Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
He was coming right at the United States
Posted by: Jon Henke on Thursday, August 16, 2007

I would like to believe this video is fake. I fear it is not.
This morning, the Intelligence Report obtained a video that purports to show a vigilante murdering a Mexican immigrant just inside the U.S.-Mexico border.

It’s unclear at this point whether the video is authentic. It is strikingly similar to another video, posted on this blog late last week, that appears to show a nativist yelling threats and firing a shotgun at migrants crossing the U.S. border, but apparently hitting no one.
[...]

Assuming the video is real...

He wanted to be free and live a better life where that was possible...so he was shot.

The shooter and everybody involved should be imprisoned for life. The United States would be far better off with millions of illegal immigrants living freely in our country....and one less of each of the people behind this video.

UPDATE:

Thankfully, the video turns out to be a hoax. The video was not staged by an SPLC member trying to discredit the Minuteman group, but by a group of Minutemen themselves.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I gotta say that the last part, with the grave with a cross on top, makes me somewhat suspicious. Don’t you think that a killer would just bury the body, whiteout putting stones and a cross on top? But if it’s in fact not fake I’ll have no problem seeing the perpetrators rotten in jail like other cold-hearted killers!
 
Written By: Jon Herstad
URL: http://idioten.blogspot.com
I don’t intend to watch the video, because I trust that it shows what you described. I agree with every word of your post.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Since this comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, I think I will reserve judgement until I see it from a more reputable source.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Well, I’ll just record that as of 10:48 pm EDT, YouTube tells me that "This video is no longer available." But, hey, you seem to have beat Drudge and Hot Air to the - uh - scoop. And Obama has yet to call for us to stop just killing civilians on the Mexican border.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Let’s see if I follow the reasoning here. Murdering people is really, really bad, while violating sovereign nations is only sorta-bad, therefore, if one person murders one person for violating his country’s borders, violating a country’s borders must be ... good?

If the video is authentic, the guy who did it should indeed be imprisoned for life, where "life" means a year or two, until his appeals are exhausted. That doesn’t change the fact that we need a hole in the border like a hole in the head.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Some nut, real or fictitious, shot an illegal.

So lets throw open the border and shutdown/vilify all the people who resist the open borders policy.

I guess someone know exactly how to push American’s buttons. Good for them.

But, real or not, I’m not changing my view nor desire to see the border closed.

If a crime was committed prosecute them. I think that is what we all want.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I gotta say that the last part, with the grave with a cross on top, makes me somewhat suspicious.
Agreed. It may well be a sick hoax. I hope so.
Since this comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, I think I will reserve judgement until I see it from a more reputable source.
The video is either real, or it is a hoax. Unless you’re suggesting that the SPLC did the hoax themselves, their involvement is irrelevant to the accuracy of the video. It’s the same video, regardless of where it is posted.
Well, I’ll just record that as of 10:48 pm EDT, YouTube tells me that "This video is no longer available."
That makes sense. YouTube doesn’t allow that sort of thing. Follow the link in the post to see what was in the video.
Let’s see if I follow the reasoning here. Murdering people is really, really bad, while violating sovereign nations is only sorta-bad, therefore, if one person murders one person for violating his country’s borders, violating a country’s borders must be ... good?
I don’t share your premises.

Murdering people is bad. Traveling a few miles in order to secure freedom and a better life is good. Were I living in extreme poverty in a country without a lot of freedom, I’d try to leave, too. I regard migration to the United States as a net utilitarian good. Any cost to US citizens (lost jobs, etc) is more than offset by the tremendous benefit obtained by migrants, who have traded uncertain rights and desperate poverty for freedom and relative prosperity.

Since a country is not private property, I don’t have any intrinsic problem with migration, legal or otherwise, and I don’t think there is any moral imperative to restrict ones travel or residence to borders. Legal borders can be a convenience, perhaps even a utilitarian benefit...but it’s not a moral obligation.

Similarly, paying taxes is not a moral obligation, either, despite the fact that taxes a necessary prerequisite for "sovereign nations".
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
"Unless you’re suggesting that the SPLC did the hoax themselves, their involvement is irrelevant to the accuracy of the video. It’s the same video, regardless of where it is posted"

I have read and heard a lot of things from SPLC. Some of them were fairly accurate. I still occasionally get mail from them. I have no reason to believe this is any more accurate than the rest of the junk I have gotten from them. Does the phrase "consider the source" ring a bell? You consider things you read on DU or KOS to be as credible as what you post here? As I said, when it gets some corroboration I will take it seriously. I am sure you will keep us updated, although I would expect something this juicy to be all over CNN, etc.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The video is either real, or it is a hoax. Unless you’re suggesting that the SPLC did the hoax themselves, their involvement is irrelevant to the accuracy of the video.
Oh, please. Are you seriously disputing that SPLC has a bias on this issue, that might make them just a weeeee bit more likely to believe a hoax that just "happens" to conveniently support their agenda? Get real. If someone had made an equally (im-)plausible video depicting an illegal alien murdering a Minuteman, their B.S. detectors (and, I suspect, yours) would be going off on full blast.
Murdering people is bad.
It’s certainly illegal, but if laws are irrelevant, it’s all a matter of perspective. For the guy being murdered, murder is certainly bad. For the guy doing the murdering, it’s great. For the rest of us, it all depends on what we think about the victim.
Traveling a few miles in order to secure freedom and a better life is good.
For the guy moving here, certainly. For citizens and legitimate immigrants already here, not so much. No country in the world allows unlimited immigration, and for good reason.
Since a country is not private property, I don’t have any intrinsic problem with migration, legal or otherwise, and I don’t think there is any moral imperative to restrict ones travel or residence to borders. Legal borders can be a convenience, perhaps even a utilitarian benefit...but it’s not a moral obligation.
Oh, c’mon. Each nation’s right to secure its borders is about as fundamental as it gets. Either we have a moral duty to respect the law or we don’t. If we don’t, forget about your private property "rights," they’re just as abstract and unenforceable as any others. Try "owning" private property south of the border sometime.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
The video seems rather suspect to me. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were another group of zealots staging shocking drama designed to stimulate a reaction that furthers their cause. McQ’s post from the other day regarding the spoofed Fred Thomson website demonstrates that this tactic is becoming more common. It seems that in the past 7 years, Americans have picked up a few gimmicks for promoting our political agendas.

On the other hand, if the video proves to have captured an authentic act then, of course the heinousness should be condemned by anyone with a sense of morality.

Either way I wouldn’t try to capitalize on it as a justification for open borders. There are relatively far too many instances of illegal aliens perpetrating severely violent acts on American citizens for that approach to be explored by proponents.
 
Written By: Dubya
URL: http://
I don’t share your premises.
They weren’t Jeff’s premises, they were yours.
Murdering people is bad.
OK.
Traveling a few miles in order to secure freedom and a better life is good. Were I living in extreme poverty in a country without a lot of freedom, I’d try to leave, too.

But not they’re not leaving concentration camps in Germany or gulags in the USSR, they’re leaving a country where they happily participate in electing crooks and condoning corruption. And most importantly, they don’t stay here. Most of them come for awhile, send money home, and then go back.
I regard migration to the United States as a net utilitarian good. Any cost to US citizens (lost jobs, etc) is more than offset by the tremendous benefit obtained by migrants, who have traded uncertain rights and desperate poverty for freedom and relative prosperity.
Except their not "trading" anything. They come here for the benefits that our industrious society provides, ship them back home, and then do nothing to improve their lot in their home country.

And what about all the legal immigrants who jump through all the bureaucratic hoops, spending thousands of dollars, and taking years to achieve permanent status? Who do you think adds more of a "tremendous benefit"? The illegals or the legals?
Since a country is not private property, ...
Huh? You have one of two ways to go with that thought. Anarchy or transnationalism. What do you think provate property is? What is sovreignty?
... I don’t have any intrinsic problem with migration, legal or otherwise, and I don’t think there is any moral imperative to restrict ones travel or residence to borders.
What do morals have to do with it? There are a lot of good reasons to reform our immigration laws, and to allow more people to come here. But nowadays there are good secuity reasons why we need to have more control over who gets into the country a why.
Legal borders can be a convenience, perhaps even a utilitarian benefit...but it’s not a moral obligation.
Again, whn did morals enter the conversation, and why are you preoccupied with them?
Similarly, paying taxes is not a moral obligation, either, despite the fact that taxes a necessary prerequisite for "sovereign nations".
This is just a straw man argument masquerading as an analogy.

The bottom line is that people shouldn’t be gunned down just for illegally crossing the border, but neither should those who favor controlling illegal immigration be equated with psychos who commit such murder. That’s a Greenwaldian tactic.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
The shooter and everybody involved should be imprisoned for life. The United States would be far better off with millions of illegal immigrants living freely in our country....and one less of each of the people behind this video.

Congratulations you have firmly established that it is better to allow millions of illegal immigrants than to have sadistic murderers roam free. Personally I think this is wholly obvious and intuitive, but thanks for posting on it anyways.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
"SPLC"

><><><><>< (head shakes)

It’s been ten years since Martin McPhillips incisively lamented the sad fact of there being no really effective way to express explosive laughter online.

"Nativists".

><><><><><

"SPLC"
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
He wanted to be free and live a better life where that was possible...so he was shot.
And why should we assume that? Maybe he was one of these. Or one of these.Seems like there’s a lot of assumin’ goin’ on.
The SPLC is to this story what TNR was to Beauchamps. All too willing to believe the worst with the thinnest of evidence. Both were predisposed to believe this.
If this does prove to have happened after thoughtful investigation (not evident in this post) then by all means arrest and proceed with the trial.
It’s just asinine to assume a person’s motives. He wanted to be free and live a better life. Harumph. Looking for a spot on afternoon TV Jon?
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
A transcript from the SPLC post:
“Oh f..k, I got him dude!’ the first voice says. “I f..kin’ got him!” There is a pause, then the first voice says, “Dude, what are we gonna do?” The voice on the walkie-talkie replies, “Get the shovel, get some lime, and hey, grab me a 12-pack, too, while you’re up there.”
I think I mentioned Beauchamp didn’t I. They just happen to be carrying a bag of lime around? Unless he’s talking about a slice to go with the 12-pack.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Henke responding to Herstad:
I gotta say that the last part, with the grave with a cross on top, makes me somewhat suspicious.
Agreed. It may well be a sick hoax. I hope so.
According to the play-by-play posted on the "Hatewatch" link you provided, the video ends right after one of the — real or fictitious — murderers says “We f*ckin’ nailed him, dude! We f*ckin’ nailed him!”

Nothing is said about a scene showing a grave with a cross, which would be a mind-blowingly retarded inclusion and well worth a mention.

Did you view this video, Jon?
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Congratulations you have firmly established that it is better to allow millions of illegal immigrants than to have sadistic murderers roam free.
I was a lot more confident of how firmly this concept was established before I read the comments to this post.

Illegals are not the dregs of another society, they are often the people that the nation they are leaving would (or should) most like to keep. They are the go getters, the individualists, in short, the libertarians. They are not here to TAKE, they are here to earn, to trade their labor for a better price than they can get in the market that geography put them in.

Forget, I repeat FORGET securing the borders, it’s IMPOSSIBLE, if you really want to stop illegal immigration, there is only ONE answer, eliminate the market advantages of their migration.

Labor is a product, migration from Mexico to the US is a pure arbitage play, unless you eliminate the margin, or reduce to the point that the reward is not worth the risk, we will always have as many illegals as the market can bear, or more if the Mexican labor market devolves.

Personally, I am not willing to make the sacrifices I would have to make in order to close this market, namely, national ID cards and a host of unconstitutional instrusions on me to make sure I am not one of them.

I am willing to compete against any worker in the world for my job, I am not entitled to it because I was born here, I am not entitled to it at all, I earned it.

I am also confident that the illegal carpenters and contractors and landscapers are doing quite a bit of their business with with people who might argue for stricter borders and completely miss the irony of those transactions.

We should just make it legal for a lot more immigrants to come to America, then they won’t be illegal and people can relax.
They just happen to be carrying a bag of lime around?
If ya bring a gun and a shovel and contemplate murder, lime (or lye, or soda lime to destroy the evidence) is not a stretch, and can picked up in any grocery store.

I am not saying that the video is real, I haven’t watched it, and won’t, but I think it’s really is irrelvant to my point, which is more a response to comments in this post.

If it’s real, these murderers will be defended, and my point is that I would take 107,642 illegals for every defender of this kind of action.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I mean, of course there wouldn’t be anything as nutty as a shot of the grave, but how does the rest of it — the 12-pack and all — get past you?
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Illegals are not the dregs of another society, they are often the people that the nation they are leaving would (or should) most like to keep. They are the go getters, the individualists, in short, the libertarians. They are not here to TAKE, they are here to earn, to trade their labor for a better price than they can get in the market that geography put them in.
Cap, did you even read my links on the horrendous murders. I’m not suggesting all illegals are criminals-like some are suggesting all illegals only want a better life-but the background on both those murders is that the alleged perpetrators had prior criminal contact. Oregon prevents police cooperating with ICE.
Alejandro was taken into custody last Saturday on an outstanding warrant for an unrelated probation violation.
How-and why-does an illegal get probation? Newark is a sanctuary city and the perp had already sexually assaulted a seven year old girl. If we were detaining and deporting the criminal elements these young people may still be alive. I think even a libertarian would agree that one of the primary purposes of government is to protect it’s citizens. I think officials of sanctuary cities should be prosecuted for hindering prosecution. I hope some of those families sue these people.
Let’s worry about the hard-working and honest illegal at a later date but let’s immediately begin to deport or detain the criminal element. That would be a good start.
They are not here to TAKE, they are here to earn,...
Umatilla, oregon is 25 miles south of me. read this. They may not be here to take but they certainly are taking the money of taxpayers. Are you even aware how many small communities in the Southwest are losing their medical facilities ’cause they’re going broke? Do you think these people don’t deserve health care?
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Since a country is not private property, I don’t have any intrinsic problem with migration, legal or otherwise, and I don’t think there is any moral imperative to restrict ones travel or residence to borders.
I don’t like murder, either. Then again, I’m not inclined to accept anything coming off that site at face value. Four, if I do, I am then limited to their definition of what is and is not "hate".

As a somewhat more information example of such, a comparison to the films of Michael Moore seems in order.

Xrlq speaks for me, here.

Jon
, your complaints as regards murder, are noted. Yet, if you’re going to make an appeal to the supremacy of law, and of morality, your disregard for immigration law seems out of place. If you’re going to argue for the law in one case and not in the other, who gets to decide which gets followed in which does not?

And thus the questions;

* Is the right of the country to secure its borders fundamental or not?

* Is a country securing its borders engaged in "hate"?

* Is it country repelling an invasion engaging in "murder"?

And , while I have the editor open...

It seems to me that the overriding position of "HateWatch" should be brought into question here. What, for example, is their position on immigration and borders? If what they are pushing for is in fact anarchy at the border, should not they be considered to be questionable as a biased source?

If traveling a few miles to secure a better life is good, is not also following the laws with respect to trouble in those few miles, also good?

Let’s approach this directly, Jon:

Yes or no, Jon; Are there are legitimate moral reasons for securing the border? To what level can we morally take that security? Should INS officers not be allowed to carry and use guns in the process of border security?

Finally, we will give this a libertarian twist... Is it more moral for the state to perform those functions? Why?











 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I mean, of course there wouldn’t be anything as nutty as a shot of the grave, but how does the rest of it — the 12-pack and all — get past you
Hey now... Shooting fence-jumpers is thirsty work.. Gotta have ’a brew’, dontcha know...
“Get the shovel, get some lime, and hey, grab me a 12-pack, too, while you’re up there.”
They just happen to be carrying a bag of lime around? Unless he’s talking about a slice to go with the 12-pack.
I’m pretty sure "lime" is a typo. Replace the ’m’ with an ’n’, and read the sentence again. Makes more sense.

And suggests at military experiance for the speaker. Most folks would just call it "rope".

Also, this premiss based on shooting the illegal...

Look, America is our home. Our house, if you will. If someone breaks into my home at night, I’l shooting them. I don’t know them, I don’t know what they are carrying with them, I don’t know what their intentions are. I do, however, know that they intend on breaking in and commiting a crime, because I’m watching them do it.

I have no porblem with people coming here legally. Fill out the paper work, and come on in folks...

But when they show from the absolute start that they have no regard for our laws, I don’t want them here, and sicne the government is doing almost nothing to stop their entry, I would forward the idea that Paco and Jose will stop trying to break into our house once they hear about how Jose’s 2 brothers got shot trying the same trick last week...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"If ya bring a gun and a shovel and contemplate murder, lime (or lye, or soda lime to destroy the evidence) is not a stretch, and can picked up in any grocery store.
Right! And then... and then, you run right home and post the bleedin’ video on You Tube.

Right. Sure. That’s what I’d do!

{guffaw}
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
He wanted to be free and live a better life where that was possible...so he was shot
Nice way to frame it....instead of framing it as another immigrant attempting to break the law and enter this country illegally, thus causing all sorts of problems for whatever community he settled in.

Or a potential terrorist trying to clandestinely enter the country.

The guy who was shot (if this is real) isn’t an automatic saint with good intentions.

Murder is wrong

That said, a few more of these may be a very effective deterrent against illegal immigration.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Bit, You didn’t ask me, but I’ll answer anyway.
* Is the right of the country to secure its borders fundamental or not?
Yes.

* Is a country securing its borders engaged in "hate"?

No. But there are clearly many in this country using the issue of securing borders to promote "hate".
* Is it country repelling an invasion engaging in "murder"?
No. But if the video is legit, then it documents murderers justifying their actions in the name of " repelling an invasion." Also "repelling an invasion" to describe law enforcement on the border is inflammatory, propagandist, inaccurate language.
Yes or no, Jon; Are there are legitimate moral reasons for securing the border?
Yes.
To what level can we morally take that security?
Not a yes or no question. But common sense, rules of engagement, proportionality in law-enforcement guidelines are applicable here as in any law enforcement. As an example, it is not moral to gun down a teenager shop lifting candy.

Should INS officers not be allowed to carry and use guns in the process of border security?
Yes. Should they be gunning down anyone they see crossing the border? No.

Finally, we will give this a libertarian twist... Is it more moral for the state to perform those functions?
Yes. Most libertarians (not anarchists) understand that the use of force by the state to provided defense for citizens against enemies and criminals is a legitimate function of the state ("provide for the common defense, secure the blessings of liberty... " etc). In fact, recognizing that force is inherent in all state actions is a way to distinguish between legitimate actions of the state vs. non-legitimate. Is it legitimate to use force to defend yourself, your property, your country? Yes. It is also legitimate for the state to do so as a proxy for it’s citizens. Is it legitimate to use force to take property and give it to another? No. then it is also not legitimate for the state to do so.

 
Written By: mw
URL: http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/
So let me get two things straight:
1) A Horrific murder in Newark DEMONSTRATES illegal immigration is wrong and must be stopped; and
2) A Horrific murder in the American SOuthwest demonstrates that illegal immigration is morally correct and must be encouraged.

Do either of these statements make the slightest bit of logical sense? No, they don’t. So my motto is let’s imprison both sets of perpetrators and secure the borders.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Right! And then... and then, you run right home and post the bleedin’ video on You Tube.

Right. Sure. That’s what I’d do!
Good point...

But, if the perps are not identified in the video, and the location is not identified in the video, and the body is a state od assisted rapid decompostion in a shallow grave...

But, I have not watched the video and would consider it a hoax until proven otherwise.
Umatilla, oregon is 25 miles south of me. read this. They may not be here to take but they certainly are taking the money of taxpayers. Are you even aware how many small communities in the Southwest are losing their medical facilities ’cause they’re going broke? Do you think these people don’t deserve health care?
At a minimum, illegals are paying in, or causing to be paid into the system about 16.5% of their earnings ($2500 at minimum wage) into a Social Security system that they are not eligible for (rightly so, they are illegal), and whatever witholding is held back from their earnings because most do not file returns. Make them legal, stop making them pay SS and Medicare taxes, and require them to pay into a health care plan... it would likely be wash.

If the American people want to stop illegals from coming to America, they are going to have close the market, because the borders cannot be secured. If you support the measures that would have to be taken to accomplish this, go for it, I would consider the influx of illegals the lesser of evils when compared to the police state steps that would be required to close the market. But that’s just me.
your complaints as regards murder, are noted. Yet, if you’re going to make an appeal to the supremacy of law, and of morality, your disregard for immigration law seems out of place. If you’re going to argue for the law in one case and not in the other, who gets to decide which gets followed in which does not?
We can any law that Congress passes a law, but they are not equal. Some laws are moral imperitives, absolutes, if you will, like murder, theft, etc. Some are laws based on policies, as with immigration, that can change back and forth over time, to the extent that one day something can be a crime, the next it’s not. Consider the position espoused about these two laws when they come into conflict when we change one of them for comparison...

A teenage kid smokes some MJ in a park, a strong anti-drug crusader shoots him in the head.

Is the MJ smoking vs the murder even worthy of the briefest consideration?

NO, NO, NO!

Is a person who ignores the violation of the MJ law and focuses on the murder guilty of disregarding the supremacy of law?

NO, NO, NO!

I am pretty sure that almost every American is guilty of some crime, there are so flipping many how could one not be in violation of something? It’s a crime to wear a mustache in a church in Alabama if it incites laughter.

And you want to argue that a law is a law?

Sorry, I’m not buying.
2) A Horrific murder in the American SOuthwest demonstrates that illegal immigration is morally correct and must be encouraged.
If I were a Mexican trying to make the best life for my family, the legality of my entering a labor market that pays me and embraces me would not impede me, and in the face of a moral dilemma, violate the immigration law to get into a great labor market versus abject poverty for my family, it wouldn’t even be close. If you think it’s okay to kill me for that, I’d say that you made the wrong choice in your conclusion to your moral dilemma.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
At a minimum, illegals are paying in, or causing to be paid into the system about 16.5% of their earnings ($2500 at minimum wage) into a Social Security system that they are not eligible for (rightly so, they are illegal), and whatever witholding is held back from their earnings because most do not file returns.
Assuming they aren’t paid under the table...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://

Unfortunately, the video is no longer available, so I only saw it once, but I did form some initial impressions. I am no expert, but I was impressed by the marksmanship shown. Two snap shots in less than a second, at night, over rough terrain, at an unknown range, and no muzzle flash visible in the night vision device. The dedication of these miscreants to their mission was also remarkable. To carry all that equipment, including a heavy bag of lime and at least one twelve pack of adult beverage, to such an evidently isolated and unpatrolled location was no doubt difficult. Their respect for human life was also evidenced by remaining at what some would call the crime scene until broad daylight to give the remains a proper burial, protect it from scavengers, and clearly mark the grave. In the heat of the summer. Then, as Mr. Beck points out, they promptly put the video on the net, probably to warn other potential illegals so this would not happen again.

It is my guess that Mr. Sanchez will make more of these videos available
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"Make them legal, stop making them pay SS and Medicare taxes, and require them to pay into a health care plan... it would likely be wash"

And how will they afford this health care plan when, according to some, even middle class Americans cannot afford health insurance?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Oh, c’mon. Each nation’s right to secure its borders is about as fundamental as it gets. Either we have a moral duty to respect the law or we don’t. If we don’t, forget about your private property "rights," they’re just as abstract and unenforceable as any others.
Jon is right. Individuals have fundamental rights, not collectives. Individuals have fundamental property rights to the fruit of their own labor. Nations obtain property through the consent of the governed, or treaties, or force.

Suppose Jon Henke steals your car stereo. Most of us will agree that he committed an immoral act. Now suppose that a Mexican straddles the border between El Paso,Texas and Cuidad Juarez, Mexico, and does the Texas Two-Step over the line. Is he becoming moral/immoral - moral/immoral?

As a practical matter, as a neo-libertarian, I accept that open borders are not a feasible concept for an entitlement state like the modern US of A. I accept that reality in much the same way that I accept that I accept the reality of the Federal income tax. As a moral or philosophical matter, though, I do not consider it immoral for a man to wander from one place on the planet to another in search of better opportunity.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Captin, my point simply was that neither Michelle Malkin NOR Morris Dees have made any larger point(s) by highlighting crimes, committed BY or AGAINST illegal aliens.

This film, which I doubt is real, does not "prove" anything about illegal immigration, though appaerently Henke believes it does or at least should. Carranza in Newark neither proves nor disproves that illegal aliens are a threat to this nation....

And though Beck and I disagree about just everything, I think his point about running home and placing the tape of one’s illegal exploits on YouTube is JUST what the vigilantes would do...is a good one. Of course, it is. Hey Morris and Jon this isn’t an episode of Jack@ss nor a teen prank like "Fire in the Hole," so I really, really wonder if this is something that the vigialnte’s would really do. Let’s make a video of a capital crime, both at the state and Federal level and then let’s just put it out onto the World Wide Web. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
And how will they afford this health care plan when, according to some, even middle class Americans cannot afford health insurance?
I’m not saying it would be a great healthcare, but $2500+ they are obviously affording now could pay for insurance that prevent them from being a significant burden on a local healthcare system.
Assuming they aren’t paid under the table...
Yes, some are, the result of legal Americans illegally avoiding those pesky laws. How many Americans have housekeepers and nannies and landscapers that are illegals paid under the table? This goes back to my point about there being a market for their labor.

Who is responsible for healthcare costs of an illegal with no insurance? Perhaps we should make person who is illegally employing them responsible? Why do people employ illegals? Because it’s cheaper, of course. But if they had to pay any healthcare costs of people they illegally employ, perhaps that equation would not be so attractive and that might be a reasonable step in closing the market. Illegals are cheaper, in part, because they avoid certain living costs that typical Americans do not, and this benefits the employer, but at a cost to the community at large. Some want to blame the illegals, I don’t, I blame the fact that we have a labor market that embraces them.

How would people feel if our border vigilantes went around shooting people who employ illegals?

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Carranza in Newark neither proves nor disproves that illegal aliens are a threat to this nation....
Joe, my point in mentioning the Carranza incident was to highlight the role of the sanctuary city. If I had hidden Carranza in my house (rather than turn him over to immigration officials)and he subsequently murdered three kids would I be complicit in their murder? Carranza and the murderers in Milwaukie, Oregon had extensive law enforcement contact. Carranza had previously raped a seven year old girl. If he had been reported to ICE and detained these murders would not have happened. The sanctuary city policy contributed to their deaths. One of the illegals in Oregon was on probation. ICE was not contacted because of Oregon law.
Question for Joe, Cap and Jon. If I hide someone in my house (provide sanctuary) and that individual later commits another crime do I have any culpability?
If a sanctuary city hides a lawbreaker in their city and he subsequently murders someone do city officials bear any responsibility?
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
At a minimum, illegals are paying in, or causing to be paid into the system about 16.5% of their earnings ($2500 at minimum wage) into a Social Security system that they are not eligible for (rightly so, they are illegal), and whatever witholding is held back from their earnings because most do not file returns. Make them legal, stop making them pay SS and Medicare taxes, and require them to pay into a health care plan... it would likely be wash.
That’s cool. I’m legal, can I stop paying SS and Medicare too?
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Captin you keep ASSUMING this video is for real....

Tom I see your point, but Newark is not you and the fact is that illegals do much good in Newark, too...

So a better analogy is, you hide about 100 people in your warehouse. One is Mother Teresa, one is Ted Bundy, the rest are just average humans, how much moral opprobrium or praise do you deserve?

The crimes that Carranza committed in no way demonstrate anything about illegal immigration. Now they do suggest that once you are charged with a felony, then the sanctuary laws are a bad idea.

Personally I’m a Conservative, cultural type, who worries about mass immigration to the US, at least with the multi-culti crowd fighting assimilation, BUT I see the market need, too.

So I believe in:
1) Securing the border, yes it can be done, "securing does NOT mean 100 percent border closure to unauthorized entry;
2) A real enforcement of the labour laws, as was promised under Simpson-Mazzoli and that this administration SAYS it believes in, to include fines and jail for those that knowingly hire illegals;
3) A better system for checking the legal status of employees, I think a privatized system would be the best, plus laws that say IF you’re caught illegally in the US you get extra demerits for any future work status, green card or citizenship status.;
4) And then, once all these pieces are in place (and a lot of illegals have self-deported) yes I think that some sort of work status and residency and even citizenship is possible.

But bottom-line: none of the crimes, assuming that a crime really did occur in the video, really say anything for or against illegal immigration, they are just political emoticon designed to get you to "Feel" a certain way about the issue, not to think about the issue. But neither Carranza nor this video do anything to advance or detract from my platform or anyone’s platforms.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
There are something like 150,000 Americans in theatre in Iraq. In a population that large one would expect to find a few of every type: a few criminals; a few heros; a few suicides; a few romances, etc. As someone who supports the mission in Iraq I get annoyed when the Left avoids making substantive arguments against the strategic policy by focusing obsessively on the negative anecdotes.

There are supposedly something like 12 million illegals in the US. If we can find bad apples within a population of 150,000 people, there is no doubt in my mind that we also can find them in a population of 12 million. If we are trying to come up with a rational immigration policy it isn’t any more useful to focus on the cases of criminal aliens than it is to focus on the cases of criminal soldiers in trying to make a rational decision about the war in Iraq.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
I live in an area of high Hispanic density. I like ethnic communities. I realize the monumental task of rounding up 12 million illegals. As a starting point I suggest that, at a minimum, we have local law enforcement cooperate with ICE (it is a federal law) and detain or deport those that are committing serious crimes. Leave the hard-working illegals for some further negotiated solution. Perhaps granting of amnesty. But let’s deal with the criminal element. Every comment I posted in this thread dealt with the criminal element. Most responses are: look at the good illegals and the contribution they’re making. And I agree with that. But can’t we deal with that element that is raping and murdering our citizens and the sanctuary cities that enable them.
Some of you may have heard of Fred Thompson. Here is what he has to say.
The costs of policies that offer shelter to criminals are borne not just by the citizens of Newark, Cambridge, and other sanctuaries though. According to the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, illegal aliens made up 27 percent of the federal prison population in 2005, totaling 49,000 and costing federal taxpayers $1.2 billion. There were also more than 220,000 illegals in state and local prisons and jails. Now, I am not suggesting that all illegal aliens are violent criminals. They are not. Most are peaceful folks just trying to get by like the rest of us. But we would be far better off if we checked on people as they come into the country rather than find out who the bad ones are after they victimize people here.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
As a starting point I suggest that, at a minimum, we have local law enforcement cooperate with ICE (it is a federal law) and detain or deport those that are committing serious crimes. Leave the hard-working illegals for some further negotiated solution
.


I agree with that.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Only problem with that, Aldo is that it makes the assumption that breaking border security is not a serious crime. I submit it is.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Various people seem incapable of basic reading comprehension, so I’m not going to respond to questions about whether I really believe the video is real. I’ll assume that the people who didn’t grasp it while reading the post or my comments won’t suddenly acquire reading comprehension now.
Oh, please. Are you seriously disputing that SPLC has a bias on this issue, that might make them just a weeeee bit more likely to believe a hoax that just "happens" to conveniently support their agenda?
You’re a smart guy - one of the smartest I know - so I don’t think you really believe that whether a video is real or a hoax can be altered by websites which post it. This isn’t Schroedinger’s Video - it’s either real or a hoax. It’s not more likely to be a hoax if I post it on DU, or less likely to be a hoax if I post it on (some website you find credible).
It’s certainly illegal, but if laws are irrelevant....
Full stop. I didn’t say ’laws are irrelevant’, and I don’t wish to argue on behalf of whoever did.

Murder is bad because it violates a persons rights. Traveling across borders is not intrinsically bad because it does not, in itself, involve a violation of anybodies rights.
Either we have a moral duty to respect the law or we don’t.
We don’t. Laws do not create moral obligations. If you wan to argue otherwise, then feel free to explain how a law requiring you to become a Buddhist would create a moral obligation on your part to do so.
Either way I wouldn’t try to capitalize on it as a justification for open borders.
Commenter assumptions notwithstanding, I didn’t. But thanks for your concern.
Huh? You have one of two ways to go with that thought. Anarchy or transnationalism. What do you think provate property is? What is sovreignty?
No, I don’t think a "government" can "own property" in that way. It can create and defend legal claims, but nobodies rights are violated when an illegal immigrant walks on "government property".
Right! And then... and then, you run right home and post the bleedin’ video on You Tube. Right. Sure. That’s what I’d do!

{guffaw}
Oh, because you don’t think the border vigilantes would do something stupid like film themselves being violent and breaking laws? Yes, that’s just crazy.

I don’t know if the video is real or a hoax, but I’m also not stupid enough to think that those people wouldn’t do something like that.
As a practical matter, as a neo-libertarian, I accept that open borders are not a feasible concept for an entitlement state like the modern US of A. I accept that reality in much the same way that I accept that I accept the reality of the Federal income tax. As a moral or philosophical matter, though, I do not consider it immoral for a man to wander from one place on the planet to another in search of better opportunity.
Precisely.
That’s cool. I’m legal, can I stop paying SS and Medicare too?
You might try. It might be illegal, but it is not immoral. And if somebody shot you for doing so, I would oppose it even though you were breaking the law.
They may not be here to take but they certainly are taking the money of taxpayers.
In that case, your objection is to welfare, not to illegal immigration. They are conceptually distinct. If it is wrong to take the "money of taxpayer", then the issue is your acceptance of taxpayer money - nationality is irrelevant.
As a starting point I suggest that, at a minimum, we have local law enforcement cooperate with ICE (it is a federal law) and detain or deport those that are committing serious crimes. Leave the hard-working illegals for some further negotiated solution. Perhaps granting of amnesty. But let’s deal with the criminal element.
I can agree with that. I’ve said so in the past - our border policy should involve checking the background and/or records of entrants, and turning away those with connections to terrorism or significant criminal records. Similarly, any migrant committing a crime in the US should be subject to return.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Haven’t we tried this amnesty thing before? I don’t remember it ever working out so good. SO WHY THE HELL ARE SO MANY PEOPLE READY TO DO IT AGAIN?

Since when has being a hard worker a good excuse to breaking laws? I work hard. What kind of laws do I get to break? Will any of you stick up for me when I break them?

OK, let’s just give amnesty to people who are mostly the tan equivalent of white or black trash. They don’t have and never will have any allegiance to this country and generally they haven’t shown any ambition towards learning our language or any other educational endeavour. Don’t we have enough problems with our own locally grown ignoramuses to even be thinking of making millions more legit?

Now as far as the video is concerned IF it’s for real I hope the perps get caught and thrown in prison for a long,long time. I just want them to leave...not get shot. -unless they’re an MS-13 member ;)
 
Written By: Toddk
URL: http://
Jon Henke wrote:
You’re a smart guy - one of the smartest I know - so I don’t think you really believe that whether a video is real or a hoax can be altered by websites which post it.
It very much is Schrodinger’s Video. We do not have the information to definitively collapse the function. But coming via the SPLC does nothing to increase it’s credibility.

It damages the credibility of the video.

Consider the source indeed.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
No, I don’t think a "government" can "own property" in that way. It can create and defend legal claims, but nobodies rights are violated when an illegal immigrant walks on "government property".
Which would seem to ignore why the criminal is here, and the consequences for their being here to those who are in the country legally... both in terms of finances, services, taxes, jobs, and so on. Do you really intend to ignore all that? It’s called ’theft’ Jon. Last I knew, that’s a criminal action.

And let’s put a finer edge on this, by eliminating the phrase "illegal immigrant". There is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant”. Either they are immigrants, who arrived here and live here legally, or they are criminals. The former, are entitled to everything that our society offers, provided that they are willing to become citizens, which by nature of the word, would include learning the language, and adopting the United States, culturally, as well as financially. The latter are entitled to nothing whatsoever. they’re breaking our laws when they break into our country. Is it logical for them to expect to be protected by the laws that they are breaking?




 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
No. But there are clearly many in this country using the issue of securing borders to promote "hate".
And by those lights are we guided, as to which constitutes which?
Finally, we will give this a libertarian twist... Is it more moral for the state to perform those functions?
Yes. Most libertarians (not anarchists) understand that the use of force by the state to provided defense for citizens against enemies and criminals is a legitimate function of the state ("provide for the common defense, secure the blessings of liberty... " etc). In fact, recognizing that force is inherent in all state actions is a way to distinguish between legitimate actions of the state vs. non-legitimate. Is it legitimate to use force to defend yourself, your property, your country? Yes. It is also legitimate for the state to do so as a proxy for it’s citizens. Is it legitimate to use force to take property and give it to another? No. then it is also not legitimate for the state to do so.
Fine. Then here’s the other half of this Poser: what happens when the government falls down into its responsibility to that point? is the citizens taking those tasks into their own hands a legit action?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Huh? You have one of two ways to go with that thought. Anarchy or transnationalism. What do you think provate property is? What is sovreignty?
No, I don’t think a "government" can "own property" in that way. It can create and defend legal claims, but nobodies rights are violated when an illegal immigrant walks on "government property".
Wow. So many incorrect statements, so little time:

(1) Government can, and does, own property "in that way". Visit the Wash., D.C. Mall sometime, or take a stroll through the White House. Go to a National Park. They are all owned by the U.S. Government. In fact, go ahead a do a title search on a piece of property some time and you’ll find that outside the original 13 colonies, all title traces back to the U.S. government. Land that is not owned by an individual, or a State, is owned by the federal government in this country.

(2) "It [the government] can create and defend legal claims, ...": Yeah, well that’s what "property" is — legal claims.

(3) "... nobodies rights are violated when an illegal immigrant walks on ’government property.’" Of course they are, Jon. That’s exactly what trespass is. The latin translation (quare clausum fregit)is "breaking the close" which means crossing the invisible border delineating a person’s property. When an "illegal" (as if that wasn’t a clue) takes a walk on government property, to which he was specifically not invited, he is trespassing. Ergo, he is violating everyone’s right to exclude him from the property.

Furthermore, what’s at issue here is not some one out for a stroll. They are specifically entering the country (i.e. trespassing) to stay here, uninvited. They then intend to send back money and then go back themselves, and then they will do it all over again, and again.

Perhaps they want a better life, but they’re not doing anything to improve the situation where they come from. Instead of breaking our laws to improve their lot in life, why don’t they (a) enter legally, or (b) fix their own country?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
You’re a smart guy - one of the smartest I know - so I don’t think you really believe that whether a video is real or a hoax can be altered by websites which post it.
No one is arguing causation, anymore than anyone argues that smoke causes fire. The symptoms are rarely if ever the cause of the disease, but that doesn’t mean doctors should ignore obvious symptoms while attempting to diagnose a disease. Correlation, not causation, is key.

Look, if there were any independent basis for validating the video, I’d agree that the fact that SLPC runs it is irrelevant to its credibility. But when you have a video with all the trappings of a hoax, SLPC itself conceding that it may well be, and no other major media source daring to run it at all, the smart money says it’s for a reason.
No, I don’t think a "government" can "own property" in that way. It can create and defend legal claims, but nobodies rights are violated when an illegal immigrant walks on "government property".


Nobody’s, or everybody’s? We all pay taxes to support government land, and besides, it’s not as though illegals are all that respectful of private property, either. Just ask anyone who owns property near the border.
We don’t [have a moral duty to obey laws]. Laws do not create moral obligations. If you wan to argue otherwise, then feel free to explain how a law requiring you to become a Buddhist would create a moral obligation on your part to do so.
Such a "law" would be blatantly unconstitutional, and therefore wouldn’t be a law at all. In a country where it is constitutional, I’d argue that the moral duty to be true to oneself obligates every non-Buddhist to violate that immoral law. It certainly was the duty of every good German (not the proverbial Good Germans (TM) but the truly good ones) to violate Nazi edicts anyway they could. But just because we may have a moral duty to violate inherently immoral laws, that doesn’t excuse us from our general obligation to obey moral or amoral ones.
Commenter assumptions notwithstanding, I didn’t [try to capitalize on this video as a justification for open borders]. But thanks for your concern.
I’m sure that wasn’t your intent, but I can scarcely blame commenters for concluding otherwise, given that this:
The shooter and everybody involved should be imprisoned for life.
was immediately followed by this:
The United States would be far better off with millions of illegal immigrants living freely in our country....and one less of each of the people behind this video.
Granted, you never came out and said there was any logical connection between Sentence #1 and Sentence #2, but people tend to organize paragraphs that way.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
I think we’re talking about two very different conceptions of property, and property operating under very different rules. I understand the nature of trespass, but I seriously doubt you think a Mexican entering the United States is genuinely equivalent to a burglar entering your home.

I can’t recall it at the moment, but there’s a Latin term for ’because it’s against the law VS because it’s bad’ that applies here.
Perhaps they want a better life, but they’re not doing anything to improve the situation where they come from. Instead of breaking our laws to improve their lot in life, why don’t they (a) enter legally, or (b) fix their own country?
I don’t know. Reasons probably vary, but I would venture to say it is because (a) we make it very, very difficult to enter legally through numerical and process restrictions, and (b) for the same reasons that anarcho-capitalists and Libertarians have to break the law to pursue their ethical interests, rather than "fixing" the United States - the former is in their power, the latter isn’t.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
I think we’re talking about two very different conceptions of property, and property operating under very different rules. I understand the nature of trespass, but I seriously doubt you think a Mexican entering the United States is genuinely equivalent to a burglar entering your home.
It’s certainly equivalent to a street punk trespassing on my property, sure. Ask anyone who owns property near the border, and they’ll tell you it’s not only equivalent to trespassing on their property, it frequently involves trespassing on their property.
I can’t recall it at the moment, but there’s a Latin term for ’because it’s against the law VS because it’s bad’ that applies here.
That would be malum in se (bad in itself) vs. malum prohibitum (bad because it’s prohibited). Tellingly, both are bad.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
I don’t know. Reasons probably vary, but I would venture to say it is because (a) we make it very, very difficult to enter legally through numerical and process restrictions, and (b) for the same reasons that anarcho-capitalists and Libertarians have to break the law to pursue their ethical interests, rather than "fixing" the United States - the former is in their power, the latter isn’t.
You can justify car theft with the same argument: (a) we make it very difficult for a poor person to buy a car because it’s so expensive and (b) poor people must break the law to pursue their interests, so they may steal a car rather than buy it: the former is in their power, and the latter isn’t.


As Xlrq and others have pointed out here, illegal immigration amounts to theft: using resources paid for by taxpayers. Not every illegal immigrant uses resources to the same extent, but it’s a net loss. Hospitals, schools, and anything else society pays for end up stressed because of people who came here illegally. On top of that, there’s a pretty high crime rate among illegal immigrants. So, you can say one man is coming here to better his life, but it’s just as valid to say he’s coming here to avail himself and his family to government services and then commit crimes.


All that aside, any argument for fully open borders is just insane from a security vantage point.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
I think we’re talking about two very different conceptions of property, and property operating under very different rules.
Well I’m talking about the legal definition and concept of property, which come to think of it is the only one. I don’t know what you’re talking about, but if you want to use a different concept you should probably define things at the beginning.
I understand the nature of trespass, but I seriously doubt you think a Mexican entering the United States is genuinely equivalent to a burglar entering your home.
It does depend on the circumstances, but frankly they are not as different as you’re pretending them to be. Look at it another way, if the case in question involved not one man crossing the border, but hundreds, would your analysis be any different? What if it was 1,000’s? Hundreds of thousands? At what point does "crossing the border for a better life" turn into "an invasion"? I think perhaps you are too caught up in the scale between one guy breaking into one house and one guy breaking into one country.
I can’t recall it at the moment, but there’s a Latin term for ’because it’s against the law VS because it’s bad’ that applies here.
Malum prohibitem vs. malum in se — this really has to do with the punishment fitting the crime, which is the one issue everyone on this board has agreed upon, including those you called out in the subsequent post. But that doesn’t have anything to do with whether we should have open borders, or whether we should reform our immigration laws.
I don’t know. Reasons probably vary, but I would venture to say it is because (a) we make it very, very difficult to enter legally through numerical and process restrictions, and (b) for the same reasons that anarcho-capitalists and Libertarians have to break the law to pursue their ethical interests, rather than "fixing" the United States - the former is in their power, the latter isn’t.
Again, changing the existing immigration scheme is a great idea, for exactly the reasons you state, but using a bogus video of some psychos committing murder isn’t the best way to introduce that argument. In doing so, you automatically put those who are against open borders on the same side as the psychos. That’s an unfair and unwarranted characterization of the position.

As far as what’s within the illegal’s power, they have a lot more power over what their government does than we do. Why should we have to jeopardize our safety and subsidize their government’s failings if they won’t do it for themselves? If they don’t want to fix their government, fine. But they shouldn’t expect us to forego enforcing our country’s borders because they don’t want to do so. Frankly, I’d be more sympathetic if (a) they were mostly coming here to stay, (b) they didn’t call those who want to secure our borders racists, (c) they didn’t make claims such as this is really their land (see, e.g. MEChA and Aztlan), and (d) they made some effort to assimilate.

Personally, I’d love to have open borders for immigration, and if it weren’t for the rather obvious security problems, I’d argue strenuously for it. As it is, we certainly can and should do more to both allow more immigrants and make it easier to become a citizen. Of course, the counter-argument is that we would simply be enabling kleptocracies and other forms of tyrannical government to flourish without any indigenous opposition (who would all leave for here, presumably), because we would lower the costs of such governments.

In any case, the video you introduced was not a good way to bring up the topic.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
I can’t recall it at the moment, but there’s a Latin term for ’because it’s against the law VS because it’s bad’ that applies here.
Which, I would take you to mean that you consider our immigration laws to be based in something other than what’s right, or needed?

Are there are legitimate and moral reasons for securing the border, Jon?

Do you understand what border security is all about? Or, are you one of these who figures the whole thing has to do with racism or are some nonsense of that order?










 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Personally, I’d love to have open borders for immigration, and if it weren’t for the rather obvious security problems
Well, that’s only part of the concern. The rest of it, has to do with the amount of benefits tendered to citizens by government largess. Without the security, a goodly chunk of those benefits and up going not two people who are actually paying taxes, or even citizens, but rather people pouring in over the border.

And before you start, yes the obvious solution is to shut off that government largess. When you manage to find a way to do that, get back to us. In the meantime, we need to keep the security of, or we’re going to end up breaking the system and the taxpayer both at once.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Well I’m talking about the legal definition and concept of property, which come to think of it is the only one. I don’t know what you’re talking about, but if you want to use a different concept you should probably define things at the beginning.
Michael, really. There is no such thing as separate conceptions of private property and public property? They’re identical under the law? If there’s no difference, why the distinction?
What if it was 1,000’s? Hundreds of thousands? At what point does "crossing the border for a better life" turn into "an invasion"? I think perhaps you are too caught up in the scale between one guy breaking into one house and one guy breaking into one country.
Answer: When those persons are carrying weapons for the express purpose of harming us.

I think you are too caught up in the scale if you think that the sheer number of roofers and drywall hangers and lettuce pickers transforms them into "1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army." Now there are other definitions for "invasion," but certainly this is the only definition that could be reasonably argued to justify the use of deadly force against another human being.

A kid coming into my yard to fetch his baseball which went over the fence is technically breaking the law, he’s trespassing. At what point do kids coming into my yard to retrieve their toys an invasion (and can thus be shot)? 100? 10,000? Even if a few of them are troublemakers or even criminals?

yours/
peter.


 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: www.liberalcapitalist.com
Jon,

Our country is governed democratically where the individuals governed consent to governance with the understanding that the governance will be on our behalf and with our direction. We as a society have agreed on certain laws to order our society; those laws include the regulation of means used to enter our society. The borders of our society are set when individuals with a controlling interest in certain properties choose to join the society under the currently established and agreed upon laws.

When you insist that those outside the society have a right to determine the validity of laws agreed upon within the society, then you negate the validity of our entire system of government.

Either the people have the right to order their society as they see fit, or they do not.
 
Written By: NewEnglandDevil
URL: http://
Michael, really. There is no such thing as separate conceptions of private property and public property? They’re identical under the law? If there’s no difference, why the distinction?
The concept of property is the same; who owns the property rights is the difference. The most fundamental property right is the right to exclude. This is the same whether it is public o private.
I think you are too caught up in the scale if you think that the sheer number of roofers and drywall hangers and lettuce pickers transforms them into "1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army." Now there are other definitions for "invasion," but certainly this is the only definition that could be reasonably argued to justify the use of deadly force against another human being.
Except I havn’t expressed any concern about what jobs they do, and I didn’t try to justify using deadly force against them. I was simply attempting to illustrate why Jon’s statement ["No, I don’t think a "government" can "own property" in that way. It can create and defend legal claims, but nobodies rights are violated when an illegal immigrant walks on "government property"] was wrong. With respect to the similarities with a burglary, it also misses the point to claim that the land being traversed belongs to the government. The government has the right to exclude people from its property, and certainly may set limits on who may be invited. When those rules are broken, then people’s rights are violated. It’s just that simple.
A kid coming into my yard to fetch his baseball which went over the fence is technically breaking the law, he’s trespassing. At what point do kids coming into my yard to retrieve their toys an invasion (and can thus be shot)? 100? 10,000? Even if a few of them are troublemakers or even criminals?
Answer: once you have a reasonable fear of deadly harm or maiming.

However, it should be noted that you have acknowledged the trespass in this instance, whereas Jon has been having trouble identifying an illegal’s crossing the border as such.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Answer: When those persons are carrying weapons for the express purpose of harming us.
So, harm requires weapons?

Since when?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
However, it should be noted that you have acknowledged the trespass in this instance, whereas Jon has been having trouble identifying an illegal’s crossing the border as such.
This goes back to malum in se versus malaum prohibitum.

Trespass is a violation of property rights, and like theft and murder, would be considered malum in se, evil because it is evil.

But murder and theft and trespass cannot be decriminalized. If the State of Texas repealed their laws against murder, murder would still be a crime, and indeed before any had passed a law prohibiting murder, it was still a crime.

Immigrating into the the US without permission was not a crime for most of this nations history, and there is no argument to suggest that because there was no legislation on the books to prevent people from entering the US, it still represented the crime of trespass. Therefore, illegal immigrants are not guilty of the malum in se crime of trespass. They are guilty of the malum prohibitum crime of illegal immigration. It is only a crime because it is prohibited.

None of this is to say that as a nation, we do not have the right to have malum prohibitum laws, of course we do, and obviously a right to enforce malum prohibitum laws. But to equate violators of malum prohibitum laws with violators of malum in se laws by calling them both criminals, is to dilute the meaning of the term, "Criminal", as has been done here, in the equation of murder and illegal immigration. Noting the difference between an illegal and a real criminal is NOT ignoring one law while addressing another, it is addrssing the fact that the law making an immigrant illegal is a POLICY backed by law, not evil in itself.

There are good arguments for many different positions on immigration policy from open borders to closed borders and many points in between. But arguing that they should not be allowed because they are criminals as a result of violating a malum prohibitum law as they enter a labor market that embraces them is a poor, poor argument.

The welfare state argument is a slightly better argument against immigration, and although welfare programs that illegal immigrants could possibly avail themselves of make up a tiny fraction of our national budget, it’s still true that immigrants, illegal and otherwise, can take advantage of food stamps, WICS, and some other welfare programs. Some argue that this stress on the system is good, they sugegst that we go ahead and overwhelm it and cause it’s collapse. Others say that no one should be entitled to these programs, so an illegal immigrant is no LESS deserving than an American citizen (you can’t be less deserving that one who is not deserving at all).

But the reality is that our biggest problem with illegal immigration is the conspiracy that illegals and employers enter into, skirting all of the costs that make legal employment in the United States cost so much more than illegal employment, and taxes (federal, state, local) are just the tip of the iceberg. If I go get an illegal immigrant to mow my lawn for cash under the table, the legal landscaper is at a huge disadvantage. The legal landscaper has real costs that the illegal does not, and so the legal landscaper is not competing on a level playing field, and can be driven out of business, unfairly, even if he were to lower his prices to compete with the illegals, because his costs of merely being legal can reduce his margins to negative margins.

Forget everything else you think about immigration, if you don’t have closing this part of the labor market as the top priority, the worst effects of illegal immigration will continue even if we built the Great Wall of China across the Mexico-US border.

We have built it, they WILL come. Consider our willingness to illegally employ immigrants an attractive nuisance. When a homeowner builds a swimming pool, his insurance company will require him to build a fence around it. No one believes that the fence will keep people out, all it does is eliminate his liability should someone go swimming without permission. If you actually wanted to stop people from swimming, you drain the pool. Not a perfect analogy, but the point is that unless we drain the pool of opportunity for ILLEGAL employment, no fence or border patrols, or murdering vigilantes (real or invented) will stop the worst aspects of illegal immigration.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Trespass is a violation of property rights, and like theft and murder, would be considered malum in se, evil because it is evil.
...
It is only a crime because it is prohibited.
All of which ignores the theft that is inherently incidental to their arrival here. Neat little denial you have going, there.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
All of which ignores the theft that is inherently incidental to their arrival here. Neat little denial you have going, there.
I was unaware that trading one’s for another’s money in a voluntary transaction of mutual consent constitutes theft.

Or are you now going to make the case that all illegal immigrants are fraudulantly claiming welfare benefits? Illegals are actually legally allowed (I won’t use the word entitled, because I don’t think anyone, legal or illegal is entitled) to avail themselves to elements of the nation’s welfare system. So the only malum in se criminals in this scenario would be people who perpetrate a fraud to illegally acquire benefits (theft).

When an illegal commits fraud in order to trade their labor, it is again malum in se, as it is a fact that prior to requiring a Social Security number in order to work in America, it was not a crime to work without a Social Security number. And by the way, when illegals do this, they DO pay into the system, though they may not participate in the system.

It is not a "neat little denial", it is an accurate portrayal.

Your inference that all illegals steal is the fallacious argument here, unless of course, you can prove it.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I was unaware that trading one’s for another’s money in a voluntary transaction of mutual consent constitutes theft.
So we are, apparently, to forget that taxes are involved... both from the aspect that in majority, illegal aliens don’t pay any taxes other than perhaps sales tax, and they receive much in the way of U.S. government support, also costs taxpayer dollars. It’s called "theft".

As I say, the little denial you have going. This is one you’re not going to get around.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
So we are, apparently, to forget that taxes are involved... both from the aspect that in majority, illegal aliens don’t pay any taxes other than perhaps sales tax, and they receive much in the way of U.S. government support, also costs taxpayer dollars. It’s called "theft".
No, again you are wrong, most illegal immigrants DO pay taxes, they pay SS, Medicare, and witholding, but they do not get refunds, participation in SS or Medicare.

The illegals who trade their labor "under the table" do so in conspiracy with legal Americans, and you cannot accuse of ignoring or forgetting this fact, in fact, I have said that it is the single worst affect of illegal immigration.

Perhaps you recall my words from the very comments you responded to...
But the reality is that our biggest problem with illegal immigration is the conspiracy that illegals and employers enter into, skirting all of the costs that make legal employment in the United States cost so much more than illegal employment, and taxes (federal, state, local) are just the tip of the iceberg. If I go get an illegal immigrant to mow my lawn for cash under the table, the legal landscaper is at a huge disadvantage. The legal landscaper has real costs that the illegal does not, and so the legal landscaper is not competing on a level playing field, and can be driven out of business, unfairly, even if he were to lower his prices to compete with the illegals, because his costs of merely being legal can reduce his margins to negative margins.

Forget everything else you think about immigration, if you don’t have closing this part of the labor market as the top priority, the worst effects of illegal immigration will continue even if we built the Great Wall of China across the Mexico-US border.
Illegal immigrants are not guilty of this theft when they cross the border, they are guilty when they enter in the conspiracy with Americans. Now, do you think that the illegals desire to trade their labor ilegally? They do not earn more than they would if they traded their labor illegally, their take home would be about the same, but all of the benefot goes to the employer, who gets to avoid paying taxes and other costs associated with legally employment.

As long as this market embraces illegals, there will be illegals to be embraced by it.
and they receive much in the way of U.S. government support
No more than any American who works "under the table" could avail themselves of, and no more or less criminal, but certainly more likely, as Americans seem to seek out illegals to enter into these conspiracies. As I said, We have built it, they WILL come.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You’re assuming their pay is always ’over the table"
I make no such assumption
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Assuming they aren’t paid under the table...
Scott Jacobs
You’re assuming their pay is always ’over the table"
Bithead


Obviously, I am assuming some of both, and have addressed both. But it’s been fun.

I know it’s cool, and conservative-like, to be taking some dramatic action against agents of discord in the open range of dusty border, but I have shown, over and over again, that the agent of discord is US, not them. We invite them in (albeit through the back door, in the back of the bus), and no one here seems to realize that if we stop inviting them, they will stop coming, and no matter how many fences will build, and no matter how many patrols we put on the border, as long as we continue to invite them, they WILL come.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider