Immigrants and Satanists, They're All the Same to Me

The Utah County GOP convention ends on a curious note:

Utah County Republicans ended their convention on Saturday by debating Satan's influence on illegal immigrants.

[...]

Don Larsen, chairman of legislative District 65 for the Utah County Republican Party, had submitted a resolution warning that Satan's minions want to eliminate national borders and do away with sovereignty.

In a speech at the convention, Larsen told those gathered that illegal immigrants "hate American people" and "are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won't do."

Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to "destroy Christian America" and replace it with "a godless new world order -- and that is not extremism, that is fact," Larsen said.

At the end of his speech, Larsen began to cry, saying illegal immigrants were trying to bring about the destruction of the U.S. "by self invasion."

Republican officials then allowed speakers to defend and refute the resolution. One speaker, who was identified as "Joe," said illegal immigrants were Marxist and under the influence of the devil.

The motion was tabled, due to absence of a quorum.

Comments

Jake Boone | May 2, 2007, 10:26am | #

One speaker, who was identified as "Joe," said illegal immigrants were Marxist and under the influence of the devil.

That can't be right. It doesn't sound like joe. It sounds more like LoneWacko... is he seeking out greener pastures in which to troll?

XaabaZu | May 2, 2007, 10:29am | #

Perhaps joe was telling the truth, thereby revealing the evil liberal plans, knowing full well that NO ONE would believe it except for crazy people!

Baylen | May 2, 2007, 10:30am | #

Who's writing the headlines here -- Axl Rose?

XaabaZu | May 2, 2007, 10:30am | #

You know, like Count Dooku in Attack of the Clones, which is from another popular fantasy series, kind of like the bible.

biologist | May 2, 2007, 10:31am | #

so much for the "no religious test" clause of the US Constitution

Jennifer | May 2, 2007, 10:31am | #

At the end of his speech, Larsen began to cry

Advice to Don Larsen: pretend you're a man, and behave accordingly.

smartass sob | May 2, 2007, 10:32am | #

That can't be right. It doesn't sound like joe. It sounds more like LoneWacko...

Yeah, but have you ever noticed that Joe is never around when LoneWacko is? I mean, it's like Superman and Clark Kent. Kinda suspicious. :-)

steveintheknow | May 2, 2007, 10:33am | #

I guess there is no reason to let the little fact that illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Catholic get in the way of such a damn good theory.

Lamar | May 2, 2007, 10:35am | #

Don'tcha all remember the part where Jesus says the Kingdom of Heaven excludes foreigners?

Silentio | May 2, 2007, 10:36am | #

You weren't aware that Catholics are Satanists in disguise? I mean, we already know that the Pope is the anti-Christ...

joe | May 2, 2007, 10:36am | #

Hey, now! I was the FirstPerson to EverQuestion Lonewacko on his odd spacing and CapitalizationHabits.

bzial | May 2, 2007, 10:40am | #

joe,

Do you know why he does that kind of spacing and what not? I asked in another thread but didn't get a response.

edna | May 2, 2007, 10:41am | #

"dum-dum-dum-dum..."

Pro Libertate | May 2, 2007, 10:44am | #

bzial,

Why, I thought that was obvious. He's German. Capitalizing nouns randomly and merging words together on a whim is a clear giveaway.

ktc2 | May 2, 2007, 10:45am | #

I wonder how many local R conventions are this whacko.

I mean it fits the stereotype but are they all that blatant about their stupidity?

ed | May 2, 2007, 10:45am | #

a godless new world order

Meanwhile, at the National Atheist Convention...
Oh, sorry. No Atheist Convention this year.

Jake Boone | May 2, 2007, 10:48am | #

It's like they generate all of their speeches via some sort of right-wing nutjob Mad Libs.

Juan Arteaga | May 2, 2007, 10:52am | #

Thy are right, though; Illegal Immigrants do control the media! Have you seen Telemundo? They don't even bother to speak American there!

ktc2 | May 2, 2007, 10:54am | #

I'm begining to think there would be a good book in visiting all the local R conventions/meetings across the country and writing of all the bigotry, racism and general whackoism of it's members.

Mike Laursen | May 2, 2007, 10:57am | #

My hypothesis, and it's embarassing I have a hypothesis on this, is that his blog viewer is some kind of wiki where those terms automatically link to previous crazy articles he has written. And he thinks everybody is seeing those links.

Curiously, he doesn't write in camel case on his own blog:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/index.html

shecky | May 2, 2007, 10:57am | #

"If the Democrats take over the country, we will be dead, and we will have abortion and partial-birth abortion and the Republican Party will go into extinction," [Larson] said.

I believe this was spoken after he cried.

Jeeze, that whole article makes it sound like the wheels have come completely off the Utah Repub party. I'd be surprised if they still have enough coordination to tune in Rush Limbaugh.

Jonathan Goff | May 2, 2007, 10:57am | #

As someone who spent almost half his life in Utah Valley, and who knows some of the people who were likely there, even I'm a bit surprised. I know Utah Valley has its fair share of nuts, but accusing illegal immigrants of being Satanic Marxists? Somebody is off his meds. Seriously off his meds.

joe | May 2, 2007, 10:58am | #

bzai,

I never got an answer. I suspect it's so he can use search engines to find his comments.

Wikinger Elch | May 2, 2007, 10:59am | #

Do not ever konfuz zee LoneVacko mit einem German.

Nein. Nein.

And, what Mr. Boone said - awesome!

Federal Dog | May 2, 2007, 10:59am | #

"I'm begining to think there would be a good book in visiting all the local R conventions/meetings across the country and writing of all the bigotry, racism and general whackoism of it's members."


It's not like they've got the market cornered on idiocy. Democrats are equally bigoted and whacked.

Rimfax | May 2, 2007, 11:00am | #

So, is this what happens when you don't get your daily dose of fantasy from MMORPGs and pr0n?

Bhh | May 2, 2007, 11:01am | #

Control the media? I dunno where this guy is but there's a distinct lack of Telemundo/Univision T&A on the white bread MSM TV channels that I don't watch here. We can't allow a bounce bounce gap.

VM | May 2, 2007, 11:01am | #

Fed -

you're probably right - it's the manifestations of the wacko'dness that is being examined here, not if it's only present on one side.

So on this kind of idiocy, they most certainly do have the market cornered.

Andrew | May 2, 2007, 11:05am | #

No, no, they've got it all wrong.

The Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires, are bringing illegal immigrants into this country in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner.

We're through the looking glass here, people.

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 11:07am | #

I just want to make it clear that the Utah County GOP doesn't think that immigrants are Satan's minions, only that illegal immigrants are.

Jennifer | May 2, 2007, 11:09am | #

I just want to make it clear that the Utah County GOP doesn't think that immigrants are Satan's minions, only that illegal immigrants are.

So the issuance of a piece of paper by the government is what makes the difference between Minion of Satan and Godly Person? If so, then Satan is a total pussy and Jesus was an idiot, letting himself die to defeat the Dark Lord when all he had to do was ask the Romans to write the words "legal" on a piece of papyrus.

joe | May 2, 2007, 11:12am | #

"The Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires..."

Thank you.

Pro Libertate | May 2, 2007, 11:14am | #

Are illegal immigrants witches, then? Hmmm. What do we do with witches?

de stijl | May 2, 2007, 11:15am | #

It is a well known fact that Bumblbee Man is the head of the Trilateral Commission and Don Francisco (of Sabado Gigante) replaced Anton LaVey as the leader of the Church Of Satan.

Oh, and Mexican Wrestling shows are totally real.

I got better... | May 2, 2007, 11:18am | #

BUILD BRIDGES OUT OF 'EM!!!!!!

destijl:

ay! caramba!

Zoomie Junior | May 2, 2007, 11:19am | #

You weren't aware that Catholics are Satanists in disguise? I mean, we already know that the Pope is the anti-Christ...

Haven't you been paying attention, the Pope is Emperor Palpatine; therefore Catholics are the Empire.

jimmydageek | May 2, 2007, 11:25am | #

I always knew this "Chespirito" fella was up to no good.

jimmydageek | May 2, 2007, 11:26am | #

I should say, this "Chapulin Colorado" fella.

- | May 2, 2007, 11:27am | #

You guys can laugh, but many of those marching in yesterday's immigration rallies WERE Marxists. According to Joe on the May Day thread yesterday, anyway. ;-)

joe | May 2, 2007, 11:29am | #

They were also much, much smaller than last year's.

joe | May 2, 2007, 11:30am | #

Also, I didn't say "the marchers," but the organizers.

John | May 2, 2007, 11:31am | #

The vast majority of the voters in this country who live with the consiquences of illegal immigration want it stopped. The political class's response to this, both Republican and Democrat, is "fuck you, our corporate buddies are getting rich off of this". Considering that, it is no surprise that some of the natives are getting restless and starting to believe crazy things. I guess being nailed to the cross of open borders kind of messes with their mind. How dare these people not accept lower wages, more crowded communities and a lower standard of living in the name of open borders. Ignorant bastards.

Jim Henley | May 2, 2007, 11:33am | #

It's not as cool to be a Satanist Marxist as it is to control International Finance and World Communism at the same time. So Jews are still better than illegal immigrants.

Pro Libertate | May 2, 2007, 11:33am | #

They were also much, much smaller than last year's.

joe,

Are you positing a rally of. . .Mini-Marxists?

downstater | May 2, 2007, 11:34am | #

Utah, of all places, should understand what it means to leave your home in search of a better life someplace else.

Jennifer | May 2, 2007, 11:35am | #

Considering that, it is no surprise that some of the natives are getting restless and starting to believe crazy things. I guess being nailed to the cross of open borders kind of messes with their mind. How dare these people not accept lower wages, more crowded communities and a lower standard of living in the name of open borders. Ignorant bastards.

John, I don't know what thread you're reading, but on this one the complaint isn't so much "they oppose illegal immigration" but "they oppose it to such extent that grown men in the legislature start crying like little girls with skinned knees, whilst blaming illegal immigration on a conspiracy headed by Lucifer himself."

Blue | May 2, 2007, 11:36am | #

I once worked as a polisci intern at the Utah state R convention. It was a thing of beauty. Like dropping acid. As a one party state, everyone gets to be a member and they all bring there crazy agendas.

The state oligarchy had their hands full trying to squash anti-flouride motions and the black helecopter crowd denouncing the Republican govenor as a tool of the UN.

jimmydageek | May 2, 2007, 11:37am | #

How dare these people not accept lower wages, more crowded communities and a lower standard of living in the name of open borders. Ignorant bastards.

Really, wages have been on a decline? There's a lower standard of living than in past decades?

That's news to me.

de stijl | May 2, 2007, 11:40am | #

Satan Worshipping, Marx quoting, Rasslin' in masks, Catholic-Jewish, march organizing, International banking doodz rule! All y'all else drool!

BTW - There was a May Day basket on my door knob when I got home yesterday. So cute! I didn't know anyone did that anymore.

Pro Libertate | May 2, 2007, 11:43am | #

Yes, let's properly frame the discussion. Opposing illegal immigration in and of itself need hardly be irrational or even based in some sort or racial or ethnic prejudice. However, labeling illegal immigrants as the spawn of Satan may be excessive, even for hyperbole.

Frankly, I don't think illegal immigration is the worst thing happening in our nation, and I imagine that if Satan (or Loki) exists, he is probably hanging out in Washington somewhere.

Incidentally, I don't see how Republicans are any crazier than their rivals. Or, for that matter, is LP wackiness really any more nutzoid than the "mainstream" variations on insanity that we are schooled to accept. Nor are all--or even most--Democrats Maoists or all Republicans theocrats.

joe | May 2, 2007, 11:43am | #

John,

You people need to own your lunacy, not try to pawn it off on work-related stress of whatever. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Blue, I live in the One Party Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and there isn't anything that comes within 1000 miles of this crap.

Federal Dog,

"It's not like they've got the market cornered on idiocy. Democrats are equally bigoted and whacked." Yeah, like, um...

- | May 2, 2007, 11:46am | #

Oops! Sorry. It was on the Bloomberg thread.

joe | May 1, 2007, 12:16pm | #

It's pretty obvious to me that the communist professional protestors, and not the actual immigration reform groups, are behind this year's and last year's May Day rallies.

They have a completely different tone from the other big rallies that occured, and a lot more red stars. And seriously, May Day? There is only one reason to hold your rally on May Day.

Screw those people, they steal every decent leftist movement.

joe | May 2, 2007, 11:47am | #

yup.

joe | May 2, 2007, 11:47am | #

I guess I'm missing the "Gotcha!" angle here.

- | May 2, 2007, 11:58am | #

I guess I'm missing the "Gotcha!" angle here.

No "Gotcha" was intended, LoneW,..er,..Joe. :-)

dhex | May 2, 2007, 11:58am | #

"Are you positing a rally of. . .Mini-Marxists?"

they're going to collectivize our shoelaces!

VM | May 2, 2007, 12:02pm | #

"I guess I'm missing the "Gotcha!" angle here."

Anthony Edwards
Linda Fiorentino
Nick Corri
Klaus Löwitsch

a favorite!

joe | May 2, 2007, 12:02pm | #

Wow, I musta taken stupid pills today.

That's funny.

Ok, you GotMe. :-)))

highnumber | May 2, 2007, 12:08pm | #

Jonathon: Mon crayon est large.

French Waiter: Pardon?

Jonathon: Mon crayon est large, et bon crayon est jaune.

French Waiter: Your pencil is big and yellow?

Jonathon: Oui!

French Waiter: Oh. Nice for you.

VM | May 2, 2007, 12:13pm | #

But... you're not a wirgin, anymore...

Blue | May 2, 2007, 12:15pm | #

Joe, Utah has a special brand of crazy. Other states don't have the "Zion" air. Pretty much every issue is couched in religious terms - politics, business, sex, cattle farming, road construction - everything.

Now I'm getting home sick and weepy for that crazy place. Everyone drink.

joe | May 2, 2007, 12:21pm | #

We blow off all our crazy at Town Meeting. The flouride people ALL show up for Town Meeting.

VM | May 2, 2007, 12:37pm | #

High#:

just checked out yesterday's comments, and saw there was a reference to "Gotcha" yesterday!

That was a great scene (I did yell that at the wall, back when. My folks weren't amused)

TrickyVic | May 2, 2007, 12:39pm | #

Maybe the Republicans are afraid that the immigrants will round them up and put them on a reservation.

I admit something should be done. It's not fair for those who do the right thing to become legal. Another problem I have with the current laws is they are anti-family. A child of illegal immigrants should not be given citizenship unless the parents get it too. To deport the family and put the kid is social services is not pro-family. Deport the kid too, or let his parents stay.

highnumber | May 2, 2007, 12:46pm | #

VM,

When I was 11 or 12, I really hoped that my college life would be exactly like Gotcha!
One of life's many disappointments.

Where's my flying car?

VM | May 2, 2007, 12:51pm | #

High#:

understood.

So you missed out on being in high school when Breakfast Club was in the theaters, too, may I assume. gak gak gak gak. Everybody played "which character are you? (or which combo thereof)"

cheerio!

highnumber | May 2, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Unfortunately, Breakfast Club did not really disappoint, other than Bolingbrook High School looked nothing like Glenbrook North.

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 12:58pm | #

I admit something should be done. It's not fair for those who do the right thing to become legal.

For most immigrants, it is not possible to become legal by doing the "right" thing.

What would you have those immigrants and potential immigrants do?

John | May 2, 2007, 12:58pm | #

I am saying this stuff isn't crazy. Yes, it is most assuredly crazy. But if the entire political class consistently ignores and treats with complete contempt a view held by a majority of the voters, it is not surprising that some of the crazies fill the void.

Isaac Bartram | May 2, 2007, 12:59pm | #

Federal Dog:"It's not like they've got the market cornered on idiocy. Democrats are equally bigoted and whacked."

joe: Yeah, like, um...

Joe, very few county Republican conventons have shit this extreme happening.

And a very few Demo counventions probably do. I base that on some of the batshit insane, racist, violent things that people who claim to be Democrats have said to me.

No, I do not consider those jackasses to be representative of the larger Donkey fold any more than I think of these Utah County idjits to be representative of the larger pachyderm herd.

Cesar | May 2, 2007, 1:09pm | #

According to Wikipedia, it doesn't sound like Utah County has large numbers of mexicans (legal or illegal) living in it. The population is 7% hispanic, so it doesn't really seem like it should be a crisis there.

Pinette | May 2, 2007, 1:14pm | #

Sounds like something Gale Ruzicka would say. I grew up in utah county too, though i haven't been there in years; they really do live in their own reality out there.

William R | May 2, 2007, 1:29pm | #

Pretty weak Balko. Almost as weak as Reason editor Nick Gillespie calling those opposed to illegal immigration racist.

Who cares what some crank in Utah says. Still doesn't change the fact that importing millions of poor Mexicans only grows government.

Corporate welfare elitist. Subsidized labor. That's what Radley and his ilk are pimping for.

Privatize all the gains cheap illegal labor provides, and dump the expense on the taxpayer.

Destroyed hospitals, schools, neighborhoods and entire towns.

"Mass immigration with a welfare state makes no sense" ...... Milton Friedman

Cesar | May 2, 2007, 1:32pm | #

William R.-

Anglo leaders have proven very capable of expanding the welfare state for the past thirty years without much Mexican help.

William R | May 2, 2007, 1:39pm | #

Cesar, I'm not going to defend the actions of FDR, LBJ or the idiot we have in the White House now. Still doesn't change the fact that importing millions of poor people only grows government. And the last time I looked, growing government isn't supposed to be on the libertarian agenda.

Pimping for the corporate welfare elite isn't supposed to be on the libertarian agenda either. Follow the money.

lunchstealer | May 2, 2007, 1:42pm | #

Can't tell for sure, but it sounds as if William R is suggesting that the welfare state is a good thing and that restricting immigration is just an unfortunate price we have to pay to have it.

I just have to keep reminding myself that there are probably equally insane chatterings at Democratic, and even (especially?) Libertarian local party meetings.

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 1:43pm | #

"Mass immigration with a welfare state makes no sense" ...... Milton Friedman

"The existence of easy migration makes welfare state policies less attractive, with the result that levels of redistribution are likely to be lower." ...... David Friedman

Cesar | May 2, 2007, 1:44pm | #

"Can't tell for sure, but it sounds as if William R is suggesting that the welfare state is a good thing and that restricting immigration is just an unfortunate price we have to pay to have it."

Lunchstealer--it amazes me how whenever illegal immigration is brought up, supposed libertarians and conservatives begin to sound like libera Democrats ("the corporate elites vs. the PEOPLE").

Does that sound like Al Gore circa 2000 or what?

CFIsher | May 2, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Maybe we need a corollary to Godwin’s law, that the longer a politician speaks the likelihood of a reference to “It’s for the children” or “God hates ” grows closer to one.

William R | May 2, 2007, 1:48pm | #

Reason: What do you have to say to libertarians who disagree with your immigration position, such as on amnesty, birthright citizenship, and a concentration of federal money on border security?

Ron Paul: If they don’t agree, they’d have to be anarchists, and I’m not. I believe in national borders and national security. My position is, take away incentives--why are states compelled to give free education and medical care? I don’t endorse easy automatic citizenship for people who break the law. They shouldn’t be able to come reap the benefits of welfare state. I don’t think libertarians can endorse that. I think removing the incentives is very important, but I don’t think you can solve the immigration problem until you deal with the welfare state and the need for labor created by a government that interferes with the market economy. We’re short of labor at the same time lots of people are paid not to work. Take away [illegal immigrants'] incentives. I do believe in a responsibility to protect our borders, rather than worrying about the border between North and South Korea or Iraq and Syria, and I think that’s a reasonable position.

lunchstealer | May 2, 2007, 1:54pm | #

It just seems like the libertarian position would be 'end the welfare state - and end restrictions on labor migration'. To it seems silly to just say 'we've got a welfare state, so poo to immigration with knobs on!' The welfare state is the problem, not the immigration. Don't rail against immigrants when they're not causing the problem.

That seems a bit a man shot in the head saying 'damn my brains for not staying together' when a smarter response might be 'damn the asshole who shot me.'

But that's just me.

William R | May 2, 2007, 1:58pm | #

lunchstealer | May 2, 2007, 1:42pm | #
Can't tell for sure, but it sounds as if William R is suggesting that the welfare state is a good thing and that restricting immigration is just an unfortunate price we have to pay to have it

No stealer, I don't think the welfare state is a good thing. But i have enough sense to realize importing millions of people that are going to be using the welfare state isn't a very smart thing to do.

William R | May 2, 2007, 2:01pm | #

lunchstealer | May 2, 2007, 1:54pm | #
It just seems like the libertarian position would be 'end the welfare state - and end restrictions on labor migration'.

Sorry Stealer, but I live in the real world. The welfare state ain't going anywhere. Sure we might tinker around the edges, but the state will still force taxpayers to provide health care, public schooling etc etc to illegal aliens and American citizens.

So we sure don't want to subsidize the corporate welfare elite.

Cesar | May 2, 2007, 2:02pm | #

William R.-

If you are against having more people use the welfare state, I guess you also believe it would be a good idea to restrict the number of children each family can have? After all, if everyone had three kids instead of one, we would have millions of more people using the welfare state.

William R | May 2, 2007, 2:05pm | #

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 1:43pm | #

I see Milton's son didn't get any of his fathers commonsense. Besides, David Friedman is an anarchist. Not a libertarian.

William R | May 2, 2007, 2:13pm | #

Cesar | May 2, 2007, 2:02pm | #
William R.-

If you are against having more people use the welfare state, I guess you also believe it would be a good idea to restrict the number of children each family can have? After all, if everyone had three kids instead of one, we would have millions of more people using the welfare state.

Get a better argument Cesar. No, I wouldn't limit the number of children people can have. But I would end taxpayer subsidized payments to women who have children that can't afford them.

Nothing bugs me more than standing in a grocery store line and seeing a woman with 4 young children hanging on her and paying for her groceries with food stamps.

highnumber | May 2, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Nothing bugs me more than standing in a grocery store line and seeing a woman with 4 young children hanging on her and paying for her groceries with food stamps.

Rape?
Starvation?
Child molesters?
Mass murders?

Nothing?

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 2:16pm | #

"My position is, take away incentives--why are states compelled to give free education and medical care?" ... Ron Paul

"Suppose we increased the level of immigration, but the rule would be that immigrants and their descendants would have no access to government social services, including welfare, social security, health care, business subsidies, or the public schools. I would argue first that there would be no lack of takers for that proposition. Second, within a generation, we would see those immigrants' children going to better and far cheaper schools than the average citizen; there would be less poverty, a better work ethic, and proportionately more entrepreneurs than in the rest of U.S. society; and virtually everyone in this group would have inexpensive high-deductible catastrophic health insurance, while the truly needy would be cared for by an "immigrant culture" that gave proportionately more to charity. If my hypothesis is true, and I believe it would be for virtually any immigrant group you could name, it is something to think about, isn't it? That kind of freedom's why people came here in the first place -- not for a government that takes 43 percent of your income, regulates you to death and tells you which books your child must read in school." ... Edward Crane

Cesar | May 2, 2007, 2:20pm | #

William R.-

The primary users of the welfare state aren't the poor, especially since 1996 "Welfare Reform", its the middle class. Social Security, public schools, medicare, child tax credits etc. cost way more to tax payers than food stamps or TANF.

Zoomie Junior | May 2, 2007, 2:25pm | #

Maybe we need a corollary to Godwin’s law, that the longer a politician speaks the likelihood of a reference to “It’s for the children” or “God hates ” grows closer to one.

Phelps' Law?
I mean, why not name it after the embodiment of the concept?

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 2:26pm | #

I see Milton's son didn't get any of his fathers commonsense. Besides, David Friedman is an anarchist. Not a libertarian.

The stripe of anarchist David Friedman is is a subset of libertarian. I am not terribly surprised that you don't understand that taxonomy considering that you don't seem to understand the "libertarian agenda" very well.

And his argument makes a lot of sense. After all, free migration among the various states of the US is largely why welfare has become federalized.

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 2:34pm | #

William R.,

Incidentally, just how much welfare does an illegal immigrant use? The 1996 welfare reform prohibits them from using pretty much everything. To my knowledge the only obligations to illegal residents that the government retains are schooling and emergency medical care.

Schools are mandatory and public because it is presumed an educated person is a better participant in society and the economy and that society gets back many times what it invested. If the cost is what worries you, surely you have no less problem with educating an indigent citizen's child. And the whole of uncompensated medical care -- for the uninsured, underinsured, and insured -- amounts to only 4% of medical spending in the US. Please tell me you don't think that meager burden is worth a blanket denial of the freedoms of individuals to travel, residence, and labor!

lunchstealer | May 2, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Get a better argument Cesar. No, I wouldn't limit the number of children people can have. But I would end taxpayer subsidized payments to women who have children that can't afford them.

Uh, some poster further up the thread said something like "I live in the real world. The welfare state isn't going anywhere." So why should we expect an end to payments to women who have children they can't afford? Better to advocate prohibition on having extra children than to advocate ending those payments, isn't it? We do that with cross-border labor migration, so why not child-bearing?

grylliade | May 2, 2007, 2:54pm | #

Corporate welfare elitist. Subsidized labor. That's what Radley and his ilk are pimping for.

Even if that's true, how is that any worse than pimping for nativist know-nothings, populist demagogues, xenophobes, and union protectionists like the anti-immigration crowd does?

Privatize all the gains cheap illegal labor provides, and dump the expense on the taxpayer.

Much better to raise the prices for vegetables, new construction, and the other products for which illegal immigrants provide cheap labor. Yep.

Destroyed hospitals, schools, neighborhoods and entire towns.

"Mass immigration with a welfare state makes no sense" ...... Milton Friedman

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that lots of immigrants come here to use welfare. Most don't. Most come here to work. You can't get out of poverty using welfare (by design, I think). You can't send money home if you're on welfare. Most immigrants come here and work their asses off. Many of them pay taxes on their (illegal) income, and then don't use the services paid for with those taxes.

Illegal immigrants use available public welfare at about half the rate native-born Americans do. Whatever societal losses we have due to illegal immigrants using public welfare, it's more than set off by the cheap labor immigrants bring to this country. There's not just one side to this equation.

D.A. Ridgely | May 2, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Aren't we losing track of Satan here?

lunchstealer | May 2, 2007, 3:42pm | #

DAR,

Nah, he's in Dallas visiting some friends. Been crashing on my couch for a couple of days now.

Apostate Jew | May 2, 2007, 3:49pm | #

Illegal aliens are in control of the media ...

All this talk is very interesting but what I want to know is when did my people lose control of the media?

TrickyVic | May 2, 2007, 3:50pm | #

"""For most immigrants, it is not possible to become legal by doing the "right" thing.

What would you have those immigrants and potential immigrants do?"""

I don't know if it's NOT possible. At least for those who qualify. For those who don't qualify we would have to go case by case or situation by situation. Certainly you don't want Mexico druglords to be eligible for citizenship. I would expect people to wait their turn, and follow the law. Try migrating to another country. It's a tough game for everyone everywhere. But for most I would expect the game to be time consuming and tough. That may seem like an impossiblity for someone who wants immediate resolve, but it's not.

I would say immigrants have no right to violate the laws of their new land. Immigration can not start with screw the laws of my new country. I will say whatever we want the laws to be is open for debate. But if I wanted to migrate to England shouting F**k the Queen, I would expect to get declined and deported.

Now if you were a refugee of some country seeking help, such as fleeing a war torn country, that a different issue. Ooops that's a can of worms.

jimmydageek | May 2, 2007, 3:52pm | #

D.A. Ridgely | May 2, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Aren't we losing track of Satan here?

Last I heard, he was playing for the New York Islanders, I believe.

TrickyVic | May 2, 2007, 3:53pm | #

"""You can't send money home if you're on welfare.""""

Actually you can. But I don't mean to take away from your bigger argument. Which I agree.

de stijl | May 2, 2007, 3:54pm | #

D.A. Ridgely,

Based upon my understanding of LDS doctrine as interpreted by Mr. Larsen, Satan is easily thwarted by walls, sovereign borders, and the salty tears of hysterical Republican district chairmen. Paranoia doubles the thwarting effect.

Oh, if only there has been a quorum! Provo is doomed!

Sir Bedivire | May 2, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Are illegal immigrants witches, then? Hmmm. What do we do with witches?

"Burn them! Burn them!"

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 4:01pm | #

I don't know if it's NOT possible.

For those who (a) do not have family that are permanent residents and (b) do not have the education required for an H1-B visa or the like, the yearly quota is 5,000.

Since the current estimate is that 500,000 people enter illegally every year, I would have to say that it is not possible for at least 99 out of 100 of these immigrants to enter legally.

kevrob | May 2, 2007, 4:03pm | #

Cesar:

Watch who you are calling an "anglo." I may be an anglophone, but my family tree isn't full of Sasanaigh.*

Kevin

*That's Irish for "Saxons."

lunchstealer | May 2, 2007, 4:05pm | #

Sir Bedivire | May 2, 2007, 3:57pm | #
Are illegal immigrants witches, then? Hmmm. What do we do with witches?

"Burn them! Burn them!"

So does that mean you're only an illegal immigrant if you weigh the same as a duck?

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 4:13pm | #

I would expect people to wait their turn, and follow the law.

I would expect the same.

But I would also expect the law not to violate the preexisting individual rights of travel, residence, or labor and not to place undue burden on those trying to exercise those rights.

When the law is immoral, there is no obligation to follow it. I therefore hold no grudge against illegal immigrants.

Ramon Rozas III | May 2, 2007, 4:14pm | #

Isn't it obvious who benefits from illegal immigration? Can't we see that Major League Soccer is behind it all? Down with Big Soccer!

William R | May 2, 2007, 4:15pm | #

grylliade | May 2, 2007, 2:54pm |

I don't know where to start. So many tempting targets.

Much better to raise the prices for vegetables, new construction, and the other products for which illegal immigrants provide cheap labor. Yep.

Have you ever worked in construction? I have. Back in 1980-82 I framed houses and made 14-15 dollars an hour. Today I live in the same area and house framers are making 12 dollars an hour. 90 percent are illegal aliens. Rest assured home prices haven't gone down even though we are subsidizing contractors with illegal labor. As for higher prices for veggies. Nonsense. All subsidized labor for farmers has done is retard our productivity. Why mechanize when there's an endless supply of cheap labor. If we really do need labor to help pick crops, use prison labor. As one of the founders of the modern libertarian movement California congressman Dana Rohrabacher said, our prisons are filled with non violent people. Offer them early parol if they'll help bring the crops to market.


We don't live in a free market. If we did, the FED wouldn't exist. The free market would determine what our money would be. In other words, gold and silver would be freely circulating in the economy. And their price would be set daily by world markets.

Proponets of free immigration are just pimping for those that don't want to play by the rules.

I don't know this, but I suspect the Reason Foundation gets huge contributions from the constuction, tourism, hotel and restuarant industries. All very dependent on subsidized labor.


James Pinkerton hits the nail right on the head with this column.

An immigration bill for 'plantation owners'



http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin105164985apr10,0,4619769.column

Lamar | May 2, 2007, 4:39pm | #

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall live in America, and that whosoever beith a brown Mejicano shall suffer in squalor.

See. It's in the Bible.

dhex | May 2, 2007, 5:13pm | #

"Proponets of free immigration are just pimping for those that don't want to play by the rules."

the rules, in the case of american immigration, are ridiculously strident. absurdly, even.

(ps if big retail/big hospitality wants to start sending me my check now, please do so!)

Zombie CFisher | May 2, 2007, 6:06pm | #

Zombie welcomes the free flow of immigrants and looks forward to having more options when looking for brains to eat.

TrickyVic | May 2, 2007, 7:30pm | #

"""For those who (a) do not have family that are permanent residents and (b) do not have the education required for an H1-B visa or the like, the yearly quota is 5,000.

Since the current estimate is that 500,000 people enter illegally every year, I would have to say that it is not possible for at least 99 out of 100 of these immigrants to enter legally."""

It's impossible to win the lottery!!!

Not letting everybody in does not make it impossible for person X. Even if the odds are against you, say 100 to 1. I did mention it would be a case by case assessment. You didn't present me with a case, you presented every case. I never said it would be impossible for everyone who wanted to migrate in one year could do so. If you want to view it that way, then I would argue to keep it impossible.

The open door immigration policy served a purpose when we were a nation of a small population. We needed a lot of people then and resources were plentyful. Now, as a nation of 300 Million+, we should trim the open door policy. Which we have done with quotas.
Where you want to set the quota, is debateable.

TrickyVic | May 2, 2007, 7:40pm | #

""""But I would also expect the law not to violate the preexisting individual rights of travel, residence, or labor and not to place undue burden on those trying to exercise those rights."""


I am curious as to where these right are written?

People do not have a right to residence. As a resident of the City of New York couldn't I claim $2,500 a month for a one bedroom apartment as an undue burden? Damn, I really wish I could.

- | May 2, 2007, 7:54pm | #

...and that whosoever beith a brown Mejicano shall suffer in squalor.

If they keep breeding like fucking cockroaches, that's exactly what they'll do.

Mike Laursen | May 2, 2007, 8:22pm | #

We needed a lot of people then and resources were plentyful.

The economy is global now. Most resources on the planet are available to the highest bidder.

Mike Laursen | May 2, 2007, 8:27pm | #

Proponets of free immigration are just pimping for those that don't want to play by the rules.

So, are you willing to change the rules to provide a legal path for Mexicans who want to live or work here?

Ineffectual Troll | May 2, 2007, 8:40pm | #

We're going to need the manpower for the war with the Chinamen.

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 8:52pm | #

I am curious as to where these right are written?

They were once thought to be self-evident.

People do not have a right to residence. As a resident of the City of New York couldn't I claim $2,500 a month for a one bedroom apartment as an undue burden? Damn, I really wish I could.

The right to residence means that an individual has the right to reside where he can find accommodation at mutually agreeable terms with the owners of that accommodation. It does not mean someone must provide him with accommodation.

It is exactly the same as the right to property: An individual has the right to property he homesteads, constructs, or acquires through mutually agreeable terms with its previous owners. It does not mean someone must provide him with property.

Perhaps if you made some effort to understand what individual rights are, you wouldn't be so quick to elevate pretended government interests above them.

MikeP | May 2, 2007, 9:08pm | #

The open door immigration policy served a purpose when we were a nation of a small population.

Those outside the country who want to move to the US and work, and those inside the country who want to employ them, live with them, or sell them goods and services, would think that open door immigration serves a purpose.

It may sound harsh and sell poorly on Main Street, but other people's concerns are second-order at best.

Stevo Darkly | May 2, 2007, 11:53pm | #

Thy are right, though; Illegal Immigrants do control the media! Have you seen Telemundo? They don't even bother to speak American there!

I have seen Telemundo, and Galavision, and Univision. And they did paralyze me for hours by the Satanic power of their buxom cleavage.

Eventually my bare bleached bones would have fallen behind the sofa cushions, if the fat guy with the giant head on Sabado Gigante hadn't inadvertantly broken the spell.

b-psycho | May 3, 2007, 12:04am | #

"As one of the founders of the modern libertarian movement California congressman Dana Rohrabacher said *SNIP*

If you don't want to be written off as a troll, I wouldn't recommend taking Eric "Libertarians for Lieberman!" Dondero seriously in the future...

Anonymous Coward | May 3, 2007, 12:04am | #

Have you ever worked in construction? I have. Back in 1980-82 I framed houses and made 14-15 dollars an hour. Today I live in the same area and house framers are making 12 dollars an hour.

Ah, so the truth comes out. Basically, your arguement boils down to an elaborate version of "THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!!".

If we really do need labor to help pick crops, use prison labor. As one of the founders of the modern libertarian movement California congressman Dana Rohrabacher said, our prisons are filled with non violent people. Offer them early parol if they'll help bring the crops to market.

Anyone who suggests that non-violent drug offenders should not only be imprisoned but be used for back-breaking agricultural work doesn't deserve to call themselves Libertarian.

Quiet_Desperation | May 3, 2007, 12:47am | #

I'm as anti-illegal immigration as they come (but very pro legal immiogration... I know, the media has declared such a being cannot exist), but even I wouldn't call them (illegal immigrants) Satanists.

Although that would be an improvement from Catholicism.

Stevo Darkly | May 3, 2007, 1:34am | #

Although that would be an improvement from Catholicism.

Hey, good news! Growing numbers of Mexicans are leaving the Catholic church these days.

To become evangelical Christians.

- | May 3, 2007, 2:13am | #

Ah, so the truth comes out. Basically, your arguement boils down to an elaborate version of "THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!!".

Wait until they take YOUR "jerb", sonny; you may sing a different tune.

kevrob | May 3, 2007, 5:37am | #

I am curious as to where these right are written? - TrickyVic

Ever hear of the Helsinki Accords? The right to travel is specifically mentioned there, and the U.S. is a signatory. They grew out of the old Charter `77 movement.

Kevin

TrickyVic | May 3, 2007, 1:37pm | #

"""The right to residence means that an individual has the right to reside where he can find accommodation at mutually agreeable terms with the owners of that accommodation."""

Give me an example of how that right would be violated and how one would seek remedy.

So you have the right only if others agree to mutal terms? Sorry that doesn't sound like a right. That sounds like an agreement. A right is something you can do even when others disagree.


""Ever hear of the Helsinki Accords? The right to travel is specifically mentioned there, and the U.S. is a signatory. They grew out of the old Charter `77 movement."""

No I haven't. Travel where? From country to country? Or within your own country? Certainly NOT country to country because that's a privilage and you must have permission from the country you are entering to do so. You do not have a right to enter another country. If

Let the immigrats try to sue us for that. But hey since when do we honor treaties and such. Just ask ANY native American. It's not really a right unless you can take it to court and win.

MikeP | May 3, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Give me an example of how that right would be violated and how one would seek remedy.

Here's two examples...

Today: An immigrant gets kidnapped from his home and family by federal authorities, is forceably transported hundreds of miles away to be released in another country, and is forbidden to return to his home, family, and job. I know of no remedy.

Fifty years ago: A sharecropper buys out a piece of his landlord's farm and builds a home on it; local authorities with the assistance of the KKK kidnap him, forceably transport him far away, and warn him against ever coming back to that land. The remedy is suing in federal court under the auspices of the 14th Amendment.

MikeP | May 3, 2007, 2:21pm | #

So you have the right only if others agree to mutal terms? Sorry that doesn't sound like a right.

I'm sorry that I had to qualify how one might acquire things he has a right to that are physically limited in quantity. But if I don't add such qualifications, people say things like

People do not have a right to residence. As a resident of the City of New York couldn't I claim $2,500 a month for a one bedroom apartment as an undue burden?

A right is something you can do even when others disagree.

So when a mugger is about to kill you and you protest that you have the right to life, you're the one who is in the wrong? Got it.

It's not really a right unless you can take it to court and win.

So before 1865 people didn't have the right not to be enslaved? Got it.

TrickyVic | May 3, 2007, 4:19pm | #

"""A right is something you can do even when others disagree.

So when a mugger is about to kill you and you protest that you have the right to life, you're the one who is in the wrong? Got it."""

Only if your say a person has a right to murder. You put the right on the wrong person! Which I did not, that's in your own head! If you have the right to life, you do not need an agreement from a would be murder.

"""It's not really a right unless you can take it to court and win.

So before 1865 people didn't have the right not to be enslaved? Got it."""

In this counrty for a certain type, yes, slaves did not have a right not to be slaves. Could a slave sue for being a slave before 1965?

TrickyVic | May 3, 2007, 4:29pm | #

""""Give me an example of how that right would be violated and how one would seek remedy.

Here's two examples...

Today: An immigrant gets kidnapped from his home and family by federal authorities, is forceably transported hundreds of miles away to be released in another country, and is forbidden to return to his home, family, and job. I know of no remedy.

Fifty years ago: A sharecropper buys out a piece of his landlord's farm and builds a home on it; local authorities with the assistance of the KKK kidnap him, forceably transport him far away, and warn him against ever coming back to that land. The remedy is suing in federal court under the auspices of the 14th Amendment.""""

For example 1. No remedy, No right. A so called right that the government can act against with impunity is NOT a right. You can call it a right, but it's not.

In example 2. What is he suing for? His right of residence? What makes you think he would win?

With respects to "rights" there are usually two camps. One that believes rights are above government. The other understands that the men that make the laws and holds the guns, decides if they apply or not. I am of the latter.

There is no right made by God that man can not take away. The taking is done by men with guns, be it law enforcement or tyrants.

The right to challenge your detention to a third party was considered an "unalienable" right by our founding fathers. The Bush admin has proved them wrong.

TrickyVic | May 3, 2007, 4:41pm | #

""""Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. """" The 14th amendment.

Mike you used the 14 amendment as a right. Ok. So in the light of section 1 above. Explain, 1. the forfeture of assess prior to due process, such as auto seisures for drunk driving 2. Jose Padilla, who was born in the US and was deprived of liberty without due process. This government has made the arugement that due process did not have to apply to him because the President said so.

MikeP | May 3, 2007, 4:42pm | #

With respects to "rights" there are usually two camps. One that believes rights are above government. The other understands that the men that make the laws and holds the guns, decides if they apply or not. I am of the latter.

Well, then... No argument based on individual rights will hope to convince you that the US law on immigration is in any way wrong.

Nor, or course, would any argument based on individual rights convince you that the slave-holding United States, Nazi Germany, or Apartheid South Africa were wrong either.

Even the Khmer Rouge gets a free ride on your rights train, don't they... Wonderful...

On what, pray tell, do you base any normative conclusions?

MikeP | May 3, 2007, 4:50pm | #

Mike you used the 14 amendment as a right.

Not exactly. I used it as a law which was written to delineate rights the government claims it will protect, and therefore a basis on which you can sue in a government court. Rights themselves exist entirely apart from government: Government only secures them.

Explain, 1. the forfeture of assess prior to due process, such as auto seisures for drunk driving

Governments do a poor job of protecting rights, even when they have written down the rules.

2. Jose Padilla, who was born in the US and was deprived of liberty without due process.

Governments do a poor job of protecting rights, even when they have written down the rules.

I started this line of discussion by arguing that government does a poor job of protecting rights. What do you expect me to say when you give me more examples?

TrickyVic | May 3, 2007, 5:18pm | #

""" Well, then... No argument based on individual rights will hope to convince you that the US law on immigration is in any way wrong.

Nor, or course, would any argument based on individual rights convince you that the slave-holding United States, Nazi Germany, or Apartheid South Africa were wrong either."""

Wrong again!!
I have stated that I do have problems with current immigration law. Above I posted the following.
" ...Another problem I have with the current laws is they are anti-family. A child of illegal immigrants should not be given citizenship unless the parents get it too. To deport the family and put the kid is social services is not pro-family. Deport the kid too, or let his parents stay.""

I do agree slavery is wrong. I am stauch individual rights. No one should have the ability to "own" anyone. But it's a joke to try to argue that slaves DID have rights when history shows otherwise.

I'm simply arguing that rights are at the will of the government. Government is not the protector of our rights, they are the administrator of our right. The courts somewhat protect our rights, certainly that's debateable.

With respect to immigration, we can draft law to correct any "problems" we wish to correct. But no one can convince me that immigration is a "right". Especially in light of the visa requirements for the mere purpose of visitation to other countries. Go to another county and claim you have a right to be there. see what happens.

MikeP | May 3, 2007, 6:04pm | #

I am stauch individual rights.

I'm simply arguing that rights are at the will of the government.

How can these two statements both be true?

You are a staunch supporter of whatever individual rights the government you happen to live under -- or, indeed, given your "visa requirements" argument, don't live under -- happens to legally protect at the moment?

TrickyVic | May 3, 2007, 6:51pm | #

"""How can these two statements both be true?"""

Those are not mutually exclusive statement like you believe they are. It means I understand we must stay on top of the government to keep our rights. When the government decides to take them away, they are gone, until the government reinstates them, or we change the government. Being stauch individual rights, I am aware that keeping government in check is the only way to hold on to the rights they give you, and you must petition them if you want more.


Mike I think our difference is between ideology and reality. You're taking the ideology approach, such as slaves had rights because they are people, existence of unalienable rights, and so forth. From an Ideology view, I would agree. However, the reality is different.

""Rights themselves exist entirely apart from government: Government only secures them.""

That's the ideological view I'm talking about. I take the realistic view when I say God’s rights can be taken away by man. I say it, because it’s happened through out history.

The problem I have with the ideological view is that rights are above governments. Government can’t take them away because they do not belong to government. So when government starts taking them away from individual people, it can be written off as a bad job of securing them. By taking the reality view, and acknowledging that rights are part of government, when government starts taking them away from individual people, I can make the argument that whatever right is being revoked. Sure it can be reinstated, but only if the government allows.

You can talk about having rights but unless you can exercise them, it’s just talk. They would be repressing your rights, they would be revoking them.

TrickyVic | May 3, 2007, 6:57pm | #

Don't get me wrong Mike, the ideological view of rights has it's place in society. It gives us motivation to fight for rights we believe in, and to petition for rights currently not written in law.

But when it comes down to the actual exercise thereof, I find that view mostly useless.

TrickyVic | May 3, 2007, 6:59pm | #

Oopps, Correction

They would be repressing your rights, they would be revoking them.""

I meant to say, they wouldn't be repressing your rights, they would be revoking them.

MikeP | May 3, 2007, 7:19pm | #

Don't get me wrong Mike, the ideological view of rights has it's place in society. It gives us motivation to fight for rights we believe in, and to petition for rights currently not written in law.

Fair enough. But I am puzzled why you would respond to a statement that one has the right to freely cross national borders with an argument based on what national governments let you do today. After all, such a discussion in the ideological realm of rights might lead one "to petition for rights currently not written in law."

Dismissing such a discussion because no nation presently recognizes those rights seems tautologically pointless.

TrickyVic | May 4, 2007, 1:39pm | #

"""Fair enough. But I am puzzled why you would respond to a statement that one has the right to freely cross national borders with an argument based on what national governments let you do today."""

Because, that's reality. Like it or not.


"""Dismissing such a discussion because no nation presently recognizes those rights seems tautologically pointless."""

I'm not dismissing discussion, I'm merely noting that discussion is simply talk. If you talking about a right you need. It's a right you can't currently exercise, therefore, for all practical purposes, it's a right you don't have.

Howling into the wind about what your rights should be will not allow to you exercise that right. Only until government agrees, or is forced to recognize it, will you get to exercise it.

TrickyVic | May 4, 2007, 1:43pm | #

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a bunch of people claiming to have a right does not make it so.

TrickyVic | May 4, 2007, 1:55pm | #

and if government desires, it can remove that right. If government does remove the right, it's gone, no matter how many people claim you still have the right.

An example would be if the first amendment was repealled. There is a mechanism in place for that to happen. Anything constructed by law can be deconstructed by law.

MikeP | May 4, 2007, 2:15pm | #

By what standard would you argue that the government should or should not repeal the First Amendment? By what standard would you argue that the government should or should not repeal the "right" to government-provided health care?

That normative discussion must have some component apart from government and some basis for decision, whether ideological or pragmatic -- and even pragmatic positions have some ideological foundation.