is demonstrated by multiple polls. Also, who is going to do the work that is currently done by immigrants. I don't mean that they're doing jobs people don't want, but with unemployment at 4.4%, there's little slack in the employment market. Unit labor costs are going up, whih is causing inflation.

FWIW, the Chinese got the last laugh on the Mongols. The Mongols became Chinese, rather than vice versa. There are advantages to having a large population, it's hard to dilute it. Look at India. This is an advantage we have.

burt hoovis | April 29, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Yo Nick, you could've cleaned up your apartment before they came over to interview you man.

You shit looks like hell....!

Grand Chalupa | April 29, 2007, 3:40pm | #

I'm late to this, but do you open border people think that anybody should be able to come to this country, at any time, for any reason?

Just checking.

Mo | April 29, 2007, 4:11pm | #

nebby,
Then why does the US economy grow faster than the economies in Japan, Europe and Canada? The table below shows where we stand. Most of the countries on there that grew faster than the US grew off a small base or began rapid industrialization over that period of time. Most of the developed world is below the U.S.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_gro_dur_198_200-gdp-growth-duration-1980-2000

thoreau | April 29, 2007, 4:29pm | #

Grand Chalupa-

What do you have to fear from immigrants? You're even tougher than those British soliders! So if immigrants ever tried to invade your dorm room you'd show them who's boss, right?

Some things Penn & Teller don't know | April 29, 2007, 4:40pm | #

Grand Chalupa: even a loony like MichaelBadnarik was opposed to IllegalImmigration. He just wanted unfettered LegalImmigration, i.e., with background checks. OTOH, I believe that Gillespie and the other morons here think anyone should be able to come here at any time. As I've pointed out, that would allow terrorists to enter the U.S. at will. If I pointed that out to Gillespie (say, live on TV), he'd be forced to admit that either a) he doesn't care, or b) we should keep them out.

In the case of 'b', that means there'd necessarily have to be a legal/illegal distinction.

From there, I'd help him understand why we have ImmigrationLaws in the first place, such as by using an extreme example of non-terrorist immigrants coming over the borders and causing problems.

Eventually, I'd end up showing the TV audience how little of an argument he has, and what a lightweight he is.

As for Jobriath's various bleets, he's confused about "supply and demand". The market is crooked: the only reason a supply is available is because of PoliticalCorruption. If our laws were followed, there would be less of a supply, and the demand would be replaced in the way that Japan does things: automation, etc.

He also makes a wonderful argument for depriving another country of their workforce and CorporateSubsidies; without the latter, those IllegalAliens wouldn't be able to survive here. As for those risking their lives CrossingTheDesert, perhaps our ImmigrationPolicy should be just a tad LessDarwinian.

And, presumably on the tape Gillespie says: "All of the 9/11 hijackers were here on legal visas. This isn't about terrorism; it's about racism and bigotry."

The second part is a LogicalFallacy. The first part is highly misleading. At least several of the 911Hijackers became IllegalAliens by violating the terms of TheirVisas. And, five of them were stopped for TrafficViolations; if those cops had run them through ICE 911Might have been stopped.

John Rhoads: I'm afraid that I can't copy and paste my entire site into this comment box. Doing research - and understanding what you're discussing - is your own responsibility.

And, I don't see any serious responses to my earlier question.

Let's try another one:

Since MassiveImmigration isn't something that the vast majority of Americans support, and it is obviously forced on them by powerful, CorruptInterests, should libertarians support policies which have to be forced on people?

DaveS | April 29, 2007, 4:42pm | #

Anyone making a "rule of law" argument just save your breath.

I think most of us have advanced sufficiently intellectually to realize there cannot be a moral obligation to obey an immoral law.

Actually, that is the most intellectually feeble and cowardly argument that I think you can make. If you want to unilaterally declare immigration laws "immoral", you are not in the right forum.... you are essentially advocating anarchy, which is a favorite ploy of those who have NOT "advanced intellectually" and would prefer to circumnavigate reasonable dialogue.

Furthermore, pulling the "immigration laws are immoral" rabbit out of your ass doesn't substantiate the irrational and low-brow claims that a desire to reduce illegal immigration is "racist".

Lonewacko'sspacebarseemstobebroken | April 29, 2007, 5:13pm | #

Lonewackoitwouldhelpifyouputspacesbetweenyourwords.

The Man From Utopia | April 29, 2007, 5:18pm | #

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 5:18pm | #

Don't you mean "EveryoneElse"?

grins

Nebby,

The going rate is now 9/hr.

I don't know where you live but here in sunny So Cal illegals don't even clear weeds for nine bucks an hour.

It is an irony that the illegals that are accused of pulling down the wages of native born Americans are being paid at least three bucks an hour more than minimum wage.

Course they don't really keep stats on that but the customary wage for grunt work is ten bucks an hour plus lunch plus transportation back to where you picked them up at.

The Man From Utopia | April 29, 2007, 5:21pm | #

"If you want to unilaterally declare immigration laws "immoral", you are not in the right forum.... you are essentially advocating anarchy, which is a favorite ploy of those who have NOT "advanced intellectually" and would prefer to circumnavigate reasonable dialogue."

What?

Now this place is "minarchists only" or summat?

If anarcho-capitalists' opinions "belong" in any forum, it's a libertarian one, no?

After all, Anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism.

Look it up.

Bossy provincialism, on the other hand, is pret near universal.

DaveS | April 29, 2007, 5:23pm | #

It is an irony that the illegals that are accused of pulling down the wages of native born Americans are being paid at least three bucks an hour more than minimum wage.

That is another line of fallacious logic. Very VERY few people make minimum wage. That doesn't mean that illegal labor can not or does not suppress wages for legal workers.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 5:36pm | #

Les, when you say masters or their chosen craft, you aren't just whistling dixie. The P&T show was, hands down, the BEST show I've ever seen in my life, bar none. One of the things I respected and loved about it was how they spun their ideology into nice little bite size pieces that the uninitiated could enjoy and contemplate without having it shoved down the audience's throat.

They did a flag burning trick (no spoiler here) that, aside from being a spectacular trick, presented the case for free speech in a completely inoffensive and patriotic way. On several very meaningful levels the it was stunning.

Something like this, only much better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NymRecFWgAs

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 5:49pm | #

That doesn't mean that illegal labor can not or does not suppress wages for legal workers.

Agreed that the cost of labor has an economic effect in some form or another.

As to the cheap labor is wrong argument; Would you agree that California should be able to prevent Arizona residents from moving here and working in the grocery and construction trades because they are willing to work for a lot less per hour than their California peers?

Or do Arizona Americans have a right to depress the wage base in California simply because they are US citizens?

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 5:59pm | #

For the record, many of us consider immigration laws immoral because they violate an individual's right to free movement and travel. To the extent that some of us would agree to any form of control over immigration, it would have to take the form of an expedited method of controlling for genuine public safety threats such as excluding people with contagious disease and criminal records.

The points about social welfare are valid however. I don't care if it's a big effen number or a little one, non-citizens should not receive any tax-paid social welfare benefits of any kind. Period. Paragraph.

Uh, wait. Hoad on. I don't think your flea-bag cousin with six kids should get any social welfare benefits either. Move her into your back bedroom if you think that's harsh.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 5:59pm | #

Oh shit, its Nick not Dave

Dave's not here, man.

The Wine Commonsewer | April 29, 2007, 6:10pm | #

Also saw Penn speak a few years ago where he told his airport toss-em line story. It was funnier than screen door in a submarine.

Ken | April 29, 2007, 6:21pm | #

"If the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland. etc, etc all think it is a bad idea you better have some really good reason to be the only country to try such a foolhardy wild ass experiment in modern times."
Their good reason is ideological purity. I mean, if it fits with the deductions one makes from one's assumed axioms, then it MUST be true or workable, despite no empirical testing whatsoever. That, of course, is what libertarianism is often all about...

thoreau | April 29, 2007, 6:36pm | #

And I just realized that I misspelled "soldiers" when I flamed the Grand Chalupa.

Lo siento, Senor Chalupa.

QualityChekdGrainAlcohol | April 29, 2007, 6:41pm | #

Penn should stick to his little "Identity" game show and Teller should just shut the f*ck up.

The Wonkenator | April 29, 2007, 6:52pm |