Arizona Gets SUFA Riled Up… Racial Profiling and Open Borders

I have to say that I was a little surprised to see such a robust discussion happening over yesterday’s article. I had originally intended to not write an article this evening, to simply let the Arizona debate rage on. However, with over 300 comments already, it would begin to get tough to navigate through. So I figured instead of simply replying to individual posts, I would instead write s sort of follow on article that addresses some of the things that were said yesterday, and allows for the conversations to continue with a somewhat fresh start (at least in the number of comments to read through). It was interesting to see how entrenched some folks are in their positions, some so much so that they were unable to see past it to other sides of the debate. That is unfortunate, as it is essential that we all begin to see different perspectives if we are going to somehow find a way to get through all the madness coming out of government these days.

One of the first things I noticed was that, despite my pointing out that this is a completely false statement, some are still sticking to the mantra that this Arizona law requires racial profiling in order to be enforced. This is simply not true. When reading the bill, and especially when factoring in the follow up bill that was passed, it becomes clear that the government was working to eliminate this from being so. But before we get into this, I noticed a discussion about whether it is OK to profile. So I want to touch on this.

I personally believe that racial profiling has become a bastion of political discourse, while those that condemn it refuse to accept the reality of life. The reality is that not only is profiling OK, in my opinion, it is essential for survival in today’s world. Profiling is what we do each and every day, hundreds of times a day. We learn from our experiences and attempt to predict future behavior based on the patterns that we see. We do it with everything. We see a car coming down the street and it slows down, the driver makes eye contact, and we cross the street, because past experience tells us that is the pattern. We see a new employee arrive to the workplace looking disheveled, and we profile them as disorganized and possibly undependable. We see a guy with his pants hanging below his boxers, and we assume that he will be disrespectful or uneducated. Are all these assumptions right? No, but they fit into a pattern of experience. That car might hit you, that employee may be excellent, and the teenager may be a Rhodes scholar.

Patterns are how we move through life without taking an extreme amount of time to identify and analyze every situation as if it has never happened before. Then we get into profiling based on “race”. Allow me to first say that I think “racial profiling” is somewhat of a myth. I think that the person who profiles does so based on circumstance and appearance, not race. A black man with his pants down and a hood up in July is completely different than a black man in a pair of slacks and a button down shirt. It isn’t the color of his skin that creates the profile, it is the way he carries himself, the way he dresses, and the way he acts. And whether we like it or not, the profile is usually accurate. If it wasn’t, it would not be a means of identifying people. That isn’t to say that racial profiling cannot happen, I just believe it is far less frequent than we are led to believe. It isn’t usually the color of skin that causes one to profile, it is usually the way one acts, the way they carry themselves, and the way that they behave. Someone of a different skin color behaving in the same way would receive the same treatment. Perhaps that is my being naive, but that is what I see.

So I have zero issue with law enforcement officers profiling as they work. It is their job to identify possible problems and head them off at the pass. Saying that they must wait until the crime is committed is ridiculous. How on earth do you expect them to protect the public if they cannot act until the crime is done? Does this mean that they are going to question some people that have done nothing wrong? You bet, but as Mathius is prone to say when it comes to spreading my money around, I would much rather err on the side of too safe than not safe enough.

It is patently false to claim that this Arizona law will require or cause more racial profiling. Because the bottom line is this: There are two types of law enforcement officers. The first is one who does his job correctly. He doesn’t harass those who aren’t acting funny or doing something wrong. This is the vast majority of officers. The second, and far more rare, is the officer that is a bigot and who assumes that all people of one race are criminals that must be stopped. This law is not going to suddenly make officers that fall into the first category begin to act like those that fall into the second! What makes you think that the law in Arizona is going to suddenly turn good cops into bigoted bullies? Put yourself in their shoes. Would this law make you all the sudden become a racial profiler if you weren’t one before the bill passed? What kind of thought process makes you think that everyone else would do so? Do you think that police officers are mindless robots that you can suddenly reprogram? Or do you think that they are all closet bigots just waiting for a law that allows them to legally harass a certain group of people? The claim that this bill will cause this is fear mongering at its best. Given what the two laws put into place, and the fact that police officers are caring moral people just like everyone else, it is ludicrous to claim that this law will somehow cause police officers to act in ways that are different from how they acted previously.

Another topic of discussion yesterday seemed to be on the idea that people should be able to come and go as they please. The “open border” concept, if you will. Allow me to be clear on where I stand on this one. I vehemently oppose the open border idea. I am all for immigration reform that makes it easier to get a work VISA or whatever is needed to enter the country legally. However, the very beginning step to immigration reform lies in first securing the border. We are a sovereign nation. As such, we have every right to close our border ย and admit only those we wish to admit. Given today’s hostile environment, it is a very necessary step to take. There are many who believe that the best thing they can do is come to America and cause trouble. Terrorists, criminals, etc. We cannot simply allow them instant and free access to our country. 150 years ago, no problem. Today, simply not possible.

It seems that people can believe that sovereign peoples have the right to build nuclear weapons, launch rockets into neighboring countries, and do whatever else they like with no interference from the big, bad USA. And you know what I tend to agree. But when those same people then turn around and tell me that a sovereign nation has no right to secure her borders in order to protect herself, I simply have to say… huh? What any other sovereign nation on earth does, they have the right to do. The second that America wants to do something such as secure the borders, all the sudden you want to jump up and say they have no right. Similarly, we have those that believe that for the greater good, it is OK to seize the fruits of my labor and redistribute it to those who need it, that it is OK to pass laws that restrict what I eat, what I buy, what I smoke, etc. But for the safety of the country, you believe that we have no right to tell people who can and cannot come into our country. We can restrict the amount of salt in a meal, but not who comes and goes across our borders? Contradictions abound, my friends.

Securing the border is the absolute first step towards solving this problem. Mexico’s political strategy is to pawn the poorest of their population on us. Why else would they object to border fences and immigration law being enforced? They do not want people stopped from coming across illegally, benefitting from America’s prosperity, and sending it back to Mexico. Rather than fixing their own problems, they choose to send them north. Perhaps eliminating that option will force them to improve their economy and make the standard of living better for their people. They don’t have a revolution against their horrible leaders simply because those who would do so find that it is easier to simply sneak into the US than to organize opposition.

Our foreign policy decisions have made us the top target in the world. There is no debating that fact. Obviously I want to see our foreign policy changed dramatically, but until that happens and it has time to impact the world opinion of us, we are targets. So long as this is the case, we must have secure borders in order to limit the ability of those that would attack us to access their target. Securing the border is the right place to start, followed by a comprehensive overhaul of the immigration policies in America. We must make it easier to come here legally, and impossible to come here illegally.

There was a large argument over the idea of legalizing drugs in order to solve the problem. I assume that the argument was primarily legalizing marijuana. Because legalizing all drugs simply isn’t going to happen. But I must stress that I don’t believe legalizing marijuana is going to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, and it isn’t going to stem the tide of violence tied to illegal immigration. The violence is tied to many different illegal activities. Drug trafficking, Human trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, bribery. It isn’t just marijuana, and it may not even be primarily marijuana. It is criminal activity. Oddly, simply securing the border would eliminate their ability to do all of those things. Again, that is the first step.

I will leave it at that for tonight. I look forward to everyone’s thoughts. I also encourage all of you who were having good discussions to bring them forward to this article to continue them. This is an issue that isn’t going away soon. We have to deal with it. Arizona has simply chosen to go first. Good for them.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Don’t look for this law to go away. We here in AZ are just plain fed up with our former governor – Janet – from another planet – Napolitano, and the rest of that bunch up in DC. If they do not enforce federal immigration laws, we will.

    And as for CA boycotting this state . . . You are about to have one helluva power and water shortage if you keep badmouthing us.

    Our governor may be a woman, but she’s got stones!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      G.A. – what if anything was Napolitano’s position on II when she was guv? Anything of note? She seems eerily silent on it now.

      • USWeapon says:

        I noticed that as well Ray. She is oddly silent on an issue that used to be in her back yard. And given that she is now responsible for Homeland Security, it would seem this falls into her wheelhouse. Yet not a peep from her. I am wondering if she agrees with the law and has therefore been asked to keep her mouth shut rather than oppose the administration publicly. That is, of course, pure speculation on my part.

        USW

      • This is the person who withdrew funding from Sheriff Joe Arpaio in order to keep him from doing his job and arresting illegal aliens.

        Remember folks, ACTIONS speak louder and much more truthful than words.

      • Saw a clip where Napolitano was asked if she had read the AZ bill and like Holder, she had to admit she had not. Very strange given her current position and her previous position within AZ. Inept beyond words.

    • Mathius says:

      Arizona depends on California far more than the other way around. California’s economy is eight times the size of Arizona’s.

      Three states you don’t want to butt heads with: NY, CA, and (don’t mess with) Texas.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I’ve personally been terrified of Rhode Island. Scary scary State.

        • Mathius says:

          I know! What are they up to down there? It can’t be anything good..

          Personally, I don’t trust Maine.. they’re just too close to Canada, you know?

        • RI? Go MadMom~

      • naten53 says:

        what about PennSYLVANIA? It is where dracula is from.

        • Mathius says:

          What was the state where the filmed Deliverance?

          • naten53 says:

            the movie was set in Georgia

            “The movie was shot primarily on the Chattooga River, dividing South Carolina and Georgia. The year following the release of the movie, 31 people drowned attempting to travel the stretch of river where the movie was shot. Additional scenes were shot on the Tallulah Gorge in Georgia as well in Salem, South Carolina and Sylva, North Carolina.”

            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068473/trivia

            • USWeapon says:

              It could have been set in West Virginia as well, from my experience there. The backwoods of WV, KY, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, are all a bit scary at times.

              • New River Gorge.. Beautiful! Whitewater rafted there twice. Packed up the rest of us yankees and headed south. Fun times.

              • Godzilla says:

                What? No Upper Gauley?

              • nope…too scared then (ten yrs ago)..too old now… still BEAUTIFUL..roadtrip planned for there again this summer ๐Ÿ™‚

              • Godzilla says:

                Try the Lower Gauley then, still some class V’s but nothing like the upper. I did the upper and lower twice, the lower new 3 times. Try the Arkansas in Colorado too, it’s a blast! I do so love rafting in WV .. Tennessee is next ..

        • USWeapon says:

          Easy… Pennsylvania is also where Weapon calls home.

          • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            I think you’re spelling it wrong.. it’s spelled Pennsyl-tucky.

            I know – I spent four years there.

            Some quotes from authentic Pennsytuckians:

            “So what exactly is a Jew?”

            “We have a big movie theater right near here – it’s only 45 minutes away and has three screens!”

            “I see Amish people..”

      • NY may be a handful, but I ain’t scared of California.

        At all.

        Lol

      • To: Dread Pirate Mathius….anytime that Matt mistreats you, we have a safe haven (port) for Thor’s Hammer. It has raptor security, access to all the Tequila you want, fajitas, and open waters for plunder. So, the next time you get the hose turned on you or your Ipad taken away…come here. We like your independent spirit. We will even resupply your Photon Torps.

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Y’arr.. I’ll be needing a map..

          And you didn’t mention Dr. Pepper.. will there be Dr. Pepper there? Life isn’t worth living without it.

          • Arrrghhhh!!!! Gallons and Gallons of the “real” DP made from Pure Cane Sugar…not the sissy stuff from HFCS….and a frosty mug of the size to suit the mighty DPM…and Parrot.

            Did I mention the bevy of wench’s that will be present to scrape the barnacles off the hull and swab the decks when in port?

            • Cyndi P says:

              Stay out of San Antonio….

              DR es muy malo.

              http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7009756.html

              SAN ANTONIO โ€” City Manager Sheryl Sculley has declared war on sugar.

              Well, at least when it comes packaged in cans and candy bars. Sugary sodas no longer have a home in the city’s 250 beverage vending machines and unhealthy foods in the 75 snack machines in city facilities are next.

              โ€œI asked the staff to remove the high-calorie soda drinks from our vending machines,โ€ Sculley said. โ€œI’m a fitness person, and I care about our employees, and I want them to be healthy. And I think this is a very small gesture.โ€

              The new city policy is only for vending machines and doesn’t ban employees from consuming fatty foods and drinks at work.

              โ€œBut we don’t have to promote it,โ€ Sculley said.

              • Isn’t it so nice of them not to ban it-give me a break and people think we’re too worried about losing our freedoms.

              • USWeapon says:

                “I am a fitness person, and I care aboutmy employees, and I want them to be healthy”

                So you figure you will take the options away from them “for their own good”. Typical bullcrap. I would fight her tooth and nail.

              • Cyndi P says:

                I’m fed up with people like her. “You want to help me out? Get the hell outta my life! Leave me alone”. that’s what I’d like to shout in her ear. If that doesn’t do it I can always add slap up-side her head.

                If conservatives ever get control again, all the laws these liberals are passing are going to come in REAL handy….

                ๐Ÿ‘ฟ

              • Mathius says:

                To be fair, all he did was stop providing it. You are still free to bring it in for yourself. I see a huge difference between not encouraging something and banning it.

                Adding, the lack of availability should allow an enterprising employee to bring in their own supply and sell it for a premium to the disenfranchised buyer. Let the free market take care of it. ๐Ÿ™‚

              • NO, I prefer to tell her to take her opinion and apply it where it belongs to herself. This person does not have the right to come in and decide for everyone what they should be able to purchase on site. It is none of her business, she is a jerk .

            • Mathius says:

              No need for wenches for me, sir. Mathius hit some girl over the head with a club the other day and dragged her back to the basement. She doesn’t remember her name, but she seems to enjoy the company of this here pirate and his bird – methinks she’ll be joining us in port.

              • But…but…but….this is Mathius talking….where is DPM? I must hear the same from his lips….errrr….keyboard. How do I know that Mathius is not trying to circumvent the DPM here? I know..it is a test to my loyalty. The DPM would have said…DP for me and wenches for my men.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses.

                I’m sorry, I used Mathius computer while I was upstairs liberating my grog – I forgot to change the login info when I posted before.

              • Horses?????? Pirates ride horses??? If that is the case, we will make honorary Texans out of them….after all your covert port will be in the Southern waters of the Texas Coast.

              • Sea horses!

      • Matt, CA is a WELFARE STATE just like NY state, but SOCAL is totally dependent on 80% of its drinking water from the Colorado river and 60% of its electricity from the Hoover dam. CA could be independent with both of those necessities, but the environmentalist whackos won’t let them build desalt water plants along its coastline nor nuke power plants.

        There is a grassroots movement to cut off the water and electricity from AZ to CA, and it is growing. Don’t mess with Texas? Maybe, but do not sell those of us in AZ short. A good many of us, like me, have moved here to get away from those nutcases in CA, and we are not going to let them screw up our state as well.

        • Well THERE’S the problem! Californians are trying nuke their power plant!

          Jk

          The resistance to nuclear power and all the hypocritical NIMBY crap drives me nuts.

          • Mathius says:

            Storing spent fuel is problematic to say that least, though personally I think it outweighs the alternatives.

            • Actually some great strides have been made in fuel consumption, reconstitution, and storage. The waste is significantly less than it used to be, but new nuke facilities are rare, we are still using older style plants from the 70s because of the enviro nuts. The percentage of spent fuel to energy is way less, and the overall spent fuel from an initial rod is less and less dangerous. The nuts are running out of excuses, but they don’t need them because they use emotions, and a lot of people have too much emotion and too little fact to not be manipulated easily.

        • Cyndi P says:

          I hope AZ does it. Nothing like upping the ante. Conservatives are waaaaay tougher than those SoCal libs…hehehe.

          • Mathius says:

            Maybe, but we outnumber you massively. Plus, it’s safe to assume that the millions of illegal immigrants already in place in Arizona are probably on our side.

            • Millions…in Arizona? Not to worry Cyndi…we are sending raptors to help out. They love Mexican food.

              • Cyndi P says:

                You’re my hero today, D13, although G-Man is right up there with you giving you a run for the money ๐Ÿ˜‰

                You guys are a SUFA Gyrrls dream come true…..

                I might have to do some more creative writing :mrgreen:

  2. Good Morning ๐Ÿ™‚

    With a normal day of work ahead, I can follow along like usual. I did find yesterday’s debate entertaining, today’s should be equally so. I did find it most interesting that the philisophical views seemed to override the reality that not all citizens are prepared and /or capable to defend themselves or their families against violence in high crime areas, much like the town where I reside. The criminals outnumber the Peace officers by huge numbers in these areas. While illegal immigrants are a problem in the Southwest, this issue is throughout the Nation, and in most large cities. If securing the border and expelling those here illegally can save even one life on an American citizen, then I will openly say that we redo Operation Wetback.

    The safety and security of our fellow citizens should be the #1 reason to do this. The economy is already in the toilet, so keep those that are working steady and ship out the rest.

    With respect to the ardent philosiphies that have been presented, even the best of the best of philosiphies could have negative and deadly impacts on free loving citizens. I want to be free, I am willing and capable of defending myself, I will not harm anyone who is not a clear and present danger. Not everyone is like me, and I don’t feel that they should be put at risk over philisophical viewpoints. Let’s work tegether to protect our friends, neighbors, and those who just want to live in peace. Actions speak louder than words.

    Peace my Friends!

    G!

    • Hey G-man… I see his hein-ass will be visiting your city. What’s the lowdown?

      • I was at work and could care less! Ran into the Mayor at the store a few minutes ago. I hope he noticed what a shithole his Democrats that have run this city forever have created. He probably smiled and said “It’s working great here” LOL

        G!

  3. Mathius says:

    G. A. Rowe

    Mathius: (A) My personal drug use โ€“ in and of itself โ€“ does not harm anyone but myself.

    G.A.: WRONG! You are harming FUTURE generations, but you donโ€™t care about that just so long as you can get high.

    I am unclear on what you mean by this? Are you suggesting that I am damaging the DNA I will pass along or that, somehow, inhaling the fumes of a burning plant in the privacy of my own home makes the world a worse place for the next generation?

    Mathius: (B) The government has make[sic] buying drugs illegal. But people (of course, not me though [note: humor attempt, not deceit]) continue to buy them illegally.
    G.A.: Seriously, you can lie from now until hell freezes over, but that wonโ€™t make me believe you. The reason narcotics are illegal is that they not only harm you, but your future generations. I know that you donโ€™t care about that just because you are way too young and do not have the life experience to understand that what we do now will have a serious effect on the future.

    I am unclear how you arrived at the this conclusion. I doubt anyone else here would make the case that I don’t care about future generations – many might argue that I am wrong in the ways I attempt to do what is best, but few would agree that I don’t care. I think that’s an unfair and unfounded assertion.

    Further, you are basing it, it seems on the following logic: Mathius uses drugs, drugs harm future generations, Mathius uses them anyway, therefore Mathius doesn’t care about future generations. I reject your premise that drugs cause damage to future generations so, until you prove otherwise, your whole argument falls on its face.

    I could argue the same thing: drinking/smoking/whatever causes harm to future generations, you continue to do so anyway, ergo you don’t care about future generations. See how this faulty logic can take us anywhere we want to go?

    You also said โ€œ(B) You have no right to tell people where they can and cannot live.โ€

    Therein lies your biggest problem, not understanding just what a โ€œcountryโ€ really is. This is the United States of America and We The People, as a sovereign nation, have every right to say who can and cannot live in our country โ€“ THAT IS OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT!

    I know Flag commented on this (it must be disconcerting to be fought by both of us at once), but let me try a slightly different approach. You own land. Why can you not sell it to anyone you choose? If you wish to buy land, why can you not buy any land you can afford? Why is it that a collection of people should be able to interfere with a private transaction between two consenting individuals?

    Imagine that you are moving (within the US). Do you need the consent of your new neighbors to move in? No, of course not. Why should you? So how do you extrapolate from “they have no right to tell me I can’t live here” to “we have god-given rights to tell people they can’t live here”?

    As Flag likes to point out – if you exercise a power in violation of the rights of another, then you give others the right to exercise that power over you. If you insist that you (via the government) have the right to tell people where they can and cannot live, you must also grant the government the right to tell you where you can and cannot live. (hint: how do you feel about the “right” of eminent domain?)

    And again, your immaturity is glaringly obvious.

    Where would we be but for the exuberance of youth?

    I know that you purport to be a โ€œliberalโ€, however, by your own statements and ineffective arguments you have shown that you do not have any firm idea of your own as to what a liberal really is.

    Yippy! I was sick of being a liberal anyway – can you tell me what I actually am? I do so love new labels. (Caveat, if you claim the right to define my ideology, you grant me the right to define your ideology)

    And now a word from the Dread Pirate:
    As a country is a collection of people, the people have the right exercise authority within the bounds of their borders and do so by means of their government. Where you miss the boat is in the assumption that in a democracy the collective trumps the rights of the individual.

    I have the right to do whatever I like so long as I do not violate the rights of others (as is the pirates code). So as I am not violating your rights if move to your country, I have every right to do so. You, unless you subscribe to the liberal’s “greater good” theory, have no right to impose upon my rights as a human being.

    • oh oh! Mathius and his pirate are dangerous today.

      • Mathius says:

        Hmm.. seems that no one wants to play day.. and I went to all the trouble of ripping his post apart Black Flag Style..

    • Matt, I have more to do than just sit and chat on this computer all day . . . Such valuable time that is wasted in youth . . . ๐Ÿ˜‰

      No, neither you nor BF concern me in your ineffective and inane efforts to “rip apart” my statements. Mine is the intelligence and conviction of age. I have lived a long life and have learned much in my life, much more than either of you can learn from the random philosophical writings of long dead poets.

      You need to pay attention to what DPM told you. A sovereign nation IS comprised of people, and as a sovereign nation we set standards and controls of what is or is not done in business and private transactions that effect all around us. “We The People” have long ago decided what it takes to become a citizen of this country if you choose to migrate here from another country. Those of us that are born here have what is known as “birthright” citizenship. Incidentally, that birthright citizenship is not irrevocable as we also have set standards of conduct which, if violated, can and sometimes do result in loosing ones citizenship.

      As far as the rest, well, you just need to read it again (kind of like writing “I will listen to and heed my elders” a thousand times on the chalk board ๐Ÿ˜‰

      Seriously. It is a well known scientific fact that what we put into our bodies does in fact alter our reproductive DNA in ways that we do not yet understand. There are many geneticists who believe that alcohol, tobacco, and other more powerful drugs (including those dispensed by MD’s) will have an effect on future generations that we simply do not have the ability to define as yet.

      Please bear with me on this and do not misunderstand what I am going to tell you. I tell you these things for you to be able to have a better understanding of the point I am trying to get across. My youngest son was born with multiple birth defects which eventually caused his early death. I am a Viet Nam Veteran, and the military doctors spent an enormous amount of taxpayer money doing genetic research to find out if something I could have been exposed to in that war might be the causative factor in his birth defects. This was compounded with the fact that I was a Fetal Alcohol Syndrome baby and my birth father is unknown. Many years (over three decades) after my sons death, we still do not know the exact cause of his birth defects, as the research that was done also introduced many more factors into the problem reaching as far back as World War One.

      I have many friends who have been exposed to many different chemicals in a few different wars, as I have been in many other parts of this world. A lot of them have children and grandchildren (as do I) who have been diagnosed with ADHD, Cleft palates, autism and Down Syndrome. Where does all this come from? No one can tell, but the evidence seems to point to chemical exposure of some relative in their past. I don’t know if you are old enough to remember the nuke war scare from the fifties and how Hollywood shoved out a bunch of horror flicks that showed mutants caused by nuke fallout, but if that had turned out to be true then Japan would be inundated with monsters by now. I have been to Peace Park in Hiroshima. I have seen the photographic evidence of what a nuclear bomb does to the survivors with great amounts of exposure, and I have seen the children of some of those survivors. You do not want to.

      I guess the thing that I am trying to get you and all other young folks to understand is that you cannot in any way shape or form predict that narcotics use, no matter what the narcotic is, is a victimless crime. I like Coca-Cola, have been drinking it for years. Did you know where they got the name from? Before the formation of the FDA, they used to put small amounts of Cocaine in it. Sold it as a cure-all for literally everything – including to ease the discomforts of pregnancy! Even someone of your tender age can see the idiocy of that.

      Enough of the ramblings of this old fart. Both you and BF need to open your minds and look at things with nothing but common sense (used to be called horse sense when I was young) instead of what other people put in books. Dr. Spock has been proven dead wrong more times than I can count, but what he put into books about child rearing is still used to this day. Dr. Spock was never married and never had any children of his own. Where is the common sense in that?

      • Mathius says:

        Sounds good.

        And now a followup.

        If what you say is true and that chemical exposure seems to be correlated with birth defects, then:

        (A) What constitutes sufficient evidence that overrides my right to mess with my own body?

        (B) Are people who will not have children (too old / infertile / etc) still bound by this edict?

        (C) There are lots of chemicals and we do not know what they all do. Must we, therefore abstain from all non-naturally occurring chemicals? Should we be required by law to eat only organic foods?

        (D) Do you believe that alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal?

        I am deeply sorry for the misfortunes you and your child suffered, but the simple fact is that you do not meet my standard of evidence to prove harm, especially for a relatively soft drug like marijuana. You might be able to make a case for cocaine, meth, etc, but weed has been tested extensively and has been shown to be safer than alcohol or cigarettes, yet it is illegal and driving mass amounts of money to criminal elements. Where is the horse sense in that?

        Adding, chalk boards? In my day we had white boards. Wippersnappers these days use “smart” boards – projectors hooked up to computers that can interact with you when you write on them.

        And now, I’m off to have a sarsaparilla as I continue my (too long) work day into hour 12..

        • (A) – look at the world around you.

          (B) – it is not as you think. There are more numerous reasons to control narcotics than I have just explained. Again, your immaturity is showing through(not a put down, just an observation).

          (C) – You need to use common sense here, don’t be so childish in your argument.

          (D) – Controlled.

          No apology needed here, but you do need to understand what is and is not evidence. I hope that you do not consider yourself past the educational age because I recommend that you take an investigative course at your local junior college to learn what the rules of evidence actually are(MD’s and police investigators most often apply the same techniques in their work) and see about learning how to do basic background research.

          Your criteria for your evidence seems to be flawed to the extent that if it does not support what you want it to then it is eliminated. If I had done that in my working years then a lot of innocent people would have been arrested. You have to look at the facts, even if the facts do not meet your personal agenda. And you have to put your personal feelings aside. What you want personally cannot effect the outcome. It is called blatant honesty and not many people are willing to do that.

      • Mathius says:

        I’d like to add, that you’re actually very close to my camp – that is, you are a closeted acolyte of the Greater Good.

        Though I think you go too far on this issue, I will have to pay extra attention to you in the future.

        I am curious. Since you believe (and though I disagree, I do not find you to be off the rails in your though process) that drug use should be banned because of the possible negative affects to society, how do you feel about such subjects as:

        -taxes
        -eminent domain
        -prostitution
        -gambling
        -universal health care
        -medicare
        -medicaid
        -social security
        -welfare
        -unemployment insurance
        -bank bailouts
        -farm subsidies

        Just a sentence or two on each to let me know where you stand would be very interesting to me.

        Thanks,
        Mathius

        • *sigh*

          Matt, I direct you and DPM to my website. Just click on my name and it will take you there. Go into the archives and you will see where I stand on most of those things.

          Just to humor you though . . . Flat rate earnings tax(abolish the IRS) across the board – earn a dollar = pay a %. Eminent domain is good for a few things but not everything, it needs to be clearly defined as to what the use is for and why it is so desperately needed. Prostitution is useless and is the #1 spreader of STD’s. Gambling has its place but also needs to be controlled closely as it too is addictive. Health is an individuals responsibility, not the governments. Medicare should be privatized. Medicaid likewise. Social security should be optional and also privatized. I can’t remember who said it (maybe Thomas Paine) but if you make a derelict uncomfortable in his position, then he will change his position – welfare = the nanny state and is not good at all, get rid of it. UI should be voluntary on the employers and employees part and never paid for from taxing the people. If a bank is mismanaged and is failing, let it fail as there will always be some other bank to step up and take its place (same thing with all businesses). Farm subsidies, like all subsidies, are a waste of taxpayer money and drive prices way up unnecessarily.

      • G.A. Rowe

        Dr. Spock was never married and never had any children of his own. Where is the common sense in that?

        And guess what?

        You’ve never been. You have not lived a micro-second of my life. You have never met me in person, nor shaken my hand.

        And yet you think you are smarter than me about me that you want to control what I do to myself.

        Where is the common sense in that?????

        • You’re right BF, keeping you alive and in one piece is NOT my responsibility, however . . . keeping the rest of the population safe from the likes of you was my responsibility for many years. Old habits are just too darn hard to break. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          Question; Have you ever been to a MD or do you just treat yourself? Must be sooooo lonely to be the only man in the entire universe with intelligence . . . ๐Ÿ˜ฆ

          Lighten up, BF, pobody’s nerfect!

          • G.A.,

            I CHOOSE when I see doctors, no one else does it for me.

            Keeping people safe FROM others is moral.

            Thinking you know what’s best for others superior to themselves is EVIL.

            Nobody’s perfect, exactly. Which is why its so evil to overrule another person’s choice. The odds of imperfection magnify by orders of magnitude.

  4. Ray Hawkins says:

    So I am going to clarify/sharpen my position a little from yesterday based on the links USW and others provided and more of my own thought & research on this……

    The state now is that an AZ LE officer is not going to stop anyone just because the “look” like other illegal immigrants they may have stopped in the past. Reality is that there will be situations where that will be the obvious and originating offense and they get pulled over. The AZ law is more so to provide tools/path needed wherein there is another originating offense that has engaged LE to a person. Wherein there are other aspects of a criminal profile then LE can/should determine immigration status.

    So, from a voice on the left, I have zero issue with the two bills and how they become manifest in the daily life of a law enforcement officer. My biggest concern is LE becoming taxi drivers to move II’s from their custody to ICE. There can be abuse for sure – but I do not consider it likely to occur.

    To speak to another point – profiling is a needed a requirement element of LE doing their job. That profiling will at times, include some uncomfortable aspects such as National origin. There is likely a big difference between a van full of white teenagers speeding down a road known for drug/human smuggling versus a van full of Hispanics doing the same. That is reality. Period.

    We all do profiling every day. The very learning functions in our brains are based on profiling – or put another way – being able to distinguish between two things. Its why we know blue is blue versus being green. I profile everyday. My job is in computer security. I profile computer criminals, disgruntled employees, etc. I profile vendors. I profile business-side folks that I meet with. Its part of who we are and acknowledging we are different.

    Thanks,

    Ray

    • Mathius says:

      The problem with profiling, as I argued yesterday, is that we profile stupidly. Human brains are set up to see the simple, obvious features which do not necessarily relate to the underlying issue.

      We see WHITE! BLACK! BROWN! and our brains stop there. Want to profile? Look for things that people have control over that are indicative of their personalities and activities. Do-rags, gang tattoos, hanging out on street corners at 1 in the morning with a backpack.

      But that’s not what’s going to happen, now is it?

      • Mathius

        That is actually what IS going to happen.

        Come on man. You lived in SoCal so you know the cops are not going to start profiling people based on their brown skin alone. This is a STUPID claim based on nothing but bias.

        The whole Racial Profiling issue was not really one of profiling. It was a Racist issue with cops who used Color to harass a certain group.

        Will Brown Skin cause someone to look a little closer? Yep. After all, the illegals are “brown”.

        Will it mean they get stopped and questioned JUST because they are brown? Nope.

        If you have lived around illegal migrants you know they are not that hard to spot, for the most part. But the law still does not allow for questioning. This claim of “it will obviously result in racial profiling” is pure Bulldookey.

        It is evil and obnoxious political rhetoric, intentionally designed to foment racial tension. It is VILE.

        • Mathius says:

          Perhaps. As you point out, I am from California. I remember Rodney King (though I was very young at the time). I remember the race riots, watts, and Compton. I remember politicians saying that profiling would be done in a logical and unbiased manner. And I remember a lot of abuse.

          You say, it’ll be different this time.

          I say, why?

          • Mathius

            Because the State is filled with brown people and there are many brown people on the various police forces.

            They have been dealing with these problems for a very long time.

            The only real change here is that they are being told they can no longer just ignore the “illegal migrant” offense.

            There is one real issue that I raised yesterday and Ray raised today. The possible disruption of LE activity due to the amount of time taken driving “illegals” to the various ICE locations. Also increased cost and burden on the judges who must hear the case before determining “illegal” status.

            There will be a cost, but that is up to the people of Arizona to decide whether they are willing to pay for it.

            I am also frustrated that the State can not simple deport them without transferring to ICE. Once a judge as determined they are “illegal” the state should be able to escort them to the border.

            The abuses by police will not increase, in my opinion, due to these laws. In fact the second law may reduce them a little. Those who are prone to abuse their power and authority will still abuse their power and authority. Those who do not have such tendencies are not going to suddenly become abusive.

            I have much more faith in the modern Law Enforcement community than to ASSUME abuses will become the norm.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              I guess what pisses me off also is that the liberal media folks that did indeed take the wrong route on this. I prefer my LE to react based on their training and the rules – politicizing this turns their job on its head.

            • Displaced Okie says:

              JAC,
              I completly agree, well said

              • Okie

                Want to share a story with you.

                The LE in our state spent the last year running the Special Olympics torch around the state to raise money for the state games. This included city/town police, county sheriff, reservation police, highway patrol, and even border patrol folks.

                LE in other states do the same thing. But we have only about 1 million total folks in the state.

                They ran almost 3000 miles in that time and raised over $360,000 for the state games. They were honored at the opening ceremonies and were given a 5 minute standing ovation when they marched into the stadium. Reps from various LE also were at the podiums to hand out medals during the games and take photos with the athletes.

                We now have a nice photo of our son hugging this lady from the border patrol after she gave him his medal. You could see that stiff authoritarian persona of the LE officer melt away with that big hug.

                The funds raised by our LE in the torch run was the fifth highest amount in the nation for about 30 states that participated.

                By the way, thanks for all you do and for participating here at SUFA. It is critical in my view that we reach out to better understand what LE is experiencing and to help our neighbors who work in that profession.

                JAC

              • Displaced Okie says:

                Thanks for the great story, JAC. It is so nice to hear stories like this, we all hear the stories of the bad things that bad LE officers do.

            • Thank You JAC. I thought I was going crazy yesterday. I know V’s brains and fingers are tired too.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Inherently yes Mat – the human brain may focus on the obvious or simplistic. But there is a reason many of the LE go through deep training and also rely on extensive experience. I’d like to think I can give most of our LE a little more credit that they simply don’t see brown skin and assume II. A close friend and former colleague who worked in cyber crime for the bureau explained that they go through extensive training to properly profile – esp so they can more effectively work KP cases. Profiling techniques can indeed become a secret sauce of sorts – no sense in fully explaining to the bad guys how you knew there were ‘likely’ a bad guy.

        There are aspects of profiling that are not necessarily or consciously controlled by the perp – even in computer crime I am taught that.

      • Mathius,

        The Germans stopped a terrorist attack – by profiling in precisely the manner you suggest.

        They noticed an Algerian (ex-French colony) wearing a shirt with a British Soccer team logo on it.

        The Germans thought “No righteous, honest Frenchmen would ever wear a British Soccer team logo” – and stopped him for questioning. They found bombs.

        But here, the LEO’s (as Kent would say..) are too stupid, too lazy and too cock sure to bother with doing anything so intense as thinking.

        They would rather sit in their cars and drive around all day writing speeding tickets, or playing macho man “Gestapo” and breaking into peoples homes, killing their kids over an “anonymous” phone call.

        • It simply amazes me at times how someone with such a high IQ can condemn entire groups of people based on the actions of individuals and in turn make such STUPID statements.

          • JAC,

            The mind-set of a LEO is that the LAW is supreme and there are no rights outside of LAW.

            They tend to attract bullies who enjoy mindless power over others.

            I can’t remember what TV show, but it had a clip:

            A woman was pulled over and the macho cop strolls up and says –

            “Do you know why I pulled you over?”

            And she says:

            “Because you failed Grade 6?”

            —-

            PS: send you post to the parents of the 7-year old. Wonder what they’d say….

            • Displaced Okie says:

              I too like to paint groups with quotes from works of fiction….

            • USWeapon says:

              Completely unfounded BS, which it pains me to see coming from you. LEO’s come from all walks of life and demeanor’s, just like every other job. You painting such a broad brush picture, and an inaccurate one at that, serves no purpose in furthering your argument. It is no different than saying all IT guys are computer geeks who have no ability to talk to girls. It is simply unfounded and incorrect.

              If you want to make your arguments, I applaud you for doing so. But I expect better than a broad generalization being used as proof that cops will use a broad generalization about people based on their skin color. You fall into your own trap there, my esteemed pirate.

              • USWep,

                It is a generalization, and it covers the genre.

                Individuals are not generalizations.
                I’m sure you know a few “good” cops.

                So do I. One of them was my Dad.

                But I ALSO know Cops because of that.

                And today, they are mental degenerates, bullies and tools of violence in favor of the State, and its getting worse.

              • We are always told that these tragic incidents, like the murdered-by-cop 7 year-old, are committed by “the few bad apples” among the LEO ranks, yet what about all the rest of the “only doing my job” BS?

                When I see “good cops” refusing to enforce “laws” that are not based upon prevention of aggression, theft, or fraud (ONLY) and taking down the others who do enforce such counterfeit “laws”, then I will believe you that are some good cops still around. Until then… the evidence speaks for itself.

              • Cops, Good or Bad, are not there to prevent, but to clean up the mess. While I respect them for doing what they do, the reality is what it is.

                G!

      • USWeapon says:

        I disagree completely Mathius. I do notat all think that we profile stupidly. I think that is what those that hate profiling would like us to believe. I think that we very rarely have someone go just on color of skin. I think that they process the entire picture, actions, attire, demeanor, etc. And they are correct in doing so. As Ray pointed out, it is a necessary step in living our lives to do this effectively. If we did it stupidly, it would not help us survive, as we would constantly be making mistakes.

        USW

    • From what I’ve been reading there may be a problem with ICE taking them-don’t know how that is going to be handled.

      • I can answer that, VH. There is no place to put them. I work with ICE a lot….they can pick em up…and do what with them? No place to go. Jails are full and there is no State money available. They let them go…unless they are violent. Then they are taken to the border and let loose…only to come back across and get caught again.

        • Which is another reason to close the border. Thanks

          • Mathius says:

            Sounds like an argument to euthanize them. Maybe we should just start going that instead.

            Then we can make soilent green out of them and use that to feed the homeless. It’s a win-win!

    • Ray? The Ray Hawkins? No Way! Nice post, whoever you are using Ray’s name………

  5. TexasChem says:

    Good googly ooogly people!What has impaired your reasonable, logical, thinking abilities?
    If it looks like a duck,quacks like a duck paddles around in the water then the chances are highly probable that it is indded a duck!If it is not a duck it will have a greencard!How frickn’ hard is that to figure out?

  6. TexasChem says:

    Looks like I have been missing out on the past discussions from the last thread.
    I have been busy with work and life but read the last discussion thread and will post later this evening when I get back from the gymn.It simply amazes me the justification some have posted as to their views;I firmly believe some of you have to be aliens from another planet and do not understand how human logic operates.I feel kinda like I did when I watched the birth of my first child…A young man watching childbirth is very akin to a 5 year old watching Disneyland burn to the ground!

    • Mathius says:

      V.H. has admitted to being an alien..

      • Matt has admitted to being a far left liberal..

        • Mathius says:

          But V.H. is here illegally!

          • I’ve been thinking shipping out the liberals and keeping the “just looking for a job good illegals” might be a good subject for debate. ๐Ÿ™‚

            • Excellant idea ! I’ll be the driver.. Mathius, sit down shut up and enjoy the ride..YEEHAW !!! (that’s for you LOI)

              • Mathius says:

                SHOTGUN!!

                er.. um.. where are you taking me…?

              • I say back to CA where you came from and grab all your liberal buddies and you’re getting thrown out at Nancy Pelosi’s feet. BEEP BEEP…outta my way ya moron..I’m on a mission from God..tank of gas..half a pack of smokes….. isn’t that how the Blues Brothers did it?

            • Mathius says:

              Give us a convincing “greater good” argument and we’ll probably go willingly.

              But know this: we will all move to the pirate village. Millions upon millions of us. And we will form government there. And make laws and rules. The plans have already been laid.

              And the pirates will be very irate.

              • I have confidence in the Pirates ability to defeat you, but alas there are a few liberals I would miss. Can I be selfish and insist they get to stay? Is it worth the danger they impose? Must give this much thought. Of course there is the matter of taking away their freedoms to protect mine, seems a little contradictory. Oh, well I suppose we are stuck with you guys.

              • V.H.

                We don’t need to move them.

                They can have California and they can have New York.

                We still have the other 55 states.

                ๐Ÿ™‚

              • Works for me and I see no reason they wouldn’t voluntarily agree-they would be free to run their states however they wanted.

  7. Hello all: Back from offshore. We replaced a control module on a well in the Gulf, but there is a delay in restarting the well due to Permits. These “Underwater Robots” you read about are actually Remotely Operated Vehicles”, which is to say, they are not autonomous. As an ROV Pilot I can assure you that it would be nice if it flew itself sometimes.

    On the immigration issue, it amazes me how the Race Card seems to be the only thing these people have left to fight against our freedom. Profiling is useful sometimes. There has been progress there, as less of our African American friends are being pulled over for “D.W.B.”

    In my twisted brain I see an analogy between the oil spill and Illegal immigration. It’s hard to clean up the oil, but it’s made even more difficult when new oil continues to flow. If we could stop the “new flow”, we could use our resources more effectively in cleaning up the mess.

    • Stopping the new flow-makes perfect sense to me. So I declare you not twisted. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Wasabi

      Welcome back. Glad you are once again on terra firma.

      I like the oil spill comparison.

    • Wasabi,

      The problem with your analogy is you assume the flow is evil.

      Indeed, if we really use your analogy, the oil flow was fueling the engines of the economy just fine when some outside force blew it to pieces.

      To blame the “oil” for the problem misses the point. Oil is not the problem. The explosion was the problem.

      Blaming the oil for the problems of violence caused by an outside circumstance will ensure that the real problem sits there – waiting to strike again.

      The War on Drugs – which as I learn more of the testimony of Oliver North – is a CIA invention to fund itself outside of the scrutiny of the People.

      It’s consequence strikes globally.

      The most of the aggravated solutions presented at SUFA will guarantee the situation gets worse.

      • BF

        Do you remember some time back when I stated that I had heart burn over off shore drilling due to potential damage to the ocean ecosystem?

        Your response was a long list of ships sunk with the estimated volume of oil supposedly spilled.

        Well my friend, tell me how that flowing oil is helping fuel the economy now. It is the oil that is poisoning the environment, not the explosion.

        The CONTROLLED flow was beneficial. The UNCONTROLLED flow is poisoning the system.

        Stop the uncontrolled flow. Then start mopping up the spilled oil, removing it from the system.

        • JAC,

          First, don’t worry yourself about the “eco” damage – it will be minor.

          Most of the oil is being broken down naturally – the remaining will be annoying but not much more than that.

          It now seems that about a third of the oil from the oil spill has already evaporated into the atmosphere (where it will become so dispersed as to not really have any noticeable effect).

          Furthermore, โ€œvirtually allโ€ of the toxic element of the oil (benzene) will soon have evaporated as well.

          Some globs of oil may wash up to shore, but whatever remains will apparently sink down to the sea floor and just become part of the sedimentation.

          http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100514/D9FMI8SG1.html

          As usual, the best response to the spill is to let nature deal with it – just like the actions of man – let the human beings deal with it voluntarily.

          No stirring required.

          The VOLUNTARY action of men produces powerful economic and social good.

          To believe that CONTROL of the voluntary actions of men produces BETTER economics and social order is beyond bizarre.

          The oil was managed by the voluntary, non-violent economic action of men. Violence destroyed it. Making it more violent won’t stop it either.

      • I hadn’t thought it out that deeply.

        Usually the flow of the oil is well controlled and doesn’t gradually build to a crisis. Sometimes “stuff” happens no matter how well prepared / trained you are.

        So it is different from the ILLEGAL immigration issue. It has been on the rise for many years. It “fuels” the need for cheap labor.

        But still, stopping any new increase to the problem is a good first step.

        Good to be home for a couple weeks.

  8. I have also been absent due to work and life. This one tweaks me a bit. Cavemen were profilers. Food vs dangerous to their health.

    Just to add a bit to the conversation. After dropping the kids off at school my local radio talk show had the police chief from Phoenix on the phone. His words not mine. “We have already been piloting this program based off of another law that did not get the same attention” “This law is the outcome of that pilot study” “Since the pilot program started our crime rate did not simply drop it plummetted (sp)”. “We have not had one single complaint of profiling or racism since the pilot program started. Not one” “Prior to the pilot program we had 4 officers killed by illegals since then we had zero”. Less deaths in the group of people trying to protect the citizens is ok by me.

    Sounds like its working for Phoenix. Who are we to tell them what laws to enact in their community?

    I am astounded by some that believe “because I dont like the law, I dont want it enforced”. I like to drive fast sometimes. I dont like the speed limits. There should never be another speeding ticket given out. Thats crazy. If you dont like the law then change it. Simply not enforcing the laws you dont like is beyond me.

  9. Good morning, sir. I was out of town until last night and only joined in at that time. Today, I will post earlier.

    USW says: “some are still sticking to the mantra that this Arizona law requires racial profiling in order to be enforced.”

    D13 agrees: I have read the law through three times now. I even tried to “cherry pick” just one or two sentences but I cannot find anywhere where it requires racial profiling.

    USW says: “I personally believe that racial profiling has become a bastion of political discourse, while those that condemn it refuse to accept the reality of life. The reality is that not only is profiling OK, in my opinion, it is essential for survival in todayโ€™s world.”

    D13 concurs: I remember when my son would be stopped numerous times simply because he did not fit a specific profile. What profile? He had long hair…that is all. I tried to tell him that if he did not want to get stopped or questioned…cut his hair. If he chose not to cut it…then be prepared to be questioned. I did not EVER make him conform to my standards…he was his own free will. He learned real quickly. Even in the State of California, he thought he could go on a sabbatical and live on the beach in his car. He found out that even liberal California profiled him as a vagrant and ticketed him and ran him off. A lot of the people on SUFA had profiled me…why? I am a Colonel, so therefore, I fit a specific profile. It is assumed that I have a short haircut, walk ramrod straight, a staunch conservative, a believer in the rule of law, and, as Black Flag has put it numerous times, will shoot American Citizens if told to do so. Why? Simply because I am military. I am profiled. Should a person be stopped while walking in his own neighborhood at 3 am? I hope the hell that I am stopped and asked what I am doing out at that hour. Why? Most burglaries take place during the early morning hours….that is a profile. I have no problem with the police not assuming that I am an innocent jogger or simply out for a walk because I cannot sleep. I will carry my weapon and ID and will expect to be asked for it….and thankful for it. I see people call others Statist all the time on this blog…if that is not a profile…what is? If I see a truck load of Hispanics all riding in the back of the “pee cup” truck with their 7-11 bought lunch sacks…I do not surmise that they are going on a picnic…they are illegals going to work somewhere because they fit the profile. If they are stopped and all produce a green card..then let them go their way. Profiling is a way of life and will always be.

    USW says: “But when those same people then turn around and tell me that a sovereign nation has no right to secure her borders in order to protect herself, I simply have to sayโ€ฆ huh?”

    D13 says: Huh..is right. I have never understood why there are those on this blog that lambast the USA and state that the USA has no right to interfere in another country’s sovereign territory. I will agree to that. Iran is a great example that has been exemplified on here many times. Iran has a greater abuse record than even China or North Korea now has in the elimination of rights of its individuals, racial profiling, etc. It has been said how “peace loving” a nation it is and no one has a right to interfere in its sovereign right. GREAT!!! I agree!!! But, why is not ok for the United States to do the same?

    USW says: “Our foreign policy decisions have made us the top target in the world. There is no debating that fact. Obviously I want to see our foreign policy changed dramatically, but until that happens and it has time to impact the world opinion of us, we are targets.”

    D13 also agrees but adds: I would suggest that everyone take the time to research immigration laws across the globe…..even Europe….even countries such as Switzerland and Austria. Wonder what the statement means..” you cannot retire to this country or apply for citizenship unless you are independent and have a means of support PRIOR to application.” Gee……hmmmmm…..

    There are those that simply say an innocent man looking for work to support his family is not a threat to anyone and does not create violence. Then I see that the definition of violence on here change with the wind. I see the clear and present danger statement change meanings to fit specific arguments. Well, here is my definition. Violence occurs the minute our law is violated. The minute it costs me one dime, violence has occurred. There is no innocent being that knowingly violates the law…I do not care if he is hungry (no justification for anything), financially broke (no justification for anything), a political refugee (no justification for anything), or simply trying to avoid being killed in his own homeland (no justification for anything). For to justify any of these….then, when I am broke and hungry, I should be able to rob a bank without consequence.

    Step one: Close the border. End of sentence.
    Step Two: Eliminate the need for illegal immigration.
    Step Three: Streamline the process for legal immigration.
    Step four: Perform thorough background checks and do not let the criminals in.
    Step five: Allow citizenship after a trial period of a certain number of years.

    You could also do what Europe now does…..or some of the countries of the EU now do….once an immigrant violates the law and serves his sentence…he is deported as well as his family…wife, children, all relatives.

    Hmmmmmm..sounds like old Germany….but do not believe me..research the immigration laws of “social and affable Europe.” Those of you who think we are Draconian? Compare our laws to those of other “civilized” countries.

    I don’t understand it either, USW…..other than refusing to recognize the reality of situations.

    • D13,

      Do what Europe does now…

      Gee, like cross international borders without stopping, customs clearance or any jackbooted thug threatening you?

      Step one: Close the border. End of sentence.

      The US economy crashes, wipes out the capital base of the entire nation.

      On second thought…. I like that idea, D13! Push for it — hard!

      12 months after you’re successful, the abstraction once known as the USA will no longer exist.

      Step Two: Eliminate the need for illegal immigration.

      You mean no welfare, no minimum wage laws, no union laws, no business tax, no employee tax, no SS tax, etc. etc.

      So far, you’ve asked for two fairy godmothers to appear and by magic overcome Public Choice doctrine.

      Step Three: Streamline the process for legal immigration.

      Why do you believe this has not been done until you just thought of it?

      Do you believe it is a mystery?

      Do you believe no one may have thought this would be a good idea?

      So, we know this has been wholly discarded as an option – indeed, we can be certain it is completely opposite the desire of government force

      The militarization and aggravation at the border is increasing by design for purposes that have nothing to do with illegal immigration.

      Step four: Perform thorough background checks and do not let the criminals in.

      First, you streamline.

      Then, you gum it up.

      Step five: Allow citizenship after a trial period of a certain number of years

      Who wants citizenship?

      The only reason they want citizenship is to avoid the legal blood letting of illegal immigration.

      They are here to earn money, not vote for a President.

      • Let’s see….last time I was in Europe (2008)..I had to carry ID (US Passport and EU travel Visa)..was asked for it in Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Austria…..had to have it to check in at hotels, and if my stay was going to be longer than 30 days, had to have the travel visa updated….which was very easy, by the way but required documents. Had to have documentation to ride the rail service to all EU countries.

        I don’t know about the Europe you travel in but this is what I encountered and was not allowed to travel in uniform due to terrorist activity. In addition, to get medical services required passport and travel documents and a vaccination record and cash (Euros).

        • D13,

          Well, I drove from Italy to Belgium, stopping only for gas.

          I have never required any passport to receive medical services anywhere in the world.

          Yes, passports are usually requested and often they want to hold on to them. But that is not for “identification” but payment security. PS: I never leave my passport with anyone. Hotels will grumble, but with the threat of me taking my business next door, they relent.

          I was not allowed to travel in uniform either (1977). Whether it was due to terrorists (Red Guard/Bader-Meinhof Gang) or other reasons I do not know.

          I also know I was prohibited at the border from entering Czechoslovakia as I was considered a ‘hostile’ solider. I thought it was funny, a scrawny kid like me at the time…’hostile’….

          • BF says: “Well, I drove from Italy to Belgium, stopping only for gas.”

            D13 asks: Recently or in the 70’s.

            I rode the train from Lisbon to Antwerp in 2008 and was required to present Passport, EU travel permit, and destination of hotel. Upon arrival at hotel, I was required to present all of those documents for copying and registration.

            I, like you, NEVER surrendered my passport. That is a NO NO.

            Tried to get medical services in Antwerp due to a SEVERE toothache that required extraction…had to present Passport and pay in cash.

          • Dale Albrecht says:

            I was stationed in Sicily from 1977 – 1979. Uniforms were prohibited off base due to terrorism. The period experienced the kidnapping of Aldo Moro and anyone that looked out of place was stopped and questioned. My car was registered in the province of Firenze but I was in Catania. It took 1.5 years to get the registration changed due to government inefficiencies. The police would “profile” anyone, especially because nobody drove from the north to the south of Italy due to the price of gasoline. I was stopped continually and the stop was backed up by a machine gun pointed at you. I’d show my ID and they would say I simpatico and I’d move on. Which brings me to another story. Whenever I traveled with the family I rented a house from I always was required to carry automatic weapons, even to the beach, restaurants and the theater. The Father was with the police and it was open season on them at that time. The US military was only less so. We kept a low profile and usually lived on the economy to be a part of the community. I definitely had restricted travel. Could go nowhere in the middle east and into any area controlled by the soviets. I had to ensure my team never frequented any place on a regular basis and as an entire group. It was unnerving at times to have an escort by an Italian marine fully armed due to terrorist threats and acts. It was fun though and I still rarely sit in a restaurant with my back to the street. By the way the terrorism was not just political. It had also a large dose of the mafia.

      • BF says: “The US economy crashes, wipes out the capital base of the entire nation.”

        D13 says: Disagree with you, sir. But I am open to learning something new…your basis for this?

        BF says: “You mean no welfare, no minimum wage laws, no union laws, no business tax, no employee tax, no SS tax, etc. etc.”

        D13 says: Hmmm…not sure where you are coming from on this so to clarify. No welfare to illegal immigrants. No hospitalization to illegal immigrants. No food stamps to illegal immigrants. No educational benefits to illegal immigrants. No housing subsidies to illegal immigrants, etc etc…..get the picture now? If that is Draconian to you…so be it. It is the way that I feel.

        BF says: “Why do you believe this has not been done until you just thought of it?

        Do you believe it is a mystery?

        Do you believe no one may have thought this would be a good idea?

        D13, scratching his head: I am not sure your tone on this, but I am simply saying to streamline the process. I am very familiar with it. I would love to personally sponsor someone but cannot. Stream line the friggin’ process. This is not my idea and nothing new. Never said it was, sir.

        BF says: “The militarization and aggravation at the border is increasing by design for purposes that have nothing to do with illegal immigration.”

        D13, sensing a conspiracy theory here, says: Ok, I will bite. Enlighten me.

        BF states: “First, you streamline. Then, you gum it up.”

        D13 states: Come on, BF, you know better than that. Back ground checks are easy. They checked mine in Europe in thirty minutes.

        BF states: “Who wants citizenship?

        The only reason they want citizenship is to avoid the legal blood letting of illegal immigration.

        They are here to earn money, not vote for a President.

        D13 asserts: Most want citizenship, according to my findings. Not all, but most. Grant amnesty for citizenship and see how many say…no. As to your assertion that most are here to earn money and not vote? Sorry, that is not the reality. Actually, quite a few vote with false identification. That, sir, is fact. They even fill out voter registration forms with false ID….and it is not checked…but will be in Texas shortly.

        Come here legally and in accordance with our laws, I will have no problem and you should not either. But……I know you feel differently, sir…and that is ok. I still like you and you are fun to spar with.

        • oops…caveat here….I agree that they are here to earn money first. Meant to say that.

        • D13

          ..close the border…

          US/Mexican trade = $350 billion per year.

          Excluding Canada, China and Japan the volume of trade with Mexico exceeds the combined total of the rest of the world.

          The US would not recover from that economic collapse.

          No hospitalization to illegal immigrants.

          Won’t fly. No one will support such a death sentence.

          No food stamps to illegal immigrants. No educational benefits to illegal immigrants. No housing subsidies to illegal immigrants, etc etcโ€ฆ..get the picture now? If that is Draconian to youโ€ฆso be it. It is the way that I feel.

          I do not see how such will be enforced.

          Will the cashier demand a green card before accepting food stamps?

          D13, scratching his head: I am not sure your tone on this, but I am simply saying to streamline the process.

          My tone is ‘incredulous’, and the same tone I use when people discuss “tax reform”.

          It’s as if they are the genius and no one has ever figured out “how to make the ‘process’ easier”. It’s obvious and has been for, oh, about +100 years or more.

          The point is NOT TO MAKE IT EASIER but make it harder and harder for everyone as the years go by…

          It is PURPOSEFUL design. It is NOT by accident.

          Advocating for this will have precisely the same influence as the “flat/fair tax” gang. Wholly futile and pointless….

          BF says: โ€œThe militarization and aggravation at the border is increasing by design for purposes that have nothing to do with illegal immigration.โ€

          D13, sensing a conspiracy theory here, says: Ok, I will bite. Enlighten me.

          There is a purpose with the militarization of the border. They are seizing land adjacent to Canada to build a military zone.

          They want walls along Mexico.

          The Border Thugs have devastated US tourism to the edge of bankruptcy. They do not care, and continue to become worse and worse everyday.

          The Grand Prison of the USA is being built.

          I do not know the goal. But I see the construction.

          • BF says: US/Mexican trade = $350 billion per year.

            D13 says: Call their bluff. You are talking trade not illegal immigration. Mexico will bluster but not stop trade with the US over the closing of the border. There is no other market for them. They will pay lip service to how insensitive we are…but I am willing t take the risk.

            BF says: “My tone is โ€˜incredulousโ€™, and the same tone I use when people discuss โ€œtax reformโ€.”

            D13 says: Ok…I understand the tone and the reason.

            BF answers D13 inquiry: “There is a purpose with the militarization of the border.”

            D13 thinks about this a little: Hmmm…I do not see this happening IF the militarization is State guard and not Federal. I would be totally against any federal militarization. State guard is under the command of the governor……………..unless the Feds decide to federalize the state guard..i do not see that happening at all…but it is something to think about.

            • D13,

              D13 says: Call their bluff. You are talking trade not illegal immigration. Mexico will bluster but not stop trade with the US over the closing of the border.

              You are not a poker player.

              The US has far more to lose then Mexico.

              Mexico has a lot less distance to fall – they are closer to ‘baseline’ than the US.

              Mexico would muddle through like they have muddled through for the last 150 years.

              USA, millions will die.

              There is no other market for them.

              Blinders *off*

              China and India.

              …in a heart beat…

              They will pay lip service to how insensitive we areโ€ฆbut I am willing t take the risk.

              And your mistake will cost millions of lives.

              If you recall my stern post to Janet about “intellectuals” producing ‘ideas’ as if they, once done, could be unwound when they do not work.

              Unlike engineers or doctors where their mistakes are obvious, and the consequences directed upon them – ‘intellectuals’ and their gross errors skip away with a “oh, well – better next time!” – leaving millions starving in the ditch.

              The moment the US even *tried* to close the board, the uproar over the economic destabilization will overthrow the policy instantly.

              • Actually, I fancy myself a pretty good poker player….I would sit at the table with you. My blinders are off…I know about India and China….but you are still under the assumption that Mexico will fight back…..I am willing to raise the stakes and call them on it. Far easier to trade with a neighbor with established routes than to go overseas….

                I do not think Mexico will cut off trade or reciprocate in any manner if we close the border. even though they have a less fall does not mitigate the fact that they don’t want any fall.

                I recall your post….I do not believe it applies here. I am still willing to go “all in”.

              • But what the hell…let’s go back to Morocco. a lot less stress….if it is still safe for Anglos.

          • There’s a difference between closing the border and losing the trade income. I’ll be damned if I spend 30 years contributing to SS so it can be given to an illegal of whatever race

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “Step one: Close the border. End of sentence.

        The US economy crashes, wipes out the capital base of the entire nation.”

        BF,

        I highly doubt that closing the borders would have the effect that you state/desire.

        The economy is already crashing, the capital base is already nearly completely wiped out, and this has been done with borders which are largely unenforced.

        I highly doubt that closing the borders would speed up the process significantly.

        You underestimate the willingness of people here to work, and over-estimate the economic value of illegal immigrants in my opinion.

        I have not yet seen you respond to the assertion that you seem to think it is ok for other countries to have soverign borders and their own laws within those borders, but this somehow does not apply to the US. Why the difference?

        If people wish to come here to work and make a living and contribute to the economy, PLEASE DEMONSTRATE THE HARM DONE TO THEM by making them follow some required rules for entering the country! I have yet to see you demonstrate how this harms potential immigrants.

        If people wish to come here and do harm to us by commiting violent acts, please demonstrate why it is a bad thing that we desire to keep these people out of our country! If there is evidence that they have violated the individual rights of people in their own country of origin, there is some possibility that they would not do so here, but it is far more likely that they would do so here. Where should the line be drawn in determining if they present a clear and present danger?

        • Peter

          I highly doubt that closing the borders would speed up the process significantly.

          It would collapse America overnight.

          Mexico is the third largest supplier of oil to the USA.

          *crash*

          You underestimate the willingness of people here to work,

          ….at jobs they want.

          But they are not getting the jobs they want at the “old” price they used to be paid. It will take a decade before people finally realize that the old ‘overpayment for stupid work’ days are over.

          Welfare and Unemployment benefits will delay this realization.

          and over-estimate the economic value of illegal immigrants in my opinion.

          They represent, per-capita, the largest return of physical labor for value in the market place.

          I have not yet seen you respond to the assertion that you seem to think it is ok for other countries to have soverign borders and their own laws within those borders, but this somehow does not apply to the US. Why the difference?

          When you said to your Mama;
          “Why can’t I stay up late like lil’Bobby next door?”

          What did she say?

          I don’t care what other countries do or do not at their borders.

          They are not part of this argument.

          If people wish to come here to work and make a living and contribute to the economy, PLEASE DEMONSTRATE THE HARM DONE TO THEM by making them follow some required rules for entering the country!

          By interfering in the NON-VIOLENT FREEDOM of a man, you destroy his rights.

          If people wish to come here and do harm to us by commiting violent acts, please demonstrate why it is a bad thing that we desire to keep these people out of our country!

          Do what you would do to any man who does violence upon you.

          But you have no right to judge a man until he acts in violence (or CPD doctrine). You have NOT demonstrated this to justify the blanket of violence upon these People.

          If there is evidence that they have violated the individual rights of people in their own country of origin, there is some possibility that they would not do so here, but it is far more likely that they would do so here. Where should the line be drawn in determining if they present a clear and present danger?

          Clear
          Not vague, not possible, not potential – *actual* *real* *unavoidable*

          Present
          Not yesterday, not tomorrow, not “over there”, not “to others” – *today*, *right here*, to *you*.

          Danger
          not annoying, not disgusting, not immoral – *violent* *death* *physical injury* *property loss*

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            BF,

            Closing our borders would not prevent Mexico from trading with us or from supplying us with oil.

            It would also NOT GIVE THEM SUFFICIENT REASON to stop trading with us and YOU KNOW THIS,

            So that argument is patently false.

            I think that you HOPE that us closing our borders would cause Mexico to stop LEGALLY TRADING with us, but if you analyze it logically you know that is complete nonsense.

            Mexico is going to sell us oil as long as it is PROFITABLE for Mexico to sell us oil. Open or closed borders will MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.

            They will make their money from selling us their oil even if we become more repressive than China was in the 1960s.

            We will collapse our own enconomy long before anything Mexico does would have any effect whatsoever.

            Mexico likes our current, unenforced, immigration policies, but it DOES NOT LIKE THEM ENOUGH to stop trading with us if we change them. They trade for MONEY, not for making some political statement.

            • Besides, no one here has advocated a complete lock down of the border.

              What we are proposing is ENFORCING our laws.

              Go back across the line.

              Get a work sponsor and get a work Visa.

              Want to visit, then get a tourist Visa.

              WE will determine the number who can come to work and that is all that will be given permits to work in the USA.

            • Peter,

              BF,

              Closing our borders would not prevent Mexico from trading with us or from supplying us with oil.

              Yes, sir, it would.

              It would end -overnight- and within 72 hours, factories, cars, airplanes, transports, trains, food supplies, water pumps, electricity – and the entire way of life of a nation would….

              …stop.

              You’d be dead in 5 days.

              But, it wouldn’t go on that long.

              Heck, it won’t happen.

              The US government wouldn’t get that close before they’d be overturned by internal political upheaval by those that would know exactly the risk.

              Mexico is going to sell us oil as long as it is PROFITABLE for Mexico to sell us oil. Open or closed borders will MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.

              Oh, but it is does, Peter.

              The price you pay is the same price the Chinese pay.

              And the Chinese are doing very, very, very good in not pissing off people.

              They are building all sorts of hospitals, and shipping ports and rail and roads and infrastructure… for free….

              And there you are, spitting in the face…

              hmmm…let me make a real hard choice between these two opprotunities…

              They will make their money from selling us their oil even if we become more repressive than China was in the 1960s.

              Not a chance.

              Mexico holds a very long and hard grudge upon the USA – they celebrate holidays when Mexicans defeated American forces even today.

              You do not see Canadians celebrating their victory in the war of 1812.

              Mexicans lost the war, but they celebrate their battle victories.

              You underestimate the grudge.

              We will collapse our own enconomy long before anything Mexico does would have any effect whatsoever.

              Hard to argue with that.

              But that does not detract from the power of Mexican trade.

              • BF

                So if all this illegal migration is REALLY just about free people looking for work then why in the hell would the Mexican Govt declare economic war on the USA if we decide to enforce our own immigration laws?

                Laws, I might add that are far more liberal than theirs.

                Could it be that your assumption about motive is false?

                Only that would explain a retaliation by the Mexican govt.

                And I love your surrender to the use of economic blackmail to force the USA to take on Mexico’s inability to deal with their own economic and political woes. I thought we had a right as people to retaliate against such use of force.

                As I stated weeks ago, this is not about innocent people looking for work. It is much bigger and more complex than that.

              • JAC,

                So if all this illegal migration is REALLY just about free people looking for work then why in the hell would the Mexican Govt declare economic war on the USA if we decide to enforce our own immigration laws?

                The comment was “closing the border” – a wholly different action then enforcing (evil) immigration.

                Laws, I might add that are far more liberal than theirs.

                Who cares?

                Did your mother care if lil’Bobby didn’t wash his hands before dinner, and excused you when you did the same thing?

                It is much bigger and more complex than that.

                It may be big.

                It may be complex.

                But that does NOT give any justification to use violence on non-violent men.

            • Roger that
              Peter

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “But you have no right to judge a man until he acts in violence (or CPD doctrine). You have NOT demonstrated this to justify the blanket of violence upon these People.”

            If a person attempting to enter our country has a documented history of violent action in his country of origin, I would say that that would be sufficient reason to DENY THAT PERSON ENTRY, and yet WE DO NOT DO THIS.

            I am not saying that we should prevent ALL people from entering, but certainly if the person has a documented history of violence, he obviously already HAS ACTED in violence, so I personally would not need further proof.

            Letting ANYONE enter the country, means that you are letting some people in that have a documented history of violent behavior.

            Are you saying that we must wait until they perform a violent act against us personally before we decide we do not wish to associate with them?

            If I already KNOW a man to be violent, I am going to choose not to assoicate with him and not let him anywhere near me or my family.

            So, to me, having some reasonable method of determining whether or not someone has already acted in violence is pretty important.

          • Wait, what happened to “collapse is inevitable” and “sooner is better than later”?

            It would seem that you are (gasp!) contradicting yourself!

            • Jennie,

              No contradiction because collapse is inevitable.

              “Sooner is better than later” only in the belief that I would rather solve the problem today than fail and have to pass it to my children.

      • TexasChem says:

        BF you sound like Chicken Little dude!
        The sheer amount of money saved by closing our borders would offset a tremendous amount of money being SENT to Mexico by the illegal workers here in the US.

        Is there some other reason you do not want the borders closed to illegal immigration and only open to legitimate trade?It is redundantly insane to continue repeating something you know is patently false.

        • BL,

          BF you sound like Chicken Little dude!

          The sheer amount of money saved by closing our borders would offset a tremendous amount of money being SENT to Mexico by the illegal workers here in the US.

          The value of your argument here is easily dispelled by economic theory.

          If NO trade made more money THEN trade, NO trade would happen without any need of force to stop it. Economics would stop it.

          Economics would stop it.

          But since trade exists, it can only mean money is being made.

          Therefore, your claim that closing the border would improve the economic calculation is absurd.

          Is there some other reason you do not want the borders closed to illegal immigration and only open to legitimate trade?It is redundantly insane to continue repeating something you know is patently false.

          What “other” reason?

          There is only one reason:

          “No violence on non-violent men”

    • Good post. Thank God for JAC and D13 !

  10. USW and G,
    I get the defense argument. We need to combat the violence. The whole point of having a military is for the defense of our country. I would love to see the overseas stuff pulled and those resources put on the border.

    Due to the entrenchment of violence, I see the wisdom in shutting the border altogether, just so that we can be consistent in operation. We need to lock down the combat zone. If you live on the border and you do not want military on your property, no problem, you are on your own. If nothing violent comes of it, no problem.

    I still stand by my statement that open borders should be the goal. I don’t give a rat’s ass about how strict other countries are with their immigration policy. Australia is very strict, but they also don’t allow personal gun ownership, so I am not modelling our immigration policy, or what it should be, based on something some other country does. I don’t care. If they want to criticize us like Mexico has, then use that argument to make them look like idiots, but don’t base your policy on theirs just to be spiteful or to justify an action that does not become the land of the free.

    We may be in a situation to not allow open borders because of what is happening on the border, but if we lose sight of the long-term goal and philosophy of freedom we will never get it back. It is just another point of valuing security over freedom. Its like labor unions. Unions were originally a function of the free market, laborer joined forces to combat the comparative power of employers. Then we lose sight of the free market and buy into the crap that regulation must be enacted and we have unions poisoning business, a failing economy with no production, and a serious strike against freedom in the name of security. Lock it down to fight the violence, but don’t make it a policy or part of your philosophy. Closed borders are bad, we only need to shut them to protect people from violence.

    Do we have a right, as a sovereign nation, to shut our borders? Sure, but it is not a move that fits with freedom. I would like to make massive changes in our government, but if I were able to gain the power to do so, I would be in violation of my own philosophy of distribution of power. A libertarian cannot be made dictator by popular vote and still be a libertarian. A free country cannot call all men created equal and then not treat them as such. Mexicans were created equal to us as well. If you do not think so, then you just have some bullcrap manifest destiny thing in your head, and you are no better than those who thought they were royal and deserved power by birthright. We are equal as humans or we are not. Is nationalism so important as to override natural rights?

    Squash the violence, be ready to squash it again if it returns, but dont build a wall, and don’t permanently station troops on the border. Not only should the goal be freedom and open borders where we take all opportunity seekers, but there is another risk, one that I would not have thought was a big risk 10 years ago, but I have a healthy fear of now: Guard towers and troop rifles can turn both ways. Walls work both ways all the time. If the dollar falters and we end up with emigration, particularly of the best and brightest fleeing the burning ship, the powers that be will not want to lose their top producers. In desperation to keep their producers so that they can continue bleeding them dry they will force them to stay, just like they did in the USSR. Do what you have to do to protect our freedom and the lives of our people, but watch out for the demands for ID and the walls and troops on the border, they can be used as tools to destroy freedom far more easily than they can be used as tools to protect it.

    • Great post, Jon, we need to take steps back to freedom, steps to correct past mistakes. The line freedom at any cost is inspiring, but one needs to use some common sense in determining when and how we take those steps back towards freedom. Winning the battle but losing the war-just doesn’t make much sense to me.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Jon,

      Free and open borders with the acceptance of all opportunity seekers is indeed a worthy goal. I am not sure whether your steps outlined for getting from where we are to where we want to be would work, but at least it is a VERY good start on that sort of discussion.

      • “Free and open borders with the acceptance of all opportunity seekers is indeed a worthy goal.”

        Drug dealers and kidnappers are opportunity seekers.

        It never ceases to amaze me the number of people living in a dream world . . . ๐Ÿ˜ฆ

  11. This is from Swiss immigration: “If you are younger than 55, you won’t fit in the standard residence permit to retire in Switzerland. However, there’s a variation on this program through which you can obtain the same residence permit by making an investment in a local company.

    The characteristics of this investment are :

    * You must invest in a company in the canton where you want to live
    * Your investment has to finance the growth of the company.
    * You can either invest as a loan or as an equity investment, or a mix of both.
    * Your investment should last as long as you remain in Switzerland.
    * The company cannot be listed on a stock exchange.
    * You cannot invest in a bank account, an apartment or a bogus company, but in a real company with employees.

    The rationale is that by investing in a company that needs financing to grow, you help creating jobs in Switzerland. In return many canton will grant you a residence permit.

    The other conditions applicable to the standard residence permit to retire in Switzerland still hold:

    * Be retired (no day-to-day responsibilities)
    * Have an annual income of more than Sfr.100’000.-

    • I might add that Switzerland has one set of protocols for EU members and another set of protocols for non EU members. Wonder if that is considered profiling?

    • Austria. Austria is considering amendments to its immigration law that would make it easier for key employees to enter, usually within one month, but would require other immigrants to learn German within four years of their arrival, or lose their immigrant status. The foreigners would have to pay half of the cost of the courses.

    • You can also negotiate a personal tax treaty with the government – generally, $50,000/yr unlimited income.

      Almost every country in the world has economic citizenship plans, including the USA.

      They tend to be tax-free or significantly tax-way-less.

      Interestingly, as an American, you cannot avail yourself of these plans.

    • 5 Runaway’s … countries that are livable with no extradition to the USA.

      For the Outdoorsman:

      With a per-capita GDP of over $17,000, Croatia occupies that sweet spot between places that are too poor to be safe and too expensive to be enjoyable. Your dollar will go a long way here, and with miles of beaches, remote castles, extensive caves and uninhabited islands, the formerly war-torn republic has endless options for your next home. While a little lacking in nightlife, Croatia’s extensive diving, caving and hiking opportunities make it ideal for outdoorsmen, and its stable government and parliamentary republic promise that your property — and life — should be well protected by the rule of law.

      Star Trek Enthusiast:

      Trekkers have few better choices than Kazakhstan. This Central Asian nation, the ninth-largest country in the world, is basically what happens when you mix hundreds of years of Mongol heritage with gobs of revenues from oil and uranium.

      Terrain options range from extensive shoreline to rugged canyons, but Kazakhstan is particularly famous for the steppes, a sprawling, windblown grassland where the descendants of the Khans drink fermented mare’s milk and practice Khyz Kuu, a traditional sport that basically involves chasing down maidens while on horseback.

      In terms of cities, the capital, Astana, halves the distance between Mongol and Klingon culture, with breathtaking buildings that seem to have jumped off the cover of a Ray Bradbury novel. Officially a presidential republic, Kazakhstan is actually more of a benevolent dictatorship, but the rule of law is strong, and chances are that you won’t have any unpleasant run-ins with the local authorities.

      International Playboy:

      The Middle East isn’t generally known for its rockin’ night life, but Dubai has long since positioned itself as the Las Vegas of the Persian Gulf.

      With gorgeous buildings, a vibrant scene and a sprawling collection of private islands, the city is designed for people much like yourself: Wealthy, questionably moral, and uninterested in dealing with the filthy hoi polloi.

      If you’re looking for something a little more sedate, try lesser-known Abu Dhabi. Located a short ride from the glitzy pleasures of Dubai, this gem is staid, beautiful and well-planned.

      Whichever way you go, the United Arab Emirates is a good deal right now — property values tumbled during the downturn but are rising again, and the country’s extensive infrastructure and commercial development guarantee you easy access to most of the pleasures of home.

      Bond Villain:

      Most experts view Western Sahara as the world’s longest-running failed nation, but we’d prefer to think of it as the world’s most functional anarchy.

      While Morocco is ostensibly in charge of the place, the truth is the Western Sahara basically occupies 103,000 square miles of empty, unpoliced space positioned between Morocco, Mauritania and Algeria.

      Only 600 miles (as the crow flies) from Europe, it’s a convenient staging ground for any dastardly plans you might want to cultivate. Granted, infrastructure is rare to nonexistent, but a few billion dollars should easily fix that, and the lack of state-level oversight means that you won’t have to deal with zoning issues when building your secret hideout.

      [BF: I loved Morocco]

      Spiritual Hermit: After spending over a hundred years in relative obscurity, Bhutan still hasn’t made much of a blip on the international tourism radar.

      However, the Asian “constitutional democratic monarchy,” once part of Nepal, may be the perfect choice for the stressed banker looking to get away from it all. Located at the eastern end of the Himalayas, Bhutan offers many of the comforts of home, including a cell-phone network, daily flights from Bangkok and New Delhi and Internet access.

      Not among the world’s wealthier countries, Bhutan has chosen to measure its success based upon “Gross National Happiness.” Among other things, this means tourism development is heavily restricted, so your sense of internal well-being is less likely to be disturbed by the sight of high-rise hotels or the buzzing of snowmobile-riding tourists!

      See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/retirement/for-wall-street-fiends-looking-to-start-over-the-five-best-plac/19474423/?icid=sphere_copyright

      • Actually…Morocco is really cool. Careful on the water and milk though…you better like lamb and kids head..you can get other meat but not plentiful.
        However, the night life I found to be quite entertaining and the culture was unique. I will also concur that their use of spices is very unique…it is in everything.

        • D13

          Morocco

          Many very happy and very sad times for me.

          • I have visions of Humphrey Bogart…( I know it is Casa Blanca ) but Morocco was really cool…so were the damned spitting camels. Suckers could spit further than farmer John with a looogie. Some VERY POWERFUL spirits (drinking kind) there. Suffered from C R A F T after one night of indulging.

            • Mathius says:

              Of all the blogs in all the world, you had to walk into mine..

            • C R A F T…cool..don’t need help on that one… It’s stored in the memory bank ๐Ÿ™‚

            • Spitting camels? aaahhh yes, my mom vacationed in the ME one year and was amazed by them. She explained the spitting distance in much more ladylike terms though.

              • It was amazing….those camels could level a building with the ballistic nature of their projectile loogie. Hit with the force of a jackhammer….with the odor of…..well, you get the picture.

              • odor worse than a week old pot of Kimchee or being caught downwind of the “honey wagons” of Vietnam…

              • Hehe.. just couldn’t help yourself could you Colonel?

              • Would you have expected less, my lady?

              • My kinda man ๐Ÿ™‚

                Hey Kathy…..

              • Your sense of adoration is…..weird to say the least, Miz Anita.

                In the conversation of loogie spittin’ camels and being downwind of, well, just about anything from Vietnam and you are….attracted? I know things are tough in MI, but get a hold of yourself.

              • Plus, I need help with CRAFT…..

              • I don’t know what it means either, debating whether I want to know.

              • Couldn’t remember a flippin(or other f word) thing ๐Ÿ™‚

                Leave my choice of real men alone. Sometimes ya gotta take the good with the bad. He’s a keeper

            • Thank you D13, you have brought back some pleasant memories of one of my elder brothers who spent some time in Morocco after WW2 and again in the early fifties. Used to have some letters he sent us from there with some very interesting drawings in reference to what is hidden by the Burgha (sp).

              C.R.A.F.T. = rotflmao on that one.

  12. Mathius says:

    Sounds like something a lot of people here would be interested in ๐Ÿ™‚

    http://cbs2.com/local/Vivos.Hidden.Bunker.2.1699568.html

    • Interesting, but I submit that this man has never seen a VietCong sapper on a mission. Double layer of razor wire..easy to traverse. Damned sappers over there got through triple rolled concertina wire laced with Claymores.

  13. Bottom Line says:

    Black Flag,

    Last night I wrote you a rather lengthy reply. We had a communication breakdown of sorts. Our conversation had turned into scrambled digressive mush, so I thought I would better articulate my point. When I clicked “Submit Comment”, A message appeared on the screen telling me that it could not send because the internet connection was down.

    I lost every bit of it. AAARRRGGGGG!

    So, I will try again, perhaps a little less lengthy…

    A few weeks ago, you made a comment where you gave a reasonable example of immigration enforcement. I suppose could go digging to find it if necessary, but I’m hoping you will remember so I don’t have to.

    You basically said that it was okay to stop a man from entering the country if he had a potentially dangerous communicable disease. When I read it, it caught my attention because it was a contridiction to idealism you’ve always espoused. I thought “Wow! Did I just catch the anarchist pirate, Black Flag, supporting a statist concept?” I had to stop and think about it. I had to analyze the premise.

    ~ ‘Stop a man from entering the country because he has a potentially dangerous communicable disease’

    ~ Stop a man from = by whatevermeans necessary = potential use of force/violence

    ~ entering the country = crossing political boundaries

    ~ because he has a potentially dangerous communicable disease = is a threat to public safety/welfare

    So, according to your logic, the use of violence against the non-violent for crossing imaginary lines is justifiable if it is for the greater good. I agree with this logic…

    Hence:

    BL – “Violence against an unwaivering threat, violent or not, is justifiable โ€“ Itโ€™s still a threat.

    You agree.(yes you do)”

    Now, apply the same logic to other aspects of the immigration issue. It begs the question of what constitutes a threat. I can think of a few ways that even non-violent illegal immigrants are a threat to the sovereignty and security of the US.

    One of them is economics. This is where we disagree about the premise of what constitutes a non-violent threat justifying violent action. They are another threat to our economic stability in more ways than one. The one aspect we obviously like to debate most is the job market.

    I.E. –

    American citizen – required minimum monetary compensation = nominal standard of living + government mandates

    vs

    Illegal alien – required minimum monetary compensation = nominal standard of living + 0 government mandates

    BF – “I am smarter, faster, better and cheaper than you in your job”

    Wrong, I can out-perform you any day. You are just cheaper. The economic reality (as Pete mentions it) is that it is all about cheap.

    Have you ever heard of the “Contractor’s Square?” (Imagine a triangular squaring tool.) There is cheap, fast , and good,…You cannot have all three at once. You can get a job done cheap and fast, but not good. You can get it done good and fast, but not cheap. You can get it done good and cheap, but not fast.

    Because they arent in the system and aren’t subject to the same demands, they’re able to offer the option of MUCH cheaper. The contractor sees the difference in profit and says ” To hell with fast and/or good, cheap makes me more $”

    Result: tax revenue lost – FRN’s taken out of circulation of the US – Americans lose jobs and $ – etc…

    If I didn’t have to pay taxes and purchase insurance, I could afford to work for shit wages too. So, what we have is a double whammy for the skilled American worker. That is to say that blue/green collar America is being squeezed out by both the increasing demands of government and the increasing competition with cheap slave labor.

    And by demanding such of Americans while simotaneously neglecting to protect them, the government is in support of the economic threat of illegal immigration.

    So, when I say that “If I didn’t have to pay taxes and purchase insurance, I could afford to work for shit wages too.”, it brings us back to …”What we agree on concerning the premise of what constitutes a non-violent threat justifying violent action are the origins of the problem.”

    Origin of the jobs problem = government

    So…

    BL reiterates – “If you eliminate government and/or make everything legal, then eventually it will all fall into place. But how long will it take, a century? Two?

    I suppose we could wait till Mexico has their shit together, then integrateโ€ฆBut again, how long will that take?”

    We don’t have time to wait for the political/social utopic nirvana known as Anarchy to evolve.
    We cannot afford to continue to allow people to be raped, kidnapped, and murdered.
    We are not AZTLAN.
    We cannot allow any more economic problems or threats of communicable diseases.
    We cannot afford to give any more handouts.
    We cannot afford the strain on our system.

    We have to do something now. Mexico’s problems are a clear and present danger to the safety, security and sovereignty of the US in a multitude of ways.

    Our responsibility is to protect ourselves, rather than try to solve their problems.

    We protect ourselves by securing the border (among other things). If that means justifying violence against non-violent threats, so be it. They are still a threat and according to your logic, justifies violence.

    You Statist.

    ๐Ÿ™‚

    • There you go again, BL…always beating around the bush…tell me what you REALLY think.

      • Bottom Line says:

        lol

        I couldn’t resist.

        Arguing with Mr. Flag is as fun as it is challenging. And calling him a statist is sure to provoke a more than worthy response. You know,…pushing buttons.

        ๐Ÿ™‚

  14. Cyndi P says:

    posting for comments

    • Is it just me or what?.. now Cyndi gets the red X on her picture. Heehee We’ve got problems, Cyndi

      • Cyndi P says:

        ??????

        Am I missing something or do I just need more coffee?

        ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • Maybe it’s my computer. It’s gone now but for a while you had a red x on your picture

          • Have never seen anything like that but I did just notice that she has no little head person avatar. Wonder what that means. OOOHH OOHHHH ooohhhh

            • uh oh…she has more problems than I thought. She has a little head person on my screen… Poor Cyndi…now she can’t have shit!

              • Cyndi P says:

                Did I ever have one of those avatar thingies????

                I though you had to do something special to get one. Something I can’t be bother to do, btw.

              • Why?… Dont you have a little head guy (hahahaha) in the upper right… Like where BF has his black flag..or does too much water surround you to get that?

              • Cyndi P says:

                Too much don’t give a shit.
                8)

              • This morning you have a little man avatar again-ask and you shall receive I suppose. By the way Happy Birthday-don’t know how I missed the occasion yesterday.

  15. I find myself surprised-Seems they would read it just to protect themselves from being proven to be lock step idiots.

    Napolitano Admits She Hasn’t Read Arizona Immigration Law in ‘Detail’

    FOXNews.com

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted Monday that she has not read the controversial Arizona immigration law even though she’s gone on television to criticize it, and continued to assert that it was “bad law enforcement law.”

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted Monday that she has not read the controversial Arizona immigration law even though she’s gone on television to criticize it, and continued to assert that it was “bad law enforcement law.”

    The admission comes after Attorney General Eric Holder, who earlier warned the law could create a “slippery slope” toward racial profiling, told a House committee last week that he had not read the bill either. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said he too had not read the bill, even as he defended diplomatic official Michael Posner for comparing the law to Chinese human rights violations.

    Napolitano discussed the policy under questioning by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on the BP oil spill response.

    “I have not reviewed it in detail. I certainly know of it,” the former Arizona governor said when asked by McCain whether she had a chance to give the language a close look.

    Nevertheless, Napolitano said, “That’s not the kind of law I would have signed.” Napolitano explained that she dealt with “laws of that ilk” in Arizona before and that most law enforcement groups were opposed to them.

    “It’s a bad law enforcement law,” she said. “I believe it mandates and requires local law enforcement or puts them into a position many do not want to be placed in.”

    But McCain pressed Napolitano to provide more information later on about “what specific aspect of the law” would hurt law enforcement, “since the majority of law enforcement in Arizona strongly supports this legislation.”

    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed the immigration legislation last month — Brewer, who was formerly Arizona’s secretary of state, succeeded Napolitano when she left for Washington
    .

    The Arizona policy requires local law enforcement to verify the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and empowers them to turn anyone who doesn’t check out over to federal custody.

    The law prohibits officers from solely considering race or nationality in implementing the law, though critics say the law will lead to racial profiling.

    That was a concern expressed by Holder two Sundays ago on ABC’s “This Week.” After he admitted to the House Judiciary Committee Thursday that he’s only “glanced” at the law, Holder said he plans to read it before determining whether it’s constitutional.

    Napolitano last month told ABC News that the law was “misguided,” echoing comments made by President Obama.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/18/napolitano-admits-read-arizona-immigration-law/

  16. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey all, just stopping in to say hi.

    Also, want to give a Big Happy Birthday to Kristian Stout. May all your dreams and wishes come true. Hope you’re having a great day Kristian.

    Hugs to ya

    Judy

    • Cyndi P says:

      Happy Birthday Kristan The 18th of May is mine too! Its the 18th over there, right????

      ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Happy Birthday Cyndi. Didn’t know it was yours too. Hope it is or was a good day for you, and yes, it’s the 18th here.

        Hugs to you too girl.

        • Cyndi P says:

          Thank you. And thanks to everyone who sends me their wishes. I had a great day. Even the boss was nice to me! How often does THAT happen????

          ๐Ÿ˜†

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Depends on the boss.

            • Cyndi P says:

              Mine dogs me out for entertainment purposes.

              That’s okay. I can take it, and sometimes give some back. Not too much though, cuz he signs the paycheck!

      • I second the thoughts: HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO CYNDI AND KRISTIAN and many more !

      • Happy Birthday Girls!

        Everyone from here on out is luck ๐Ÿ˜†

        Fight the Good Fight!

        G!

        • And to add to that, here’s to getting old, and realizing it ain’t so bad! ๐Ÿ™‚

          1. She was in the bathroom, putting on her makeup, under
          > the watchful eyes of her young granddaughter, as she’d
          > done many times before. After she applied her lipstick and
          > started to leave, the little one said, “But Gramma, you
          > forgot to kiss the toilet paper good-bye!” I will probably never
          > put lipstick on again without thinking about kissing the toilet paper
          > good-bye….
          >
          >
          > 2. My young grandson called the other day to wish me Happy
          > Birthday. He asked me how old I was, and I told him, 62.
          > My grandson was quiet for a moment, and then he asked,
          > “Did you start at 1?”
          >
          >
          > 3. After putting her grandchildren to bed, a grandmother
          > changed into old slacks and a droopy blouse and proceeded to
          > wash her hair.. As she heard the children getting more and
          > more rambunctious, her patience grew thin. Finally, she
          > threw a towel around her head and stormed into their room,
          > putting them back to bed with stern warnings. As she left the
          > room, she heard the three-year-old say with a trembling voice,
          > “Who was THAT?”
          >
          >
          > 4. A grandmother was telling her little granddaughter what
          > her own childhood was like: “We used to skate outside
          > on a pond. I had a swing made from a tire, it hung from a
          > tree in our front yard. We rode our pony. We picked wild
          > raspberries in the woods.” The little girl was wide-eyed,
          > taking this all in. At last she said, “I sure wish I’d gotten to
          > know you sooner!”
          >
          >
          > 5. My grandson was visiting one day when he asked,
          > “Grandma, do you know how you and God are alike?” I
          > mentally polished my halo and I said, “No, how are we
          > alike?”
          > “You’re both old,” he replied.
          >
          > 6. A little girl was diligently pounding away on her
          > grandfather’s word processor. She told him she was
          > writing a story. “What’s it about?” he asked.
          > “I don’t know,” she replied. “I can’t read.”
          >
          > 7. I didn’t know if my granddaughter had learned her
          > colors yet, so I decided to test her. I would point out
          > something and ask what color it was.. She would tell me and
          > was always correct. It was fun for me, so I continued. At
          > last, she headed for the door, saying, “Grandma, I think
          > you should try to figure out some of these, yourself!”
          >
          > 8. When my grandson Billy and I entered our vacation cabin,
          > we kept the lights off until we were inside to keep from
          > attracting pesky insects. Still, a few fireflies followed us in.
          > Noticing them before I did, Billy whispered, “It’s no use Grandpa.
          > Now the mosquitoes are coming after us with flashlights.”
          >
          > 9. When my grandson asked me how old I was, I teasingly
          > replied, “I’m not sure.”
          > “Look in your underwear, Grandpa,” he advised, “mine says
          > I’m 4 to 6.”
          >
          > 10. A second grader came home from school and said to her
          > grandmother, “Grandma, guess what? We learned how to
          > make babies today.” The grandmother, more than a little
          > surprised, tried to keep her cool. “That’s interesting,” she said,
          > “how do you make babies?”
          > “It’s simple,” replied the girl. “You just change ‘y’ to ‘i’ and add
          > ‘es’.”
          >
          > 11. Children’s Logic: “Give me a sentence about a
          > public servant,” said a teacher. The small boy wrote:
          > “The fireman came down the ladder pregnant.” The
          > teacher took the lad aside to correct him. “Don’t
          > you know what pregnant means?” she asked.
          > “Sure,” said the young boy confidently. ‘It means
          > carrying a child.”
          >
          > 12. A grandfather was delivering his grandchildren to
          > their home one day when a fire truck zoomed past.
          > Sitting in the front seat of the fire truck was a Dalmatian dog.
          > The children started discussing the dog’s duties.
          > “They use him to keep crowds back,” said one child.
          > “No,” said another. “He’s just for good luck.”
          > A third child brought the argument to a close. “They use
          > the dogs,” she said firmly, “to find the fire hydrants.”
          >
          > 13. A 6-year-old was asked where his grandma lived.
          > “Oh,” he said, “she lives at the airport, and when we want
          > her, we just go get her.. Then, when we’re done having her
          > visit, we take her back to the airport.”
          >
          > 14. Grandpa is the smartest man on earth! He teaches me good
          > good things, but I don’t get to see him enough to get as smart
          > as him!
          >
          > 15. My Grandparents are funny, when they bend over; you
          > hear gas leaks, and they blame their dog.
          >

  17. Alright BF,
    First of all, I am not buying that if we mess up trade with Mexico all is lost.
    1) there are other markets for us if we need to transition. Sure we can be a little reactionary when things get changed in the market, but its not the end of the world.
    2) even if mexico was mad enough to stop all trade there are negotiable apsects of the border that could be worked out without losing border control. Furthermore, mexico does not have an instanly comparable market elsewhere or they would already be using it.

    • Not to mention, if Mexico is such a strong economy, why are 20 million of there people sneaking over to the US

      • OOps wrong “their”

      • Wasabi,

        They have a good economy – growing faster than the US.

        They are, however, still lower in per capita.

        • So tell me again, BF, just how Jose – who can’t earn two Peso’s to rub together can pay Wiley Coyote the $2,500.00 to get him across our border without going to Pancho the drug cartel and hauling a ton of his drugs?

          Yep, Mexican economy is just skyrocketing – thanks to the drug cartels!

          • G.A Rowe,

            It does not concern me what two men in some other country create as an arrangement between themselves

            Since the choices of what commerce he wishes to engage in is not my problem, either.

            It appears to be a problem FOR YOU only because by some bizarre concept, you think that two men in another city selling products between each other that has NO concern of yours somehow IS a concern of yours.

            You’re trapped in a deep contradiction.

            You hate other people telling you what to do, but you demand that you have a right to tell other people what to do.

  18. USW thanks for the rational thought on your posts. Not because I agree but because you back up your arguments. I am fairly certain after reading through this blog which is the most reasonable out there and others. That all is lost.

    Your process of thinking here is to be logical. Mathius, Ray, BF, are so entrenched in their positions that they cannot see the forest for the trees. This is our country. I was born here pay taxes and try to live a fairly upstanding life. I am by no means perfect. But it is MY country and it belongs to those of us who are here LEGALLY. Stop trying to give it away. There’s the rub === you want to give away that which rightfully belongs to me. The people in Arizona voted for this law. What gives us the right to be so high and mighty to condem them.

    Listening to different radio shows, watching both conservative and liberal tv shows and similar blogs I have reached the very real conclusion that none of it matters anymore.

    The realities of everyday life are lost on most folks these days. Listening to people talk of these utopian ideas and then trying to apply them to every situation only serves to infuriate. There is no rationale to the thought.

    I wonder all the time why they dont move to a country that more suits their beliefs. Then it hits me. They want to impose their beliefs on all of us regardless of how we feel about it. When you break the argument by using logic the racist, statist, add your own comments come.

    Ray/Mathius, big BS flag. If you feel that way do… you have illegals living in your house? Do you go to the parts of town where you know they live and fling $20.00’s at them? Do you go to the local emergency room and pay for their medical bills? Do you go to your local schools and buy them clothes or give them food?

    I have never read any comments where you have stated that you do. The agitation comes when you want everyone elese to do it for you. When we say NO. You climb the tree and start spouting. Until you actually give away what you have to these folks please stop asking everyone else to do it. I guess we get to have the but its better for society speech again. Get down to a personal level stop talking at the 50,000 foot level and painting with such a broad brush. What do you care if illegals are being deported? How does it personally impact your life? It doesnt.

    Just my observations. Liberals want to give away everyone else’s money. Conservatives just want to keep what they earned. I generally agreee with some of your ideas as long as I dont feel your hands in my pocket.

    • Poor Ray! He just can’t seem to shake the stereotype.

    • There is a lot more here than liberal and conservative. Ray is a liberal that wants secure borders. BF is an anarchist that wants open borders, but is not anywhere close to what I would call a liberal, and he hates giving other people’s money away more than you do.

    • Mathius says:

      Hi Mike!

      Thanks for the BS flag, I’ll add it to the (large and growing) pile I’ve accumulated in my time here..

      Ray/Mathius, big BS flag. If you feel that way doโ€ฆ you have illegals living in your house? Do you go to the parts of town where you know they live and fling $20.00โ€ฒs at them? Do you go to the local emergency room and pay for their medical bills? Do you go to your local schools and buy them clothes or give them food?

      No, I do not have illegal immigrants living in my home. It is my home on my property. Besides, I don’t think Emilius would appreciate me taking on boarders.

      No, I do not go around flinging $20’s at people. But then again, this is my money and they have not earned it, so why should I? There is an argument to be made that I do do this via taxes, and I am ok with that. I pay my share (and then some) into the collective honeypot for the benefit of society – some of this reaches illegal immigrants. But I see no reason I should have to throw my money at them, or you or anyone for that matter.

      No, I do not go to the emergency room and pay their bills. But then again, I sort of do when the aforementioned taxes pay for those bills. I am ok with this since no one (legal or otherwise) should be denied medical treatment because of lack of funds – that’s simply inhumane.

      No, I do not go to local schools and buy them food and clothes. But then again, same argument as above.

      You fall into the same trap that Black Flag can’t seem to avoid. I do not subscribe to an absolutist interpretation of morality and moral duty. There are conflicts between my duty to society and my right to be selfish. I give as much as I give (which is more than my taxes and also includes charitable donations etc). What I choose to keep does not invalidate my belief that I have a duty to give to others.

      For perspective consider this: you believe, I’m sure, that you have a duty to provide for your family. Could you provide more if you denied yourself everything and gave it all to them? Yes. But do you? No. You take some and you give some to them. So how is me doing the same thing on a bigger scale any different? That would be like me reaching the conclusion that if you care about your family, you must never buy anything for yourself.

      The agitation comes when you want everyone elese[sic] to do it for you. I do not ask anyone to do something for me. I ask them to do it with me. I cannot feed the whole world. I cannot clothe all the naked. I cannot heal all the sick. We must all do it. Together.

      What do you care if illegals are being deported? How does it personally impact your life? It doesnt[sic]. What do you care if your neighbor is beating and raping his daughter? How does it impact your life? It doesn’t. But you would still see yourself as bound to intervene if you were able, or would you turn you back?

      Liberals want to give away everyone elseโ€™s money. Conservatives just want to keep what they earned. Lastly, I spent some time on this yesterday, and I strongly urge you to find the link I posted. There is a massive flow of funds from the blue states to the red states. We are giving you money hand over fist and you are the ones who complain the loudest. It makes no sense. Conservatives have a lower per capital income than liberals (simple fact), so they have lower tax liabilities in the progressive taxes (like income tax) that we advocate for. Yet you are the ones who demand flat (regressive) taxes that will disproportionately harm the less wealthy at the benefit of the rich. Explain to me the logic here. And then explain to me how you reach the conclusions.

      But that’s it for me for tonight. I’m headed home. Good luck, and good night.

      • I really hate the if you are going to support social nets that you must give almost all you have or be a hypocrite argument as much as I hate the if you are against abortion you must somehow support all the poor abused babies that you are insisting have the right to life argument.

      • Mathius

        You fall into the same trap that Black Flag canโ€™t seem to avoid. I do not subscribe to an absolutist interpretation of morality and moral duty. There are conflicts between my duty to society and my right to be selfish. I give as much as I give (which is more than my taxes and also includes charitable donations etc). What I choose to keep does not invalidate my belief that I have a duty to give to others.

        Holding to core principles and not contradicting oneself is now a “trap”….hmmmm….

        I laugh at you!

        You are the absolutist in your moral application – so much so you have no problem beating the crap out of people to enforce it!!

        I am NOT absolute at all! Indeed, I have no measure within myself to judge ANYONE’S MORALS! Let 6 billion different ideas on what is moral reign!

        But the moment YOU believe you can use VIOLENCE to enforce your bizarre brand of morals – then it is absolute – you have no Right

    • Mike

      Mathius, Ray, BF, are so entrenched in their positions that they cannot see the forest for the trees.

      I see just fine.

      I speak for me, and yes, I am cemented, stapled, nailed, and chained to the position…

      There exists no right to use violence on non-violent men

      I know how hard it is, Mike, to let go of evil when using evil appears to benefit you so much.

      But Mike, know this truth.

      The consequences of evil far outweigh its benefits.

      You may not see this in the present because the Universe is tricky.

      The Universe separates our actions and the consequences of our actions by time – sometimes a long time. Thus, we sometimes fail to see how the evil we did yesterday suddenly bears its poison to us today. It creates a deep confusion.

      But it is the ultimate test of the Universe:

      No matter what you do, do not do evil even if it seems to benefit you

      The Universe tests men to see if they are strong enough to avoid evil, if if it costs them dearly in the present.

      But it is MY country and it belongs to those of us who are here LEGALLY. Stop trying to give it away.

      It is MY country too, and you have no right to decide for me who I may or may not hire, entertain, support, feed, cloth or house

      The moment YOU BELIEVE you can INTERFERE upon my peace you give all rights to anyone to interfere with you!

      Thus, you suffer the assaults of your government and other people on your life, family, income and property because you support the same insult upon the likes of me and others

      Thereโ€™s the rub === you want to give away that which rightfully belongs to me.

      My land, family, business, action and effort are not rightfully yours! They are MINE and MINE ALONE.

      Keep your grubby hands to yourself.

      The people in Arizona voted for this law. What gives us the right to be so high and mighty to condem them.

      If men vote to support evil, I condemn and ridicule them as evil men.

      The realities of everyday life are lost on most folks these days.

      Yes, the reality of life is so hard, you have nothing left but to use evil to solve it.

      But all it does is make life harder. Few learn this lesson in time.

      Then it hits me. They want to impose their beliefs on all of us regardless of how we feel about it. When you break the argument by using logic the racist, statist, add your own comments come.

      You are the imposer! You are looking in my windows and counting heads and declaring I am not allowed to have them!

      Keep your darn nose to yourself and look inside your own house.

      I generally agreee with some of your ideas as long as I dont feel your hands in my pocket.

      Yet, you want to invade my peace and seize my workers who have done nothing to you but work for their keep.

      Because you support this action, other people WILL put their hands into your pocket and take everything you have – you have granted them the right to do this by your own principle.

  19. Ok BF and others, now to the sovereignty argument.

    BF, you have come off as inconsistent on border policy with this country versus others. Like you, I find the actions of other countries irrelevant, but I think because you have used the sovereignty argument as part of your reasoning against the US dictating policy to other countries. The consistent position would be to oppose closed borders by any country when someone asks, because freedom is for all people. I think you feel this way, but I think the primary reason for the failed communication is this:

    As someone who does not recognize the legitimacy of government in general, you do not believe in government ownership of property. In other words, if it is not owned by an individual or group of individuals in a contractual arrangement with each other, then it is unowned, and therefore anyone is free to go there or be on that property. Correct me if I am wrong.

    You also believe that you need not follow laws if they are evil, thus it would stand that you should not feel obligated to follow the immigration laws of any other country, because their government or nation is not a “real” property owner. So there is no issue of trespassing, etc.

    I like the idea of an open border because it is best for this country in the long run, but for it to be the best thing, there are a variety of other things that have to happen as well. Our current farce of a market, which is far from free, I am not sure that an open border is the best thing economically, etc. I do still think it is what will lead us to our highest potential as a society and as individuals. You want an open border because you do not recognize the authority of borders short of the property lines of an individual. You believe that restriction of someone’s movement onto unowned land is violence and restriction of rights.

    For those who have a concept of national property, such an argument makes no sense. It is no more a violation of rights or perpetration of violence to prevent trespassing on “our land” than it would be to prevent you from coming on my property. This is my house, you stay out. I am not restricting your rights by stopping you from coming in my house. It is my right to refuse you passing or entrance rights because it is my property. I am doing you no harm to require certain things of you to enter my house, or to refuse entrance to you.

    In the case of border property that is privately held, NO ONE has the RIGHT to trespass. They can be stopped. Even by your standards as I understand them. If you understand the idea that lands within our borders are held by a collective of people who vote on who is or is not allowed on it, it does make sense that a nation could restrict immigration as they see fit.

    If you do not see this as legitimate ownership of property, then no border means anything to you, they are all evil laws. If you do not think that a private property owner can be stopped from coming on your property, then we should all come to your place uninvited and hang out, etc.

    Does that make sense?

    • There is some confusion between “national property”, ie: US-Mexico border, and “private property”.

      Some claim that because I have the right to prevent trespass on my private property, that means there is some kind of collective right to prevent trespass on the “national property” by tightening the border.

      The fallacy in this argument lies in the fact that you have gone from “*me* preventing trespass on *my* property” to “*you* preventing trespass on *my* property”. You have no right to build a fence around *my* land and tell me who can or cannot visit it!

  20. Bama Dad says:

    Rand Paul has just been declared the winner in Kentucky. He leads by our 20 points. Go Tea Party.

  21. Cyndi P says:

    Off topic.

    What’s the matter with these people?

    http://www.ktvu.com/news/23592937/detail.html

    ….”This type of experience is one of the true, unique values of a Berkeley education. We don’t just give you books to read,โ€ Mark Schlissel, dean of the division of biological sciences said. โ€œWe involve you in cutting edge issues in the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences. You won’t see this anywhere else in higher education.”

    Previously incoming students were advised to read Michael Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and Stephen Hawking’s “A Briefer History of Time” as behavioral guides.

    There will also be a variety of events and lectures at the campus on lifestyle choices for all undergraduate students who choose not to participate in the DNA program.

    They seem to inclued lots of ridiculous indoctrination in their ‘higher’ education. Sheeesh.

    • If I recall correctly, Chris Devine is a UCB Alum, so he can perhaps chime in.

    • BTW – Happy Birthday to you, Cyndi!

      • Cyndi P says:

        Thanks Kathy!

        I’m diggin’ this time zone business. I’ve been getting two days worth of Birthday wishes. Only one of gifts though, lol! I wonder what I can do about that?????

  22. Jon

    Ok BF and others, now to the sovereignty argument.

    BF, you have come off as inconsistent on border policy with this country versus others. Like you, I find the actions of other countries irrelevant, but I think because you have used the sovereignty argument as part of your reasoning against the US dictating policy to other countries.<

    The consistent position would be to oppose closed borders by any country when someone asks, because freedom is for all people.

    No.

    When determining action between States and their action within borders, I use the sovereignty argument.

    No nation has the right to determine the action of another nation in their own border.

    I remain consistent here.

    I have NOT suggested that Mexico has a right to determine USA policy.

    I have NOT even addressed the Arizona vs Federal Law issue at all – (interestingly, no one noticed).

    I have SINGLY addressed US action inside US borders. I do not care what Brazil does in Brazil’s borders.

    As someone who does not recognize the legitimacy of government in general, you do not believe in government ownership of property.

    Abstractions do not own anything. People do.

    In other words, if it is not owned by an individual or group of individuals in a contractual arrangement with each other, then it is unowned, and therefore anyone is free to go there or be on that property. Correct me if I am wrong.

    You get a B+

    anything of value has a human owner

    No one owns air – it has no value.

    Someone owns the air in a scuba tank – it has value.

    You also believe that you need not follow laws if they are evil,

    I follow my own law. I do this because I know that what I do has consequences, and I understand the responsibility of those consequences.

    thus it would stand that you should not feel obligated to follow the immigration laws of any other country, because their government or nation is not a โ€œrealโ€ property owner. So there is no issue of trespassing, etc.

    Too superficial a comment to offer an explanation short of a book

    You want an open border because you do not recognize the authority of borders short of the property lines of an individual.

    Yes, but not so much.

    (1) Open border is the best solution. Open border works for people between California and New Mexico, so why not between New Mexico and Mexico?

    I would suggest to the likes of D13 that more drugs crosses the border of NM and California then Mexico and New Mexico – yet, it doesn’t seem to leave ten thousand dead in the ditch.

    California is richer tan NM, yet, NM still has people who do not want to live in California.

    So I wonder there is a lesson here.

    (2) Preventing non-violent men from earning a living – regardless of the mother tongue – is evil.

    For those who have a concept of national property, such an argument makes no sense.

    Because they do not start at their principles.

    They start with what some “authority” told them, and they assumed this “authority” was Right.

    Yet none can defend the use of violence on non-violent men – which is required to enforce this concept.

    So something is broken.

    Either they are ignorant and unlearned – and incapable of producing a coherent argument to using violence on non-violent men

    OR

    The “authority” they trusted lied to them.

    I leave it up to the People to figure which option they believe.

    From experience, no matter their choice, I won’t be getting the jug of beer that was promised….

    In the case of border property that is privately held, NO ONE has the RIGHT to trespass.

    True.

    HOWEVER, the response you give must be measured by the slight received.

    If you allow a man to walk across your property in peace, you give other men the same right.

    True, you can pick and chose, but if you chose generally then you grant generally.

    But the case on the border is not this case at all.

    The case is the border is:

    no matter What I CHOSE and IT IS MY PROPERTY, you and your cohorts overwhelm me and attack – not only me, but other non-violent men

    So, though your argument is true – the reality of its application does not exist.

    IF the land owners HAD the right to ALLOW as equally as they DISALLOW, then my argument would be moot. It is their right.

    But this is not the case.

    Some strange men 3,000 miles away claim they and they alone determine such allowance or dis-allowance.

    If you understand the idea that lands within our borders are held by a collective of people who vote on who is or is not allowed on it, it does make sense that a nation could restrict immigration as they see fit.

    It is my land then, and I do not agree. You have no right to force it upon me.

    You stop people on your part, and I’ll not stop people on my part and we’ll both be happy!

    If you do not see this as legitimate ownership of property, then no border means anything to you, they are all evil laws.

    Borders are POLITICAL definitions and are meaningless abstractions to Real Human Beings.

    If you do not think that a private property owner can be stopped from coming on your property, then we should all come to your place uninvited and hang out, etc.

    Does that make sense?

    Let the land owners decide. I’m good on that.

    BUT if they allow me and others in GENERAL, then that is their grant as well.

    • BF

      What you just said makes no sense-you have built up a reasoning that quite simply leaves our country with no rights to do anything as long as we have a government-so short of getting rid of government we are simply evil. You leave us with no option which you deem right except doing nothing.

      • V.H.

        You are confused.

        You are trying to grapple with your contradictions.

        You want to use violence on non-violent men “over here” but you don’t want it used against you “over there”.

        No matter how hard you wail or flop, this wish of yours cannot and will never be.

        So pick one.

        Either you do violence on non-violent men and accept you will be hard done by the same on you

        OR

        You do no violence to other non-violent men and resist all who do such violence on them.

        • I , my friend am not confused, I believe I read your meaning correctly. Based on freedom only, you are correct. Based on any reality, you are denying us the ability to try and correct the problems that have come about because of lack of freedom without destroying ourselves in the process. We were born into this situation BF, most other country’s are based on governmental law, we have a right to survive, we have a right to fight to change our law using the options we have available to us. You speak of evil but you dismiss the evil of condemning a whole country to pain and death because you demand they follow a path that is impossible to follow and survive. No steps, no short term answers, just a definition of freedom written in concrete and condemnation for thinking beyond the here and now to what is possible without people dying needlessly. You have stated that what you strive for is impossible but you argue based on the principle. Yet you make no distinction between the two. You say people should ignore up to the point of self destruction, yet you call us evil for trying to take steps without causing our self destruction. If I am confused my friend it is caused by you, not my understanding of freedom.

          • No steps, no short term answers, just a definition of freedom written in concrete…

            But that is the reality. To get a real-life change you still must work with reality as it is. Freedom is freedom– I much prefer liberty– but you have to know what you are talking about before you can get anywhere. You may have a different goal than BF or me, but his definition is not the problem here. For your steps to count, they must be headed the right direction. Otherwise you are not helping, no matter how many steps or “short term answers” you come up with.

            • Woops, sorry Kent. You were not there 30 seconds ago. How did you sneak in ahead of me. My reply may have been different….nah, V still did a fine job.

            • Perhaps you should explain the difference between freedom and liberty because I do not understand it’s significance to this discussion.

              • Click on the links provided on each of the words for the difference.

              • Okay thanks, but it will have to wait until tomorrow-I have been out and about tonight and my eyes will not stay open any longer. 7:00 is gonna come oh so early. Night ๐Ÿ™‚

            • Little clearer head this morning-Please reread the post-I am not debating which steps we take, I’m not even talking about immigration-I am questioning what I see as contradictions.

          • Sorry, BF. She’s got you on the ropes. V that was excellant.

            • Thanks Anita, I really appreciate the support ๐Ÿ™‚ but I do not wish to put BF on the ropes-I want to understand and I am not understanding the seeming contradictions between the principal and the application.

    • BF,
      1) When I said you had used the sovereignty argument to support your position that one nation cannot dictate policy to another, I was speaking historically, not in the context of this debate. I based most of this post on my knowledge and, admittedly, my impression of your position on things based on the arguments I have seen from you throughout my short history of blogging with you. This means there may be inaccuracies in my impression. I was not implying that you supported one country dictating to another, I was implying that you have used the sovereignty argument before. Perhaps I mixed you up with another blogger. If you do not believe in the sovereignty of nations at all, then fine, but you can no longer use that as an argument against war or the UN making resolutions, etc (not a big deal, there are plenty of arguments against those things). If, however, you use the sovereignty argument in one place or debate, you have to accept it in all places and debates.

      2) on your point (1):
      “(1) Open border is the best solution. Open border works for people between California and New Mexico, so why not between New Mexico and Mexico?

      I would suggest to the likes of D13 that more drugs crosses the border of NM and California then Mexico and New Mexico โ€“ yet, it doesnโ€™t seem to leave ten thousand dead in the ditch.

      California is richer tan NM, yet, NM still has people who do not want to live in California.

      So I wonder there is a lesson here.”

      Yes, there is a lesson here. Transactions across state lines where the currency and rules of transactions are consistent works better than trading with other countries.

      Now, there is also the lesson that defining something as contraband and picking a place to stop it causes issues. Concentration of enforcement, defense, offense, etc. will always concentrate violence. That is why the coast sees the most dead in a land invasion. Not a particularly “new” lesson.

      There may also be the lesson that making something contraband to start with and restricting the flow of persons creates this conflict. I am sure that was what you were driving at. I get that. I understand that the more we make legal the less illegal stuff happens. Some things, however, like theft or trespassing, should be illegal based on natural rights, freedom, etc. That they cease to be illegal does not automatically remove violence. If I must defend my property from someone who cares naught for my freedom or my rights, then there will still be violence. If I am unable, then evil wins. If an organized society or nation has my back and kicks the ass of the perpetrators of violence, evil loses. The organization of that society and the persons trained in ass kicking are not evil until they are used in an evil manner.

      3) On your point (2):
      “Preventing non-violent men from earning a living โ€“ regardless of the mother tongue โ€“ is evil.”

      I CANNOT believe you just said that. Such bullcrap arguments are used to defend union wage demands, to control business owners and dictate whom they can hire and fire, to justify “workfare” (the foundation of welfare that FDR started). You may be able to find work by crossing over my property. I do not allow you to do so and am within my rights. You must find an alternative because I “prevented you” from making a living on my property or by crossing through it. I am evil? No, we are not “preventing people from earning a living”. The Mexican government is doing that by not having a freer market with more opportunities and by being so corrupt on the wealthy can grease palms enough to continue gaining wealth. Not allowing you to enter someone’s property is NOT preventing you from making a living, take some personal initiative and find an alternative.

      4) You said that people who believed in the concept of government property did not start with their principles. In fact, they did not start with YOUR principles. If they had a core value of, say, “tribe”, they may see collective ownership differently. It will conflict with your base principles, that does not mean that it conflicts with their own.

      5) I grant that private property owners and business owners should be allowed to permit whomsoever they wish to enter their property. That said, however, I don’t buy the “general must apply to all” crap. If I said I will allow anyone on my property who is a citizen, because I trust citizens and understand the laws and mores they operate under, but I may not know or trust foreign ones, then that is not unreasonable. In a sense, that is the reason for an immigration policy to begin with. We make clear to persons what they are getting into. That is reasonable.

      6) Borders of private property are not “political abstractions”, they are defined by contractual agreement. Nations do similar agreements between them. The history of land ownership shows that much private property is owned due to violence or coercion or through other illegitimate arrangements. How are those to be addressed in your view? What is the arbitrary point at which we decide who owns what and what right did they have to said ownership?

  23. Cyndi P says:

    Thanks for the birthday wish, V.H.

    ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Hope you partied and had a good time. ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Cyndi P says:

        We had a pinata party! It was the pinata from Hell! We went through two sticks and the damn thing still wouldn’t break! My boyfriend finally put the thing on the ground a beat it as hard as he could. One of the arms tore enough for me to twist it back so I could dump the candy on the ground. We noticed that the hard candies were shatttered, and the chocolates smashed! Too funny! Passers-by enjoyed the spectical!

        ๐Ÿ™‚

        • Sounds wonderful, I am visualizing you guys on the beach-I think I need to go on a vacation. ๐Ÿ™‚

          • Cyndi P says:

            We were near the water’s edge. Only coconut trees are on the nearest beach. Its kind a hard to hang a pinata on one of those!

            And yes, you should take a vacation! I’ve been on a working vacation for almost three years now. I highly recommend it! ๐Ÿ˜‰

  24. V.H. (from above)- I knew what you were talking about. You say: “Based on freedom only, you are correct. Based on any reality, you are denying us the ability to try and correct the problems that have come about because of lack of freedom without destroying ourselves in the process.

    Who is denying you the ability to try to correct the problems? He is only trying to show you that what you think is the solution only plays right into the hands of those who are working to destroy your freedom. A lack of liberty is the problem, placing more limits on liberty, anyone’s liberty, will never solve it.

    Do you believe freedom, liberty, can only be increased by using violence on the non-violent? (What I gather to be your sticking point in this whole thing) It can’t. The only way to increase liberty is to respect it for everyone, everywhere, at all times. Even if you HATE that other person and their lives disgust you in some fundamental way. As long as they are not attacking, stealing, defrauding, or trespassing, you have no right to interfere with them in any way.

    Getting back to the “illegal immigrant” thing, as long as a person, ANY person, is not trespassing on YOUR property, you have no say in where they stand. Government does not “own” your property, nor your neighbor’s property, nor even (in reality) “federal lands”. Government “owns” nothing it did not either steal or buy with money it stole. A thief does not really own or have any say in the stolen property he possesses, regardless of his claims. And no government has the legitimate authority to say who I can allow on my property. Trespassers are trespassers and their pedigrees have no bearing whatsoever on the act of trespassing. A piece of paper will not make a trespasser into a non-trespasser, just as a lack of that piece of paper will not make a non-trespasser into a trespasser.

    Who is the “ourselves” you fear being destroyed? Is it America? How can respecting liberty, the one and only thing that ever made America different from the rest of the world, destroy America? Rather, the opposite has already happened, and America has been destoyed, one piece at a time, slowly, long before you were born. You just didn’t realize it because you took your eyes off the goal.

    No one is denying your right to survive. However no country, not even this one, has such a right. Only individuals. By giving imaginary rights to a “country” you necessarily take rights from the individuals who actually possess them. That being said, people in Greece have no say in how you choose to live or what government you choose to accept, nor do you have a say in how people in other parts of the world choose to live or what government they choose to accept. If you, personally, feel strongly enough about it to go somewhere else and try to make people realize there is a better way, go for it. Just don’t think you have a right to send soldiers, paid with money stolen from your friends and neighbors, and with “permission” to initiate force on anyone who resists, to other countries to force them to accept a different way of life. You can’t fight evil with evil and expect a good outcome.

    All I am saying is if you deny “freedom” you will not ever get there. Your small “steps” and short term answers are the exact sort of “pragmatism” that led us to where we are now. People thought “just one more law” was “necessary to fix just this one little problem, and now here we are, with a situation you admit is bad. Well, it will not ever be solved with more of the same.

    Government will never allow you to vote yourself free. Not by electing different scoundrels that are permitted by the system. You can keep trying to change your laws, and as long as you are working to get rid of bad ones rather than add new ones, I’ll applaude your effort. But more “laws”, even “good ones”, will not increase freedom.

  25. I understand one canโ€™t just dismiss the principal when taking the steps-but BF is going further than that IMO.

    Violence on non violent men is not my sticking point-my sticking point is that because of the current structure of our world and our country-ownership of public lands is โ€œwe the Peopleโ€ and the only avenue we have to make decisions related to this owned land is through majority vote.. Now this may not be a fair system but it is the only one we have. If I follow BFโ€™s reasoning than โ€œwe the peopleโ€ have no control of the public land. Because of our currant system we have no rights. I disagree, we own the land, we have the right to decide who enters it. Is it a perfect situation, no it is not but it is the reality-we should not be forced to give up all our ownership rights just because government is part of the equation.

    BF isnโ€™t only arguing that he believes closing the borders is the wrong course-he seems to be arguing that because the government is involved we have no rights when it comes to public lands. An argument which ties our hands and makes me ask -just how in the world is it even possible to follow that reasoning into our currant reality.

    • The majority vote, when it authorizes forcing non-violent people to “do as ‘we’ say”, or else, is advocating using violence on those non-violent people. You may like that action in that particular case, but it doesn’t change the reality of what you are pushing.

      It isn’t the only system we have. I don’t live by the belief that it is OK to vote to force other people to do what I want when they are not aggressing against me, nor that anyone else’s votes can over-rule my rights. There is a better way, and it is so easy– IF you drop the ridiculous idea that “the majority” is “right” to violate the rights of an individual for any reason.

      Obviously I may be forced to exercise my rights more secretively, but I am not the bad guy for doing so. You learn to do what you must when evil people are about and trying to violate your rights. Just as you adapt your behavior due to weather conditions. It is just the way things are and I accept that, but I will never excuse evil acts just because some people think they need to use them to get their way.

      “Public lands” are not really public, are they? Can you, as a taxpayer, decide to use that land for a while? No. You would be just as “illegal” as an “illegal immigrant” if you tried. You might be able to “rent” some land, by paying extra, on top of what you have already paid through “taxation”, for the “privilege” of “owning” the “public land”. Just try, one time, to exercise some of your ownership rights over that land and see what happens. You may be able to walk through that land and not be prosecuted for trespassing, but don’t always count on it.

      No, the US government, or one of its branches, acts as though it owns all “public lands”. The only problem is that the government “owns” nothing it did not steal, or buy with money it stole. A thief does not have the right to control the stolen property he possesses, no matter what he claims.

      Borders that can keep “them” out WILL be used to keep “us” caged. Give it time. Do you want America to be West Berlin on a grand scale? I don’t.

      My hands are not tied, and neither are yours (as long as you don’t let government tie them for you). You can keep anyone off of your property for any reason you like- or for no reason at all. You can hire who you want, or rent to who you want. You can make any arrangement with anyone who agrees to a mutually beneficial arrangement with you, and if they violate the terms you can refuse to have anything else to do with them.

      You can also choose to use violence to enforce “borders” if that is what you want to do. It isn’t right, but no one can force you to do what is right. It isn’t my job. However, I will defend myself from aggression, and I will defend any other person I see being attacked. It is the right thing to do. Stop expecting government to do your job for you. Protect what is actually yours, and mind your own business otherwise.

      On another, completely unrelated, note:

      At 1:45PM today I became a grandfather. It’s a boy, 6 pounds, 15 ounces- 19 inches long- mother (my daughter) and son are doing fine. They live 700 miles away, so pictures are all I will see for some time. My 2 year, 9 month-old daughter is an aunt at a young age.

      • Congratulations. ๐Ÿ™‚

        Still disagree about property rights-it may not be fair, I may only have the rights that the majority has decided on-but we as the citizens of the US still own the land. So until, if ever, all land is private we must be able to make decisions concerning this land. We have the same rights as a private owner has. Again congratulations.

        • Thanks.

          You have a multitude of rights, whether the majority respects them or not. Their opinions, or votes, have no bearing on the matter at all. I recommend you start exploring your rights. You will like it.

          We have the same rights as a private owner has.” I don’t recommend acting on that assumption unless you are bullet-proof. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          This discussion has inspired my next Examiner column. It is more geared toward “citizenship” and what that really means.

%d bloggers like this: