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

 
Border Vigilantes
Posted by: Jon Henke on Friday, August 17, 2007

Last night, I wrote a post pointing to what appeared to be a video of border vigilantes shooting an illegal immigrant. (UPDATE: thankfully, the video was found to be a hoax, perpetrated by a Minuteman group) Two comments to that post deserve to be exposed to sunlight...

  1. "Look, America is our home. Our house, if you will. If someone breaks into my home at night, I’l shooting them. [...] 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..."

  2. "That said, a few more of these may be a very effective deterrent against illegal immigration."

There is no excuse and no defense for this, and it is not welcome in our comments.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The whole quote of one of the interestingly ellipsed comment phrases abive is:
Murder is wrong

That said, a few more of these may be a very effective deterrent against illegal immigration.
I wonder if Jon’s tenditious condemnation of the truth is intended to benefit Jon’s campaign employer more than either fairness or truth in debate.

Both sentences I quote above are the truth.

Jon, are you willing to sacrifice your integrity and the integrity of this blog for a modicum of PC palatableness?

It will convince none to whom PC is important, and it is just that, a loss of integrity.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
There needs to be a whole debate on the subject of who actually owns the USA, and who gets to say who comes in and who doesn’t. Who has a stake in the USA ?
 
Written By: blewyn
URL: http://
My blogging is not intended to "benefit" my employer. Were it so, I would blog about my employer or about my clients. I do not do so, and I disclose any conflict I have when I blog something related to one of them.

I’m glad he said murder is wrong. It doesn’t excuse the rationalization that followed.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
It doesn’t excuse the rationalization that followed.
Calling it a rationalization doesn’t make it one.

It is a literal statement of truth.

And as for your independent blogging, good for you...

...but I don’t believe it.

You are working for a politician. I am predisposed to like your politician, but you are in a position where like it or not, nothing you publicly do—and likely many things you do privately—reflect on him. I have no doubt you are aware of that. This as a variable of unknown magnitude to be considered when thinking of your motives for the public statements you make.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
"privately—reflect on him" /= "privately—does not reflect on him" Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
And Jon I don’t believe the video...of course this one is true...Jesse MacBeth anyone S T Beauchamp, anyone.

You have any proof of its accuracy? Or does it just SEEM "truthy" to you? OF COURSE, those opposed to illegal immigration would commit a murder and post it on the worldwide web. I mean it’s stunningly obvious they are racist, bigots, they MUST be they oppose the Henke position on illegal immigration, and as racist bigots, violent racist bigots, they are incredbly stupid as well. So they killed someone and made a reocrd of it and posted it on the Web, thereby ensuring that their crime, a CAPITAL OFFENSE, will be seen by potentially millions of people...of course none of those would be ILLEGAL ALIENS, after all the poor huddled masses, in Mexicon don’t have a lot of Web access, just the folks who’d want to have them proscecuted.

So right now Jon, just come down off your high horse, there, Mr Foer and let’s take a breath, because I am pretty much willing if you keep hyper-ventilating like this you’re just going to end up looking Foer. I could be wrong, here but I believe this is a hox. If it isn’t I’ll be glad to send you my personal information so that I can abase myself on your website and admit my error.

But until then, this is just an Andrew Sullivan emotional screed on your part, built out of the beliefs you project onto your opponents, IMO.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"I believe this is a hox." /= "I believe this is a hoax"

You have my sympathies. Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
I guess I just don’t get Mr. Henke’s point. I am certain that many of the ascerbic comments made here are not "welcome" [!!]. Ask yourself what would be the point of the magazine if only comments that were "welcome" were permitted to exist?

What is the purpose of this magazine having comments?

Mr. Henke seems to wish to sponsor a claque?

Perhaps it is only "insurgents" who are politically correctly authorized to publish without blame statements about killing those who are behaving in ways that they do not approve?

Those questions being asked, so long as the "offensive" comments are not deleted, IMHO Mr. Henke is perfectly within his rights to characterize them in any way he wishes. What is the problem?

P.S.

I think Joe nailed it.
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
You have any proof of its accuracy? Or does it just SEEM "truthy" to you?
Look, ass, I’ve made it perfectly clear that I don’t know if the video shows a murder or a hoax. I said that in the initial post, and repeated it in the comment section for those with poor reading comprehension - you, for example. Perhaps it is a hoax, and - as I said in the very first post - I hope it is.

I would further note that I said nothing about racism in either of these posts. But if you want to argue that there are no racists in the border debate, I’ll be glad to listen to your argument...and perhaps publish it on the front page alongside evidence to the contrary. I don’t think you’ll take that deal, though, because you know full well that there are some racists and xenophobes. Like, for example, some of the people behind border vigilantism - in that video, or in others.

And speaking of "beliefs you project onto your opponents"....I have never even remotely suggested that concern about border issues required racism. I think you know that full well, so you’re either a liar or...actually, I can’t think of any other excuse. You’re unconcerned about the truth.

Feel free to wander away and don’t come back.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
"Look, ass..."
QED
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
You have any proof of its accuracy? Or does it just SEEM "truthy" to you?
Look, ass, I’ve made it perfectly clear that I don’t know if the video shows a murder or a hoax. I said that in the initial post, and repeated it in the comment section for those with poor reading comprehension - you, for example. Perhaps it is a hoax, and - as I said in the very first post - I hope it is.
Well ASS why the HELL did you post it then? How about this, ASS, if I find any stories or video demonstrating Jon Henke is a drunken child molestor shall I post it? I will simply post the disclaimer that I don’t know if it’s a hox or not, but I thought I would post it.....

You post a video that shows a purported murder, use that video then to post some screed about how this man was only coming to America for a better life, was he REALLY, how do we know? The purpose of your posting is to support, no DISCREDFIT your opponents and then you get grumpy when we say, "Whoa, this is most likely a hoax." You posted it for a reason, for the same reason Foer posted the Baghdad Diarist, for the same reason Malkin plays up the murders and crimes of ILLEGALS. The difference being, Malkin and her ilk can at least point out that their emotional appeals are based upon FACT, not some dubious vdeo, that can not now be seen and that was posted at a site not known for it’s support of controlled borders.

So yes it matters if the video is fake or not, and it was YOUR RESPONSIBILIY, just like it was Foer’s to determine the validity of the submission that is being used to buttress your position.

Sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you...Please note I never called you YOU an "Ass". What I say is that all this is simply Bullsh*te right now...and it has no place in a debate on illegal immigration. You got busted and now you’re lashing out, because you don’t like being called on a filthy and illogical debating tactic. Call me an "Ass" again and watch me spend an inordinate amount of time cursing on YOUR POSTS, and what will you do ban me, for being abusive? You want respect, you want debate, then behave respectfully and debate well, don’t call your detractors Asses and don’t post items of dubious provenance in order to score cheap points. Because when you start doing that Sh*te you become no better than Jane Hamsher and that’s no compliment.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Respectful silence.
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
These aren’t hoaxes:
http://patterico.com/category/deport-the-criminals-first/

"Another Suspect in the Newark Triple Murder Is a Foreign National with a Record"
"Illegal Alien Stands Accused of Killing Three People While Out on Bail Instead of Being Held on Immigration Violations"
"12-Year-Old Zina Linnik Pays for Your Government’s Failure to Deport Criminals with Her Life"
"Illegal Gangster Arrested 27 Times Without Deportation Before (Allegedly) Murdering 13-Year-Old"
"Danny Sims Killed By Illegal DUI Driver One Week After the Illegal’s Previous DUI Conviction"

An anti-illegal movement may spawn a some nutjobs who need to be put behind bars if this is true. But it is a short list compared to the crime we’re allowing to enter the US in search of their dream.

So back to the very original question, putting an end to illegal immigration is still worth it even if it regrettably means a couple of wackjobs abuse the situation and commit murder because far more is committed because it is permitted.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
And nice title, "Border Vigilantes". Must be tough lifting that broad brush.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I posted it to criticize the men behind the video. If it was real, they are murderers. If it was fake, they are sick people.

From there, you began to lie about what I actually said. And you continue to do so. I won’t hesitate to call you an ass for doing that.

And if you want to continue doing so, I don’t have any problem with banning you, either. I used to find value in providing a place for people to talk, but after watching people variously lie about me or defend murder, I’m just not as keen about being a gracious host for your benefit.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Is it possible to be a troll on ones own blog?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Evidently, why, yes it is.

Seriously Tim, did you read any comments quoted here as defending the cold blooded murder of an immigrant as depicted in the tape?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
"I don’t have any problem with banning you, either."
Mr. Henke, you miserable pr*ck; keep on f*ck*ing up this magazine with commentary like this and you will deserve getting canned from your new employment ala the two ladies.

Really, I mean that kindly.

saracasm/humor alert
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
" did you read any comments quoted here as defending the cold blooded murder of ..."

No, but I have only been skimming the comments for a while now. I lost interest yesterday. The video is a hoax, so what is the point?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Jon,

If you don’t believe in national sovereignty, or national integrity, just say so. If you feel that immigration laws should not exist, or be enforced, just say so.

In which case, I need to ask Mr. Thompson if your views are similar to his. He may say yes, he may say no, but he needs to answer.

Now, where I live, if someone comes in my house uninvited, I can shoot him dead. If someone comes on my property and damages it, likewise.

Finally, as to the Southern Poverty Law Center. I lived in Montgomery AL for 30+ years. I am very well acquainted with Morris Dees and his organization. He is a professional race hustler, and he has gathered a whole group of similar minions. He has a track record of distortion, lies, and incitement even worse than Al Sharpton’s. I wouldn’t believe a word he says on any subject.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
"If you don’t believe in national sovereignty, or national integrity, just say so. If you feel that immigration laws should not exist, or be enforced, just say so.

Now, where I live, if someone comes in my house uninvited, I can shoot him dead. If someone comes on my property and damages it, likewise."

It doesn’t matter whether the video is a hoax or not, but are you actually equating the shooting of a trespasser with that of an illegal immigrant? The first is self-defense and the second is murderous vigilanteism.

Seriously, these are some of the worst comments I’ve ever read on this (great) blog
 
Written By: Gregoir
URL: http://
Seriously, these are some of the worst comments I’ve ever read on this (great) blog.
Some of them are pretty bad, and some of them in this thread are endorsing murder by way of roughly comparing shooting a burglar dead (AOK if there is a good reason, like—heading for your family, has a weapon, attacks someone) and illegal immigration. The two situations are different, very different.

I don’t recall it being put that way in the thread Jon Henke quoted.

So some of these comments are evil.

Jon Henke’s however, are also among the least intelligent. Pointing out a true, even inevitable consequence of a video like this is not the same as endorsing the acts depicted, even if it tends to be a positive result.

There is no quote he’s made in this post which claims it is anything other than a net negative.

He is trolling his own blog.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Now, where I live, if someone comes in my house uninvited, I can shoot him dead. If someone comes on my property and damages it, likewise.
That is a bad analogy. In the first place, it is not even accurate: There is not any state in the union that allows property owners to execute people who trespass on their property.

Second, if a man sneaks into your house you may have reasonable cause to fear that your family’s lives and property are in danger, but if a man sneaks into the upper half of the North American continent you do not have the same reasonable cause to fear him.

If a man commits a crime of violence he should be punished accordingly, regardless of his immigration status. If a man has overstayed his visa, he should not be punished as if he has committed a crime of violence.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
It’s called "theft", Aldo.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
And if you want to continue doing so, I don’t have any problem with banning you, either.
Thank you Markos Moulitsas Zuniga...insult your readers and then ban them! I say you might want to add a "Screw them" somewhere along the line.



I used to find value in providing a place for people to talk, but after watching people variously lie about me or defend murder, I’m just not as keen about being a gracious host for your benefit.
You were being a GRACIOUS host, dude if you’re gracious today remind me to avoid the bad hair days. Oh we "lied" did we, you just SMEARED your opponents with a dubious piece of video, and you got problems with the fact we call you on it? What else WAS the point of video posting, otherwise?

You did EXACTLY the same thing Foer did at TNR, with the Baghdad Diarist. Under the guise of "news" you release things that are designed to make your opponents look horrific. Like Foer you get called on it and like Foer you get all angry...how about this Jon, why don’t you demonstrate the truth of the video. Oh here’s an idea, since you’re acting like TNR, call up some video camera manufacturers and see if it’s possible to film in those light conditions? Or you could contact someone who says their a Minuteman and see if they can confirm the reported shootings. That way you can conclusively state you have fact-checked yourself and that this video is truthful and that you stand behind it.

I have to agree, you ARE trolling on a portion of your own website! Astonishing...Either that or you have become so emotionally involved in your illegal immigration position that like the Nutroots crew you can no longer rationally debate, but instead have to threaten bannings and curse your opponents.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It’s called "theft", Aldo.
I honestly do not understand this logic, Bithead. I have to go out for the day, but if you would be willing to elaborate I promise to read your response and consider it when I come home tonight.

My perspective is that a man who crawls under the barbed wire at the border has not stolen anything from you or violated you in any way. Let me add the assumption that you are a plumber. Twenty years ago you made a decent, middle-class income as a plumber. Due to competition from illegal aliens willing to work for lower wages your plumbing business folded. Did the illegals steal anything from you? When I tell people that there is no fundamental or Constitutional right to free medical care I do not want to minimize the legitimate concerns of people who can not afford medical care that they or their family may need. By they same token, I do not minimize the plight of people who are hurt by economic competition, but I still maintain that the government does not owe you a middle-class living as a plumber.

In my view, you are trying to stake a moral claim here where none exists. Immigration is purely a political and legal issue, obviously with economic ramifications. If an illegal immigrant stole the fruit of your labor it is theft. His existence in your community is not theft.

People keep crying, "It’s the law!" On a micro level, that makes sense. If Pedro broke an immigration law he should face whatever consequences that law specifies. On a macro level, though, when we are discussing how the immigration laws and policies should be configured that is almost an absurdity. It is like saying, "That is the status quo!" Ok. So what? The current configuration only dates back to 1986. To some people here that may seem like the Flintstone Era, but it wasn’t really that long ago. The law could be changed again, just as easily as it was in 1986. The debate should consider how the law should be configured.

When we change the immigration laws again we should naturally take into account national security considerations. It seems to me that the threat is disproportionately coming from Islamic areas of the world, so I see no need to limit immigration from Mexico on that basis. Ahmed Ressam came across the Canadian border. The 9/11 attackers came in on visas. But the Minutemen are deployed on the Mexican border.

Obviously, the US is now an entitlement state, and American taxpayers cannot support the world’s indigent masses, but what of people who are self-supporting, even successful? Obviously, we don’t want criminals, but what of law abiding people who have family and roots here? Maybe, we can try to use immigration to protect the wages of American workers, but the best way to do that might be to allow illegals already here to come out of the underground economy, so that they would have to be given the same wages and benefits as other workers. And what of industries that have shortages of labor?

When you have a river on your land you either leave it alone, dam it up, or divert it to where you need water. You don’t curse the water. We need to look at immigration like a river seeking its own level.

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
If you don’t believe in national sovereignty, or national integrity, just say so. If you feel that immigration laws should not exist, or be enforced, just say so.

And Jon, I assume you are not in favor of shooting people who fail to make complete stops at stop signs. Why not? If you feel that traffic laws should not exist, or be enforced, just say so.
 
Written By: Seitz
URL: http://
The difference between a "border vigilante" and a private citizen making a citizen’s arrest is by definition the administration of private justice vs. turning a perp over to the police or border patrol, as the case may be.

Just as killing someone without justification is a separate issue from a justified killing in self-defense or in the defense of another.

These are not difficult distinctions to make, but there have been plenty of times in the American past when they were not, in fact, made, and lynching was a not unknown form of frontier justice.

But here’s the thing, this sort of vigilantism takes place either in the absence of or abdication of the police power, so that citizens are left with a sense that they are being violated without recourse. I’ve seen the abdication of authority by the police in the streets of New York City, most especially during the late 1980s and early 1990s and it was not a pretty sight. And it went even further than that, but there’s not enough time to get into it.

The classic case was from circa 1985. Bernhard Goetz was an overtly wimpy sort of guy who had gotten mugged a couple of times. He decided, in violation of New York’s gun law, to carry a pistol with him. I believe it was a .22. Some typical thugs eyed him as an easy target on the subway, came at him with screwdrivers and demanded he give them money. He pulled the .22 and shot a couple of them. He also put a bullet into one who was already down. He did time in Riker’s Island for that. But as things went on, the politicians and the cops decided that the subways, then rife with this sort of thing, needed to be cleaned up. My subjective impression is that post-Goetz the subways were, for some time, considerably less tense and considerably safer.

The people down on the border have been screaming for help for years. The distinction between vigilantism and a citizen’s militia is subtle, but it is not inappropriate for an "unorganized" militia to act in lieu of an absent or disengaged authority so long as it respects the need to connect its actions into that authority at the appropriate point. The problem arises, again, when the authority refuses to engage and the citizens are left, again, without recourse. Then you’ll get vigilantism.

How the ethics of the vigilante fall out will pretty much be determined by the ethics of the people involved. There is a difference between what I’ll call "street justice" and lynching, which might be the difference between scaring the crap out of someone and threatening them and lynching them.

It would seem to me that with respect to border enforcement that the inadequate response of the government is in itself criminal, not to mention unethical, in that it leaves citizens living on or around the border at the mercy of what is essentially an invasion.

That’s not to condone "lynching." But it does explain how and why it comes about. (I don’t want to confuse the racist lynchings of the KKK et al. with the lynchings of more typical "frontier justice." Not that I condone the latter, either, but they are more easily understood as occurring in the absence or abdication of civil authority.)
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
That said, a few more of these may be a very effective deterrent against illegal immigration.
I guess I don’t get why this one was included. It’s an assertion about cause and effect, nothing more. It doesn’t indicate that the speaker agrees or disagrees with "a few more of these" (actually, the "that said" indicates disapproval), it’s just a musing about the possible real-world effects. Granted, I didn’t see the original comment in its entirety, but the part quoted appears to be drastically misunderstood by Jon.
 
Written By: Jinnmabe
URL: http://
This is why I’m not be a Republican, Jon, and I don’t understand how you genuinely have empathy for other human beings and yet continue to try to be a Republican. This is why Andrew Sullivan and John Cole have left the building. Libertarian capitalism may be a party of well-intentioned, if often non-effective in practice, ideals about the better human interest.

But the Republican blogosphere is all about using the tools of the state in the name of paranoia and violence. That, and building up images of other people - mexicans, arabs, liberals, bureaucrats, whatever, into the highest cariactures of scorn and disgust they can find.

That doesn’t apply to everyone, but I see comments in Q and O that remind me of those all the time.

Having said that, I don’t think you should ban anyone. There’s no possible way to be consistent about banning speech mean spirited that disregards human suffering and rationalizes malicious or sadistic behavior. It’s everywhere - and not just here - all over the internet. All over the world.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
...how about this Jon, why don’t you demonstrate the truth of the video.

Let me get this straight. Jon posts a video that had already been posted elsewhere. The very first line of his post says "I would like to believe this video is fake". He then says that if the events on the video are real, the shooter and everybody involved should be imprisoned for life.

To some commenters here, that means he has sacrificed his integrity and the integrity of this blog for a modicum of PC palatableness and he has projected racism on his opponents. He is a troll, a miserable pr*ck, an incompetent liar as bad as Foer, and he needs to exhaustively fact check the video whose veracity he already questioned, and stand behind it.

That’s how it stands? Seriously?
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
This is why I’m not be a Republican, Jon, and I don’t understand how you genuinely have empathy for other human beings and yet continue to try to be a Republican.
I am not a Republican, and I never have been. I sometimes vote for Republicans. There’s a difference.

To paraphrase Whittaker Chambers, I am not a Republican...I am a Man of the Right. I am only sometimes in agreement with conservatives or Republicans, but that is the side I have chosen because I fear the ideas and the power of the Left more than I fear the ideas and the power of the Right. For now.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
I fear the ideas and the power of the Left more than I fear the ideas and the power of the Right. For now.
I felt that same way until recently. Keep your eyes open. Things change.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Let me get this straight. Jon posts a video that had already been posted elsewhere. The very first line of his post says "I would like to believe this video is fake". He then says that if the events on the video are real, the shooter and everybody involved should be imprisoned for life.
If I post the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but claim that they may well be fakes, then you’ll support me, Wulf?

Yes, Jon posts an inflammatory video, and deervedly gets trashed for it....You name a cause you support and let me find some video that trashes or smears it’s supporters, and then see if you might not find the use of hoaxish/unverified video a bit suspsect.

I mean Jon might as well be running Loose Change, that has much more credibility...at least the video images are known to be real, even if the conclusions may be total conjecture. Here the "conclusion" AND the video may have no basis in fact!

As I have said before, this video is no different than Malkin harping on the crimes of Carranza in Newark...her complaint, though real and factual-something that can not be said for the posted video- has NO bearing on the larger debate about the pro’s and con’s of illegal immigration or the future of US immigration policy. Both this video and Malkin’s are merely political emoticons, designed to fire up the faithful, for Michelle Malkin OR Morris Dees.

Now Jon seems to want to get all hot about someone calling him out on this...

Can we deport 12 million illegals, no? Should these people go to jail, IF THEY DID IT, yes....but beyond that what does this video have to do with the other?

Finally about this video, YouTube wasn’t it? On SPLC’s website, I have a question, why isn’t it on CBS, as a part of their story about the arrest of the perp’s? Could it be that the creators of this video know that the authorities would most likely determine it to be a hoax, but that folks like Morris Dees and Jon Henke, would latch onto for their purposes?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Jon Henke is right. And those of you defending this kind of vigilante nonsense are sick people.

All life is sacred.

Defending the borders is the government’s job, not that of a bunch of xenophobes who wrap themselves in the flag. You should be ashamed.

Apparently some, like Cain, are not their brother’s keeper and are proud of it. It disgusts me and any rational human being.
 
Written By: Psycheout
URL: http://blogs4browback.wordpress.com/
I posted [the title "Border Vigilantes"] to criticize the men behind the video. If it was real, they are murderers. If it was fake, they are sick people.
Sick people, certainly, but on what planet are open borders shills considered "border vigilantes?" It sounds as though you’ve prejudged the video as necessarily being either (1) genuine or (2) a hoax perpetrated by people sympathetic to the very movement they seek to discredit. Neither possibility can be ruled out entirely, but neither strikes me as particularly likely, either.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
If I post the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but claim that they may well be fakes, then you’ll support me, Wulf?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "support you". It would also depend what else you say about them. If I didn’t see any value in what you posted, I might be moved to note that, but I can’t imagine what would be necessary for the behavior I’m seeing here. I would think that
Should these people go to jail, IF THEY DID IT, yes....but beyond that what does this video have to do with the other?
...should suffice. I guess to each his own.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Defending the borders is the government’s job, not that of a bunch of xenophobes who wrap themselves in the flag. You should be ashamed.
Just like the US Army and Marines should be ashamed what happened at Haditha and how the US Army brutalized Scott Beauchamp...OH WAIT, those things never occurred, did they?

And you are EXACTLY why the video is so bad, because you, apparently, have decided that this video represent a true occurrence....


 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
And you are EXACTLY why the video is so bad, because you, apparently, have decided that this video represent a true occurrence....
The video is irrelevant, it SHOULD be assumed to be a hoax until or unless proven otherwise.

Meanwhile, real people made these real comments...
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...
Murder is wrong

That said, a few more of these may be a very effective deterrent against illegal immigration.
That this point of view is represented here and elsewhere in America is far more important.

It seems to me that posting the existence of a video that may or may not be real for the purpose of advancing a discussion is not defacto evidence of a policy agenda, except as stated, a policy position against murdering people as a vigilante judgement and execution for illegal immigration.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Sick people, certainly, but on what planet are open borders shills considered "border vigilantes?"
You’re conflating the last post with the title of this post. This posts title referred to the people tolerating/rationalizing/justifying vigilante murder of illegal immigrants.

If this video is a hoax, I’ll be very glad to hear it. But if you don’t think border vigilantes film themselves doing illegal and violent things against illegal immigrants, you’d be incorrect.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
But the Republican blogosphere is all about using the tools of the state in the name of paranoia and violence. That, and building up images of other people - mexicans, arabs, liberals, bureaucrats, whatever, into the highest cariactures of scorn and disgust they can find.
Glasnost, your argument against making caricatures would be a lot more persuasive if it wasn’t built around a ludicrous caricature of Republicans.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
There is no excuse and no defense for this, and it is not welcome in our comments.
and
Feel free to wander away and don’t come back.
Then indeed I shall Jon. A shame, as I enjoyed this blog a great deal, but I have no desire to post somewhere I’m not longer welcome. Your bahavoir in this thread has been deplorable.

I, like another poster, would like to hear Thompson’s view from him. Since that is unlikely to happen, I’m afraid I have to re-evaluate my personal ranking of canidates.

I’m sure you don’t care about that.

So take care folks. I’m done with this.

Ban away, Mr Henke. Ban away.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
If this video is a hoax, I’ll be very glad to hear it. But if you don’t think border vigilantes film themselves doing illegal and violent things against illegal immigrants, you’d be incorrect.

Really and your evidence for this assertion? This is only one of a STRING of such video’s? The FBI is about to release a set of indictments and video’s supporting them and you just happen to have stumbled upon one of them prior to the big flood?

Do bad things happen in war, yes. Did the bad things that S T Beauchamp saw happen, uh no. And without a leeetle more proof, I’m going to have to say that your posting is a little bit silly, Jon....

But if you don’t think bloggers make silly statments and then refuse for reasons of ego to admit them you’d be incorrect. There fixed that for you Jon.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Or, But if you don’t think pornographers film illegal and violent things against being done against innocvent victims to make "snuff flicks", you’d be incorrect. See how easy this is, you just make a obviously true statement, or seeminly obviously true statement, and then lie back behind it’s supposed unassailibility...But having made these assertions it’s really incumbent upon YOU to prove them or at least provide some evidence to support them.

.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
All life is sacred.
And this is such a morally vacuous statement as to be meaningless...

All life is sacred, I agree-though the atheists here might quibble-by this do you mean that we all have the Divine Spark within us and are the products of our Divine Creator?

But further, do you mean to imply, inviolable...as well... in that what God hath wrought we may not destroy? So you’re against euthanasia and even suicide?
What about Adolf Hitler or Mr. Carranza in Newark? Are their lives sacred and inviolable? What of the millions Hitler murdered, were they not sacred too or the three that Mr. Carranza is accused of murdering, were they not embers of the Divine Spark, also? Should we then have acted or act against either, to prevent more murder? So we are all sacred, big deal? What does that truly mean that the Death Penalty is wrong, that war is wrong, that suicide is wrong, that euthanasia is wrong? What guidance does this little phrase provide us?
All life is Sacred, OK and then what? We’re all little images of God…OK,I’ve got that.

Your statement is as devoid of ethical meaning and guidance as Col Kilgore’s in Apocalypse Now, “One day this war is gonna end…” OK and that has any meaning because…..?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Jon, you might want to do a little research before you make such blanket statements as "There’s no jurisdiction that allows deadly force in defense of property."

Emphasis mine:

Texas Criminal Code PC Chapter 9 Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility.

PC CH. 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Subch D. Protection of Property

PC 9.41 PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in
using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate
the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the
property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor
uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession
and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force,
threat, or fraud against the actor.


PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Oh, and as of September 1, this is extended to immunity from civil suit and is even more emphatic that there is no duty to retreat.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf

Now, would I rather the government actually enforced it’s own laws? Yep. However, when the government can’t or won’t act, citizens are empowered to do so.

Oh, and as for the strawman that we’re somehow racist xenophobes for wanting the laws to mean something? no one that I’m aware of has a single problem with legal immigration. And if you can prove it, take your best shot.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Now, would I rather the government actually enforced it’s own laws? Yep. However, when the government can’t or won’t act, citizens are empowered to do so.
So apparently, if the video was from some guy’s back yard/rach that boarders mexico, they would have been within the bounds of the law...

Fascinating.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Oh, and as for the strawman that we’re somehow racist xenophobes for wanting the laws to mean something? no one that I’m aware of has a single problem with legal immigration. And if you can prove it, take your best shot.

That’ll get you called an "@ss" by Jon...he never said we were racist, murdering xenophobes, he merely posted a video showing, purportedly, the murder of an innocent illegal immigrant, at the hands of some vicious beer-drinking rabi blanco’s. From that you are not to draw any conclusions about Jon’s beliefs concerning his opponent’s or even that this has anything to do with the illegal immigration/border control debate. Jon just posted the video to show that...well to show that...Youtube and the Southern Poverty Law Center post videos, I guess.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’m glad he said murder is wrong. It doesn’t excuse the rationalization that followed
Hi Jon

I wrote one of the comments that you took exception to.

It wasn’t a rationalization at all, just a fact.

I remember quite well when Bernie Goetz played vigilante in the NYC subways. If you don’t think a lot of nefarious people weren’t afraid of getting the same treatment when they crowded around someone and "asked" for $5 dollars, you’e sadly mistaken.

I don’t support murder at all. If Americans were indeed patrolling the border and shooting potential illegals, they would certainly give wannabe illegals something to think about. And those Americans, if caught, would deserve the consequences of their actions (trial, jail, electric chair, prison, etc)

I believe your real problem with my comment was one of tone. You particularly tried to paint the potential illegal as having good virtues ("he only wanted to come to where he could live a better life") and I made a point of saying who knows what he wanted to do- be a criminal, drug runner, terrorist etc.

So sorry if I didn’t come off sympathetic enough to suit you.

(By the by...is that video even true?)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I have discovered a site that shows a number of Senate Republican campaign workers downing Apple-tini’s and fondly scantily clad waitresses whilst spotlighting deer, out of season and WITH automatic weapons....

If this video is a hoax, I’ll be very glad to hear it. But if you don’t think Republican Campaigners film themselves doing illegal and lewd things, you’d be incorrect.

Now, this thread is certainly getting long and that wuld imply a good thread, so it is an ill wind that blows no good, I guess.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"If this video is a hoax, I’ll be very glad to hear it. But if you don’t think border vigilantes film themselves doing illegal and violent things against illegal immigrants, you’d be incorrect."

Are you implying that you think this video is true until it is proven to be a hoax?
Then why didn’t you use one of those videos instead? Not outrageous enough?

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
There is no excuse and no defense for this, and it is not welcome in our comments.
By the way, and not being a smart-a$$, totally serious, but if you want to start taking this line, maybe you should make a comments policy (or if you already have one, post it more prominently)

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Jon Henke writes:
If this video is a hoax, I’ll be very glad to hear it. But if you don’t think border vigilantes film themselves doing illegal and violent things against illegal immigrants, you’d be incorrect.
That’s a little to the backasswards side of logic, isn’t it?

If the video is real, then you’ll be glad to certify it as such. No?

And why would someone think border vigilantes [taped] themselves doing illegal and violent things against illegal immigrants until he had actually seen a clearly authentic example of such a video?

For instance, I know that it’s possible that illegal immigrants tape themselves raping blind women behind supermarkets, but if someone doesn’t produce a verifiable tape of such an incident, why am I supposed to believe that a possibility has been actualized?

Didn’t we just go through this whole Scott Beauchamp deal, where hoax and reality were through great effort separated out from one another, but in the meantime the New Republic insisted that the superficial ring of truth was sufficient?

I’m not sure I understand this thread.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
SDN, when did Jon say what you are quoting him as saying?

"There’s no jurisdiction that allows deadly force in defense of property."
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
day late dollar short
I really hoped someone would see the pic
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
"I don’t understand how you genuinely have empathy for other human beings and yet continue to try to be a Republican"
Sufficient proof, Glasnost, that you’re as open-minded and "liberally" thinking as any fool.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Jon, you are nothing if not strident.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
By they same token, I do not minimize the plight of people who are hurt by economic competition, but I still maintain that the government does not owe you a middle-class living as a plumber.
No ? So if it’s OK to import plumbers because you don’t like your plumbing bill, is it OK to import lawyers, so we can get their fees down too ? What about cars - foreign cars are cheap, how about we let them in to get the price down ? What about steel ?

How come it’s OK to give away one man’s livelihood....but not another’s ? And what exactly is wrong with a plumber making a middle class living ?

Looking at it another way, what gives the government the right to import labour without compensating or making alternative arrangements for those who suffer loss of income as a result (I’m talking earned income here of course) ?
 
Written By: blewyn
URL: http://
blewn,

I am the one who wrote that line. Here is the context:
Aldo: "If a man commits a crime of violence he should be punished accordingly, regardless of his immigration status. If a man has overstayed his visa, he should not be punished as if he has committed a crime of violence."

Another Commenter: "It’s called "theft", Aldo."
I was trying to understand the logic that equates overstaying a visa with theft. I was not arguing in favor of importing plumbers in order to lower plumbing bills. I was simply arguing that a man who offers to do your job at a lower wage has not committed a crime or a moral offense against you.

I believe that individual people have certain fundamental rights. One of these is the right to the fruits of one’s own labor. Suppose you earn $5 for mowing a lawn, and you use that $5 to buy a used toaster at a yard sale. If an illegal alien takes your toaster without permission, I believe that he has committed an immoral act and a crime, called "theft."

I do not believe that individuals have a fundamental right to a job or a wage. Suppose you make $20 an hour working for Buttcrack Jack’s Plumbing. An illegal alien offers to do your work for $10 an hour, so Jack lays you off and hires Rodrigo in your place. Rodrigo has not committed an immoral act, in my opinion. Rodrigo is not a thief, because you did not have a fundamental, or even Constitional, right to make $20 an hour, to work for Buttcrack Jack, to work as a plumber, or even to be employed at all.

That is all I was saying. Economically, you are worse off, but Rodrigo, Jack, and maybe the plumbing customer are better off. I’m not saying that it is fair, but there was no crime or rights violation here.
Looking at it another way, what gives the government the right to import labour without compensating or making alternative arrangements for those who suffer loss of income as a result
I hardly know where to start with this one. To begin with, your premise is faulty. The government is not affirmatively importing labor. On the contrary, they are devoting quite a bit of resources to stop Rodrigo from entering the country. I’m sure you probably think that the government is negligent about enforcing the border, but that isn’t the same as importing labor.

The reality is that the government has been steadily increasing its efforts at preventing illegal immigration for twenty years now, and they have been making a significant difference. They will never be 100% effective, because there is too much incentive for illegals to come here, and because this is the same government that operates the postal system. The illegal immigration situation is better now than it was in 2001, or 1997, or 1991, or 1988. The only difference is that this year the issue has become a hot topic, for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with the reality on the ground.

Since the government did not take your job it does not owe you compensation. Even Rodrigo, who actually did take your job, does not owe you compensation, as I explained above. You asked if it would be OK to import lawyers too. The reality is that Rodrigo could not take a lawyer’s job, because he probably does not speak English well enough, nor does he understand our legal system well enough. So the best way to protect yourself from Rodrigo would be to find the type of work where he cannot compete, rather than looking to the government to protect you.





 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
I always thought that the US was more than a job site or place of employment, and that maximizing economic efficiency or labor productivity was not our primary goal. Silly me.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Many sing the praises of Jane Galt.Today she has a post with some relevance to this post and the initial post on the veracity of the border video.
The significance is that, if journalists do not care avidly about only printing things that are, to the best of their ability to determine, true, then it doesn’t really matter whether they please John Quiggin by editorialising about the various people making domestic and foreign policy claims. That is because no one will be able to trust that there even was a trip to Iraq or a Michael O’Hanlon, so they won’t read the story in the first place.
I don’t think that happened here and that accounts for the brouhaha. By the way, has anyone determined what happened to that video and why it is no longer available? Has anyone reported/blogged on it’s demise. I made a comment on the SPLC site about the text sounding Beauchampian which never saw the light of day. Is that a hate crime. I’m being facetious about hate crime.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
"All life is sacred."
Dammit... just when I was about to spend the afternoon at murdering insects in the flower beds, now I find out we have to dig up Hitler and apologize.

Man, could we just get a little front-work on these matters so’s a guy could plan his time?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Dammit... just when I was about to spend the afternoon at murdering insects in the flower beds, now I find out we have to dig up Hitler and apologize.

Man, could we just get a little front-work on these matters so’s a guy could plan his time?
To heck with HIM, what about the BLT you just ate?

Singing:
Every sperm is sacred/
Every sperm is great/
and if a sperm is wasted/
God gets quite irate.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Thankfully, the video turns out to be a hoax. They were not staged by an SPLC member trying to discredit the Minutemen, but by a Minuteman group themselves.

That said....
This is only one of a STRING of such video’s?
Apparently, yes. Etc, etc.

SDN:
Jon, you might want to do a little research before you make such blanket statements as "There’s no jurisdiction that allows deadly force in defense of property."
[...]
Oh, and as for the strawman that we’re somehow racist xenophobes for wanting the laws to mean something?
Feel free to show me where I made either of those statements. Failing that, feel free to apologize. And if you can’t bring yourself to do that, feel free just crawl away.

Unfortunately, both of these two threads have been full of people accusing me of saying things I never wrote.
And why would someone think border vigilantes [taped] themselves doing illegal and violent things against illegal immigrants until he had actually seen a clearly authentic example of such a video?
The fact that you didn’t see the additional video cited in the previous thread, and have never seen/heard of this vigilante violence is not a failure of my argument. In this case, it was a video from a border activist pretending to murder Mexicans. In others, they have shot near them, or done other violent things on tape.

 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Who in their right mind is going to shoot a smuggler, videotape it, then post it to YouTube?" Crooks said.
Daggone but that shore does sound familiar, has it been askeded on this y’here website a’fore?
The fact that you didn’t see the additional video cited in the previous thread, and have never seen/heard of this vigilante violence is not a failure of my argument.
And just as the fact that there is no video of the gray aliens is not a failure on the part of those folks who believe it either. I’m sure that the aliens exist and that folks are blasting illegals all the time....Desert is probably littered with their carcasses, buzzard’s a’circlin’ constantly.

I’m going out on a limb here and just stating more illegals KILL than are killed, in this great nation of ours.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Jon, you are correct, you did not make that statement. I should have checked twice before I attributed that statement to you, and I apologize for not doing that check.

 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
To some commenters here, that means he has sacrificed his integrity and the integrity of this blog for a modicum of PC palatableness and he has projected racism on his opponents.
When he quotes a post comment which does not say what he seems to actually believe it says, and resists all attempts at rational debate as to whether or not it says what he claims it does, this is trolling.

Lacking any other explanation for his obtuseness, I do speculate this—"he has sacrificed his integrity and the integrity of this blog for a modicum of PC palatableness"—is exactly what’s going on. I’d like to think there is some understandable motivation for his misunderstanding as opposed to a fit of idiocy.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: temporary location
Jon Henke trolled:
"But if you don’t think border vigilantes film themselves doing illegal and violent things against illegal immigrants, you’d be incorrect."
And he should prove it.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: temporary location
"Apparently, yes. Etc, etc."

FYI, Etc, and etc. appear to be the same video. Do you bother to give your "evidence" even a cursory inspection before you post it? Thanks for wasting my time. What was the point of this discussion, again?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Thankfully, the video turns out to be a hoax.
Why I’m just so flabbergasted. Everything looked so real. Megan McCardle again:
if journalists do not care avidly about only printing things that are, to the best of their ability to determine, true,
When the hyper-partisans on Beauchamps side say well, maybe these incidents weren’t true but they’re representative of others that are true then it sounds like this:
That said....
This is only one of a STRING of such video’s?
Apparently, yes. Etc, etc.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Jon, you are correct, you did not make that statement. I should have checked twice before I attributed that statement to you, and I apologize for not doing that check.
Thanks. I appreciate that very much.
FYI, Etc, and etc. appear to be the same video. Do you bother to give your "evidence" even a cursory inspection before you post it?
Oh, gosh, I only posted two videos. Yes, that’s clearly a blow against my argument that these people have filmed themselves doing violent/illegal things to illegal immigrants.

Screw it, I’m done with this. It’s clear that the videos were made by border vigilantes, that they film themselves doing violent/illegal things to illegal immigrants, and that it was the Minuteman activists who filmed the video pretending to shoot an illegal immigrant.

I’ve argued that this sort of thing is reprehensible, and - instead of simply saying "yes, hoax or real, that video is indefensible" - commenters here have either defended them or taken this off on every possible tangent. Screw that. I’m not going to let you draw me into arguments over points I didn’t make. Set up your own damned blog and argue with yourself there.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Screw it, I’m done with this...Set up your own damned blog and argue with yourself there.

You Bastiges! You’ll miss me when I’m gone.....

Yes we all should have piled on the "Border vigilantes" because they did mean things....or not, certainly they never murdered anyone did they?

But Jon, you just keep on with the classic conspiracy defense point, that we can’t PROVE your claims wrong, that no evidence of wrong-doing doesn’t mean it DIDN’T happen.

Listen, after this is over and you’ve thought it over, I believe you’ll see that there is a place for you at 9/11 Scholars for the Truth or take some time on the Alex Jones Show; I understand that they use the same forensic style of debate there.

I can hardly wait for your next posting, really, to see if this was an aberration or if this is the "new" Jon Henke. Normally I don’t agree with you, BUT you make a good libertarian case for your "wrong" position. It’ll mean nothing to you, me being one of the bastiges ridiculing you here today, but I have usually respected you, even when I didn’t agree. On this thread it wasn’t even possible to respect you, your argument, such as it was was poor and your argumentation was awful....

It was a pointless thread, based on a hoax, you could have simply discussed anti-immigrant sentiment and why it’s bad, you could have discussed how that Malkin is arguing poorly for border control. There are a host of directions you could ahve gone that would have advanced your position that didn’t have to involve claiming murder, but admitting you could be wrong, and then threatening folks with banning because they didn’t agree with you. Honestly, better luck next time.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Anyone know how many he banned due to this?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Anyone know how many he banned due to this?
I’d say about none.....


 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"Anyone know how many he banned due to this?"

If there were any, should there be a benefit rock concert for them? Banned-Aid?


Sorry about that. Sometimes I just can’t help myself.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
" that these people have filmed themselves doing violent/illegal things to illegal immigrants."

I could probably pick a few legal/semantic nits here, but it ain’t worth it.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
It’s clear that the videos were made by border vigilantes,
It’s clear some if them were made by people who are more concerned about securing the border than you are. Vigilantes break the the law, taking it into their own hands, and I’ve seen no evidence anyone in these videos is doing that. Even citizens’s arrests are legal, Jon.
that they film themselves doing violent/illegal things to illegal immigrants,
I haven’t seen it yet.
and that it was the Minuteman activists who filmed the video pretending to shoot an illegal immigrant.
An ugly sentiment, but if you are right that illegal, violent things are being done to illegal immigrants—this video is doing them a favor by dissuading some from coming here.

And it isn’t uglier than it taking a 3/4ths majority of the American public to make our elected representatives not pass the late immigration act.

Your every implication here has been that the government knows best and if it doesn’t want to enforce the laws, we should do no more than write letters and lump it or like it.

Washington getting to you already, Jon?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
An illegal alien offers to do your work for $10 an hour, so Jack lays you off and hires Rodrigo in your place. Rodrigo has not committed an immoral act, in my opinion. Rodrigo is not a thief, because you did not have a fundamental, or even Constitional, right to make $20 an hour, to work for Buttcrack Jack, to work as a plumber, or even to be employed at all.

That is all I was saying. Economically, you are worse off, but Rodrigo, Jack, and maybe the plumbing customer are better off. I’m not saying that it is fair, but there was no crime or rights violation here.


emphasis mine

While I agree with the general point being made that there is no fundamental and/or Constitutional right to $20/hour salary, etc., there was indeed a crime committed. Rodrigo is postulated as an illegal alien, so his very presence in this country (let alone Buttcrack Jack’s HR department office), is a crime. You may or may not feel it should be a crime, but the fact remains that it is. (Now, if BJ finds some way to outsource the work to TJ and Rodrigo telecommutes from his side of the border, that’s another matter entirely.)

 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
An illegal alien offers to do your work for $10 an hour, so Jack lays you off and hires Rodrigo in your place. Rodrigo has not committed an immoral act, in my opinion. Rodrigo is not a thief, because you did not have a fundamental, or even Constitional, right to make $20 an hour, to work for Buttcrack Jack, to work as a plumber, or even to be employed at all.
Wrong!
That is all I was saying. Economically, you are worse off, but Rodrigo, Jack, and maybe the plumbing customer are better off. I’m not saying that it is fair, but there was no crime or rights violation here.
Wrong!
Rodrigo is postulated as an illegal alien, so his very presence in this country (let alone Buttcrack Jack’s HR department office), is a crime.
Wrong! (well, right, but irrelevant)

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 illegally? They do not earn more than they would if they traded their labor legally, their take home would be about the same, but all of the benefit goes to the employer, who gets to avoid paying taxes and other costs associated with legally employment. The employer is the one stealing, from the system as it were.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Jon-

Thanks for calling me out on the front page of the blog and then not bothering to respond to me in the comments.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Captain Sarcastic,

I had intended to make a follow-up comment making a similar point. I deliberately used a simple example above, because I was trying to illustrate a point about rights, rather than the economics of employing illegal aliens.

Although it could happen that Rodrigo offers to do the $20 an hour job for $10 an hour, it is probably more common to see this:
Buttcrack Jack pays his plumber $20 an hour, but he also pays a fortune in workers compensation premiums, payroll taxes, health benefits, 401K plan matching, paid vacation, etc. He can save all of this, and gain an advantage on the competition, by paying Rodrigo $20 an hour in cash, off the books.
As you point out, if this is stealing, it is Jack, not Rodrigo who is guilty of it. My thought is that a plan that allowed Rodrigo to gain some come of earned amnesty would make him eligible to come out of the shadows and get hired on the books, eliminating the whole problem. At that point, the American-born employee would probably have the edge in bargaining for a higher wage, since his English fluency would be helpful in dealing with customers.

Achillea writes,
While I agree with the general point being made that there is no fundamental and/or Constitutional right to $20/hour salary, etc., there was indeed a crime committed. Rodrigo is postulated as an illegal alien, so his very presence in this country (let alone Buttcrack Jack’s HR department office), is a crime.
You seem to be trying to rebut my comment, but you have not contradicted me at all. In fact, we are in complete agreement. The fact that I specifically referred to Rodrigo as an illegal alien should have tipped you off that I understood his presence in this country to be a crime. As you note, my "general point" was about a different issue.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Aldo wrote:
As you note, my "general point" was about a different issue.
Aldo, it is the issue.

Yours, TDP, ml, mls, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Aldo, it is the issue.
Do you think that the entire issue is legal status, and the consequences and affects and the reasons for the policy in the first place don’t matter?

Do you think just having a policy and a law will cause people stop coming to a labor market that embraces them, that encourages, that uses them to steal from the system?

Do you think that anything we do at the border will make a difference as long as we have a labor market that embraces them?

I have heard people on this thread claim that they care about our borders, but frankly, I think they’re lying. I don’t know why they are lying, perhaps they are lying to themselves, but any talk of border security is pointless as long as we have a wide open labor market that embraces illegal aliens. All you will accomplish by a border prohibition is a hike in the cost of being smuggled across the border, a pay raise for criminals.

Congress give themselves pay raises regularly, I guess they could extend that graciousness to other criminals.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
but any talk of border security is pointless as long as we have a wide open labor market that embraces illegal aliens
oh dear, the Cap has a good point.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
but any talk of border security is pointless as long as we have a wide open labor market that embraces illegal aliens
oh dear, the Cap has a good point.
Not really. He’s looking at the other side of the same coin and thinking he’s found a new treasure.

For the record Cap, can you find where I’ve ever disparaged the idea that employers of illegals should not be prosecuted?

Illegals should be stopped at the border to a greater degree than they are now, which existing condition reflects the fact that we put virtually none of the required effort into it. We should fix that and applaud legal steps by citizens to step up where the government is direly derelict.

That is half of the solution Cap, and it’s the half of the solution this thread was at least parenthetically about.

Bringing up the half of the solution you think is more vital and claiming so many of us—and by quoting myself, me—are lying because we are not emphasizing an off topic aspect of the issue—that’s special of you. Special Ed.
Do you think that the entire issue is legal status, and the consequences and affects and the reasons for the policy in the first place don’t matter?
The consequences, effects, and reasons for the policy are all aspects of the illegality of the immigrants. Their legal status is central to the entire mess. We can legalize them or remove them. I prefer the latter, as I think they should fix their own houses (well, nations of origin), before they entertain coming here, or that notion is welcomed by us. We do not currently serve as a refuge, but as a dumping ground. There’s a difference.

That’s not so much because I think we’re full, but because I know it is in fact the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people, it is a constitutionally authorized activity of the feds, and it is in fact the current law.

What I am really terrified to discover is how much of a supermajority it takes to get the Congress to obey—they get to thinking they can pass laws without our tolerance, let alone support, and the American experiment is over but for the shooting.
Do you think just having a policy and a law will cause people stop coming to a labor market that embraces them, that encourages, that uses them to steal from the system?
No, but enforcement of that law will. Are you under the delusion we are doing what can be reasonably done to stop illegal immigration at the border now?
Do you think that anything we do at the border will make a difference as long as we have a labor market that embraces them?
Yes, absolutely it will. We are very far from the point of unreasonably diminished return on our effort to secure the border—our effort is that meager. There is nothing in the truth of that or the telling of it that even begins to imply we should not enforce laws against the illegal employment of illegals immigrants. We should do that too.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Jon Henke lied:
perpetrated by a Minuteman group
No Jon, they were thrown out of the Minutemen. Do you read your own links?

Or instead of lying were you economical with the truth? Maybe careless?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
(UPDATE: thankfully, the video was found to be a hoax, perpetrated by a Minuteman group)
Err ... yeah ... um ... sort of. The story is a bit short on details, but it does make it pretty clear that Crooks’s group - if indeed it is large enough to be properly described as a group - is a rival faction of would-be "Minutemen," not the Minutemen as we know them. It sounds to me like he and his minions are "a Minutemen group" like Fred Phelps’s family is "a Baptist church" - technically true, but highly misleading.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Do you think that anything we do at the border will make a difference as long as we have a labor market that embraces them?
Yes, absolutely it will.
This is where we disagree, and where you are wrong.
Border fencing has merely channeled undocumented migration to more remote and dangerous terrain. After triple-fencing was constructed in San Diego, apprehensions of undocumented immigrants fell from 450,152 in FY 1994 to 100,000 in FY 2002, but apprehensions in the Tucson sector increased 342 percent during this same period.

Building a fence along the entire southwest border would cost roughly $9 billion (about $2.5 billion more than the total budget of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in FY 2005) and is an ineffective means of combating undocumented immigration.

The undocumented population in the United States has continued to increase despite ten years of fairly consistent and large increases in the border-enforcement budget and a parallel surge in the number of Border Patrol agents stationed on the frontier.

The growing economic integration of the United States and Mexico, as well as the openness of U.S. society, dooms to failure any border-control strategy that focuses primarily on security at the physical frontier.
All of this blathering about border enforcement ignores the fact it would do nothing to deal with the fact that up to half of the undocumented immigrants in the United States came legally and simply have overstayed the conditions of their admittance.

The real answer is simple, if politically unpalatable to the powers that be. The simple economic fact is that Americans hire illegal immigrants, often knowlingly, because it is cheaper than hiring people who are in America legally (including of course US citizens), and or, the mere existence of these illegals in the labor market drive down labor costs. If you close this arbitrage and make the cost of hiring an illegal more expensive than hiring people here legally, then illegal immigrants will have no market to go to, and our illegal immigration problem will be solved. Of course, the labor shortage this may cause would lead us to legally allow far more immigrants from Mexico, on our terms as a nation, but isn’t that what we want?

Honestly, I do NOT believe that is what we want, because if it were, we would have done it already. This border enforcement nonsense is just a way to pretend to be addressing that which we do not want addressed.
That is half of the solution Cap, and it’s the half of the solution this thread was at least parenthetically about.
This thread was about people who foolishly, and simplistically, believe that border enforcement is the problem AT ALL, and sometimes suggest border enforcement is so critical that violence against illegal immigrants is appropriate. When people who are smart enough to know that violence is not an answer, but still encourage the opinion that border enforcement is so critical, they are encouraging those that advocate, and would be willing to commit acts of violence against said illegals.

I’ll have no part of that, because it is wrong, socially, politically, economically, ethically, mathematically, historically, and empirically.

So go ahead and think you are a "real" American, while you follow other "patriots" as they demogogue a problem they clearly do not want solved, but want your support as they go about not solving it.

This is not a Democrat versus Republican issue, it’s a cheap labor versus expensive labor issue, and those who want the cheap labor are winning while they send people like you barking up the wrong tree, knowing that even if you get everything you want on border enforcement, you will have gotten NOTHING.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You say that I am only addressing half of the problem, and I would suggest to you that I am addressing 95% of the problem, and in the unlikely event the problems I have outlined were solved, border enforcement could be done with two golf carts and a pair of binoculars.

So stop suggesting that these minutemen are doing anything worthwhile and sugegst they go home and focus their energies on the real problem, before people really start getting killed.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"apprehensions of undocumented immigrants fell from 450,152 in FY 1994 to 100,000 in FY 2002, but apprehensions in the Tucson sector increased 342 percent"

Well, gee, apprehensions dropped 450%(?) where they built a fence, and increased 342% where they didn’t. Sounds effective to me.


"..dooms to failure any border-control strategy that focuses primarily on security at the physical frontier."

Of course focusing primarily on the physical frontier seems to be confined to the "reform" crowd, rather than those seeking to enforce immigration laws.

"If you close this arbitrage and make the cost of hiring an illegal more expensive than hiring people here legally,"

Enforcing current law would do just that.

"Honestly, I do NOT believe that is what we want, because if it were, we would have done it already."

If the ’we’ you are speaking of consists of the political establishment and businesses who profit from cheap labor, you are correct. If ’we’ refers to the American public, I think polls show otherwise.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Well, gee, apprehensions dropped 450%(?) where they built a fence, and increased 342% where they didn’t. Sounds effective to me.
Are you serious?

What you should be learning from this is that unless you build a wall around the entire country and then man that wall around the entire country, the placement of fences in various places would be like put a rock in the Mississippi River, it may stop water from going through that specific spot, but the water is going forward.
If the ’we’ you are speaking of consists of the political establishment and businesses who profit from cheap labor, you are correct. If ’we’ refers to the American public, I think polls show otherwise.
"We" refers to those in this country who have the power to make policy in our (the larger "we") name.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"Are you serious?"

Not entirely, but it would seem to me that if the net inflow is decreased, it is working. Noone expects perfection except, evidently, the "reform" supporters. By the by, I don’t know what your source is, but I get skeptical when people do things like compare absolute numbers to percentages.

"it may stop water from going through that specific spot, but the water is going forward"

If you put enough rocks in the water, it is called a dam. They work quite well, reducing floods to a trickle flowing through the spillways.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
If you put enough rocks in the water, it is called a dam. They work quite well, reducing floods to a trickle flowing through the spillways.
Yes, this is true, and I stated as much. Are you prepared to build and man a wall around the entire US border?

I’m not.

Do you think that people won’t get to the US by boat if we walled off the land border?

Are you familiar with the US coastline, and just how impossibly porous it is?

My opinion is that you just have the wrong priorities, and your focus on border enforcement is misplaced.

If you do not agree that we need to reform the labor market, and that we should focus exclusively on border patrol, the cost would be prohibitive and the benefits would be negligible. If you agree we need to reform the labor market, such that there is no place (or much fewer places) for illegal labor, then provisioning a large border enforcement program for what will be a small problem when reforms are made, seems bassackwards.

Consider the dam analogy, if you reform the market and give illegals nowhere to go, you have built a dam, so building another in a river where the flow has been stopped seems pointless.
 
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