Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

But is it really a good time to revolt, Rand? You've said that team Clinton is a mafia syndicate and that Hillary is bride to Ted Bundy. Is Mike Huckabee really that bad in comparison? That is, is it so terrible if he wants in-state tuition for illegal immigrants? After all, the war on illegal immigrants is just as bad as the war on illegal drugs. What if Huckabee had signed for in-state tuition for drug offenders?

Posted by Jim Harris at December 15, 2007 05:03 PM

Oddly enough I Poo-pooed the whole idea of social conservatives staying home if Guiliani were the pick, but I'm not sure I'd go out and vote if Huckabee was on the ticket. Foreign policy is my key issue and he's a big time lightweight.

Posted by rjschwarz at December 15, 2007 05:16 PM

You've said that team Clinton is a mafia syndicate and that Hillary is bride to Ted Bundy.

No, I haven't said the latter. Again, though, I can understand why simpletons might fantasize that I did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 15, 2007 05:31 PM

No, I haven't said the latter.

I meant that you used Ted Bundy as a metaphor for Bill Clinton. Which you did. Again, is Huckabee really that bad?

Posted by Jim Harris at December 15, 2007 05:48 PM

Linky-winky for the ill-informed.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 15, 2007 05:56 PM

I meant that you used Ted Bundy as a metaphor for Bill Clinton. Which you did.

No, I didn't even do that.

Again, is Huckabee really that bad?

No, but he's bad enough to not vote for him. Take away his social issues, and he's a Dem in Rep clothing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 15, 2007 06:19 PM

Your "linky winky" has zero relevance to this post, or any comments to it.

Well, unless one is delusional...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 15, 2007 06:22 PM

A new day may be dawning. Jim actually posted a link that had some relevance to the discussion. Ted Bundy and Clinton were both mentioned in what he linked to, just not the way he said it was.

Jim, you have done this many times before. Posted links that do not support your position or that are totally off base. If you can't link to something that supports you then just don't post. What you have been doing makes you look like a complete idiot.

Have some self respect

Posted by George at December 15, 2007 06:43 PM

Look, George, if someone says, "I don't hate Bill Clinton just like I don't hate Ted Bundy," the message is obvious, regardless of any future spin or denial.

But fine, let's pretend that Rand never said it. Still, it must suck to be Huckabee, if it's not worth helping him stop a mafia syndicate from taking the White House.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 15, 2007 06:55 PM

Look, George, if someone says, "I don't hate Bill Clinton just like I don't hate Ted Bundy," the message is obvious, regardless of any future spin or denial.

It's not obvious to me. Perhaps you'll have to explicate to the rest of us what the voices in your head are telling you.

To me, the message is, "...if I don't hate Ted Bundy, a serial killer, then it's ludicrous to think that I would hate Bill Clinton, who isn't obviously such (though both are sociopaths)." But your mileage may vary, depending on your medication dosage.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 15, 2007 07:13 PM

After all, the war on illegal immigrants is just as bad as the war on illegal drugs.

This may be the single dumbest thing I've ever seen Jim put in a comment.

Jim,
the war on drugs is in fact a waste of time. But no matter how much pot, pills, crack or coke gets smuggled into the country, no one ever got mugged BY the drugs. No one ever got killed BY a pound of Mexican pot driving drunk. Not one person ever lost a job because a stupid employer hired a kilo of coke to lay bricks for $4.00 an hour.

Yes drugs are dangerous. But in the hands of addicts it's dangerous to the addict, not the population at large. Addicts do commit crimes to support their habit, it's the addict himself it's not the drug alone that is dangerous. The drugs are not a threat just on their own once they've been smuggled into the country. If the smugglers left the drugs sitting just inside the border, they'd just rot in the desert. Not so with the illegal aliens dropped in the desert by the coyotes, they spread out and cause trouble.

Posted by Steve at December 15, 2007 07:16 PM

Apparently Jim, like the drug warriors, has difficulty distinguishing between people and inanimate objects.

Color me shocked...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 15, 2007 07:18 PM

I think both the war on drugs and the attempt to stop illegal immigration are both attempts by the government to resist market forces.

I don't think any government can resist market forces for very long.

I agree that the present illegal immigration mess is a problem, my solution would not be to try to stop it, but to do the following:

1)Secure the border, so we know who is crossing.

2)We can't do #1 if we don't have an outlet for the market forces driving the immigration.
So allow anyone to come work in the U.S. with the following rules:
a)They must be employer sponsored.
b)Employer pays for heath care and takes responsibility for the worker while in the U.S.
c)No birth right citizenship.
d)All wage, tax and work rules must be adhered to.
e)Optional employee gets 1/3 of wages escrowed and they can only be pickup outside the U.s.

I think that one of the big drivers of illegal immigration is the employment regulations that
drive up the cost of low skilled workers to beyond their value. If you have to pay 50% of the wages for a roofer to workman's compensation, and nothing for the illegal worker... then....

Paul

Posted by Paul Breed at December 15, 2007 08:04 PM

I think both the war on drugs and the attempt to stop illegal immigration are both attempts by the government to resist market forces.

Exactly. And it's funny to see the so-called supporters of free markets, the grand GOP, now maximally hyping illegal immigration for the sake of a few votes. The fact that they are building xenophobia in Amerikka doesn't seem to be a bother. Except for John McCain who seems to me the best candidate they have, and the one they can't stand.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 15, 2007 08:41 PM

Addicts do commit crimes to support their habit, it's the addict himself it's not the drug alone that is dangerous.

What crazy distinction are you trying to make? Of course the war on drugs is really a war on drug users. In both the war on certain drug users and the war on certain immigrants, someone has committed a "crime" that by itself has no victim. Instead the government has fabricated a problem to solve with popular backing. The main reason that Mexican immigrants are illegal is that the government slapped a quota on them.

Who, after all, causes more trouble, illegal immigrants or illegal drug users? A lot of illegal immigrants work as housemaids. Would you really choose a cocaine addict over an illegal immigrant to clean your kitchen? If so, what are you smoking?

If you want to reduce the question to ridiculous hairsplitting over people vs objects, then the war on illegal immigrants is a war for visas. They are using police raids to force people to wait for visas that are handed out on a quota, when they could simply lift the quota and give them the visas.

It's painfully obvious that the war on illegal immigrants has exactly the same problems as the war on illegal drugs, except more so. No-knock raids, workplace interference, you name it.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 15, 2007 09:29 PM

1) Secure the border, so we know who is crossing.

Fair enough.

2)We can't do #1 if we don't have an outlet for the market forces driving the immigration.

You're right! So far, so good.

c)No birth right citizenship.

We can just ignore the 14th Amendment because...?

e)Optional employee gets 1/3 of wages escrowed and they can only be pickup outside the U.s.

Why are you so intent to slap quotas on the American dream? Up until e), I really thought that you realized that the war on illegal immigration is as futile as the war on illegal drugs.

If you have to pay 50% of the wages for a roofer to workman's compensation, and nothing for the illegal worker... then....

Actually, at least in California, employers have to pay workers comp for all of their workers, including illegal immigrants.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 15, 2007 10:06 PM

Anyone (like, it appears to me, Steve) who thinks that illegal immigrants are a source of crime will be interested in this article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/72735

The article is titled "Do Immigrants Make U.S. Safer?" and is subtitled "New immigrants may be the best thing that ever happened to American cities, but don't wait for the leading presidential candidates to tell you that."

Posted by Abominable at December 15, 2007 10:54 PM

Well, lets take a look at what the choices are that our political elites will give us. Lets see, choose the Scary Fundie Populist Preacher (R) or choose the Wicked Witch Of The North-East (D).

Posted by Robert at December 15, 2007 11:44 PM

What huge opportunity for another party? If Huckabee is the tipping point for social conservatives to move back to the Democrats or at least view the GOP and the Democrats equally, any other party would be a permanent minority.

And in fact, if the Dems would stop pandering to that small minority of ultra-gays and super-abortionists, a trend that has already begun, the followers of Jesus are a much better fit among the Democrats. Go read the Gospels and tell me you don't think Jesus was a leftie.

It would be quite wonderful to see this.

Posted by Offside at December 16, 2007 06:53 AM

Abominable,
they are in fact a source of crime. They came here ILLEGALLY!!

from Webster's:

illegal[1,adjective]

Main Entry:

1 il·le·gal Function: adjective

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)

— il·le·gal·i·ty \ˌi-li-ˈga-lə-tē\ noun

— il·le·gal·ly \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gə-lē\ adverb

Whether they commit another crime or not is beyond the point. If you break into someone's home, clean the bathroom, build a new shelf and do the dishes, you still committed a crime by breaking in to start with.

If the legal government of the United States makes a law stating that no one from "X" country will be admitted to the United States, then our duly elected officials of the government have the right to make that law. The oft repeated "quota" crap about Mexican immigrants is just plain irrelevant. The citizens of another country do not get to pick and choose which of our laws to follow or ignore.

I don't get that choice, nor do you if you'll stop to think about it.

For the record. I do not assume that all illegals are criminals. Except within the parameters of the origal crime of entering illegally.

I am friends with my next door neighbors who are legal immigrants from Mexico. And if you think I "assume" that all illegals are criminals, they have no problem stating so, loudly and often. How would you feel, if you waited in line to buy a new home and then some guy broke in and "squatted" in your dining room and set up housekeeping there? Yet, when you complained about the squatters, people called you xenophobe, racist, mean spirited and hate monger. That by the way, is the analogy my friend Osvaldo from next door uses, when describing the fence jumpers and river swimmers.

Jim,
I stated under an earlier topic that I would not get into another line by line argument with you. I stand by my original statements, your opinion doesn't change my opinion and I still think it was the stupidest thing you ever said here. I made the distinction and outlined the differences I had in mind and your cherry picking and further foolishness won't change my thinking.

I have to go. I just looked out the window and two joints and a vial of crack are trying to hot wire my van!!

Posted by Steve at December 16, 2007 07:11 AM

Abominable, they are in fact a source of crime. They came here ILLEGALLY!!

That is exactly the way that a lot of people think about illegal drugs, and in particular illegal drug users. They can't get past the word "illegal". We have to enforce the law, they say, or we will lose credibility. So it's first let's enforce all of the drug laws, let's wait until all of the drug laws are credible; and then let's worry about whether the laws make sense. Maybe the drug laws should be adjusted, they reason, but we certainly wouldn't want any amnesty.

Of course, it will never happen in that order. Amnesty from laws that don't make sense and aren't enforceable is the only way that bad laws are ever fixed.

The oft repeated "quota" crap about Mexican immigrants is just plain irrelevant.

Everyone calls it a quota, because that's exactly what it is. The word "quota" is repeated in the text of the law (The American Immigration Act of 1924) many times. There was no illegal immigration problem until we slapped a quota on the American dream.

The citizens of another country do not get to pick and choose which of our laws to follow or ignore.

Yes, but we do. We do not have the willpower to fully enforce unfair laws. If America were a repressive tyranny, it could enforce any monstrous laws it wanted to: drug laws, immigration laws, you name it. It could enforce the death penalty for sex on Sundays. But since we are a free republic, and a representative democracy, we're just not going to do it. That is why both the war on illegal drugs and the war on illegal immigrants are unwinnable.

And that is why, as your Mexican neighbor can tell you, illegal Mexican immigrants are basically second-class citizens who can't vote. Paul Breed, to his credit, has accepted a basic side truth about this. We will never have real security --- as in security from terrorism --- until we treat these non-terrorists better.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 16, 2007 08:22 AM

Abominable, they are in fact a source of crime. They came here ILLEGALLY!!

Of course, it will never happen in that order. Amnesty from laws that don't make sense and aren't enforceable is the only way that bad laws are ever fixed.

The oft repeated "quota" crap about Mexican immigrants is just plain irrelevant.

The citizens of another country do not get to pick and choose which of our laws to follow or ignore.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 16, 2007 08:22 AM

There is some truth to this reasoning. The problem is that not all of the followers of Jesus care to listen to him. After all, waterboarding is about as Christian as crucifixion.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 16, 2007 09:04 AM

Really ,Jimbo last time I checked crucifixion was an imperial Roman thing. It was a symbol to the early Christians because it was so barbaric; only
thing less was the beheading by John the Baptist.

Posted by narciso at December 16, 2007 04:40 PM

the beheading by John the Baptist.

That's news to me. Another early Christian terrorist. Where do I read about it?

Posted by at December 17, 2007 09:40 AM

Illegal Immigration is both a form of corporate welfare (which removes lower middle class jobs and thus inflates welfare numbers) and a way to eliminate pressure for the corrupt oligarchs in Mexico to reform.

Those that support illegal immigration are niave as to who really benefits. A century of poverty in Mexico in exchange for corporate profits, increased welfare numbers, and cheap veggies. It's shameful.

Posted by rjschwarz at December 17, 2007 02:08 PM

Post a comment