Citizen Tom

This post takes up a thread started in this earlier post, ADVENTURES IN ILLOGIC: TODAY FEATURING ANTI-BVBL.  Alanna posted a comment I thought worthy of further exploration.

Alanna posts at ANTI-BVBL.  She is sympathetic to the cause of illegal immigrants, and she holds the People of our nation culpable for their plight (see here, here, and here).  While I have some sympathy for her point of view, I disagree.  I blame the politicians who lied to us, the greedy people who bribed them, and the illegal immigrants who knowingly broke our laws coming here.  Here is my latest reply.

Alanna – Government, no matter what the form, involves contests between rival factions. Because the Founders feared a powerful central government, they gave the Federal Government relatively little power.   Moreover, to keep the government from growing more powerful, they tied it up in knots with checks and balances.

When it exercised relatively little responsibility, the People exercised fairly strong control over the Federal Government. Because there were few issues they could affect, Federal politicians ran for office on a relatively clear platform. Unfortunately, because of the poor quality of government-run education, the success in the selling of the “Living Constitution,” the increase in interstate commerce, and the way conniving incumbents have steadily worked the system to ensure their reelection, those days are long behind us.

So what happens now when we each go to the polls? Immigration control is one issue amongst many. How important is that one issue to most people?  Because we are not the bigots some suggest we are, and we pity the poverty of our neighbors to the South, not very. Thus, conniving special interests, relatively unopposed, have won the day year after year.  So our government barely enforces our immigration laws.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans still do not want illegal immigration.  They recognize the increasing costs such immigration imposes upon our society. Yet because we are not executing our system of government as the Founders intended, it is difficult for the People to exercise their will.

So what is the solution?  It involves the concept of personal responsibility. Our republic works only to the extent we each accept personal responsibility. When we try to force the consequences of our decisions upon each other, we begin inching towards a totalitarian state. When nobody is responsible, then everybody starts looking for somebody to make responsible. That somebody is a tyrant, which I hope most people still want to avoid.

If each of us is to accept personal responsibility, we require a limited government. If we each are responsible for our own actions, then logic dictates a government with limited powers, one that refuses to accept responsibility for the consequences of individual’s decisions.

With a limited government, we the People can more easily hold the people we elect accountable. In the meantime, our leaders will lie to us, and they will get away with it.

I suppose there is one mitigating factor.  Our leader’s lies can be audacious and entertaining.  Note in her first comment (see here) Alanna provided a link to a Supreme Court decision, Pyler v. Doe.  The decision in this case forced the public school system to accept the children of illegal immigrants.  The decision was split 5-4 (see here).   Justice Burger wrote the dissenting opinion.  For the deadpan humor it contains, this section is priceless.

Without laboring what will undoubtedly seem obvious to many, it simply is not “irrational” for a state to conclude that it does not have the same responsibility to provide benefits for persons whose very presence in the state and this country is illegal as it does to provide for persons lawfully present. By definition, illegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state. ^[n11] In De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 357 (1976), we held that a State may protect its

fiscal interests and lawfully resident labor force from the deleterious effects on its economy resulting from the employment of illegal aliens.

And, only recently, this Court made clear that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving the quality of its schools and “the right of its own bona fide residents to attend such institutions on a preferential tuition basis.” Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 453 (1973) (emphasis added). See also Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647, 663-668 (1978). The Court has failed to offer even a plausible explanation why illegality of residence [p251] in this country is not a factor that may legitimately bear upon the bona fides of state residence and entitlement to the benefits of lawful residence. ^[n12] (from here)

Yesterday I posted this comment on this post at ANTI-BVBL.   What was my complaint?  One of their posters praised a Washington Post editorial that included this paragraph.

In ethnic politics, symbolism matters. And recent Republican signals to Hispanics have often been crudely unwelcoming. During the 2006 congressional debate on immigration reform, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) grabbed the Republican microphone to call Miami a “Third World country.” The same year, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) darkly warned of illegal immigrant murderers as a “slow motion nightmare” greater than Sept. 11. A provision of the House immigration reform bill would have made it illegal for priests, ministers and volunteers to “assist” illegal immigrants — criminalizing a religious duty. Republican presidential candidates conspicuously avoided Hispanic forums during the 2008 primaries. Conservative shock radio, on its frightening fringes, can be overtly racist, referring to Mexican immigrants as “leeches,” “the world’s lowest primitives” and diseased carriers of the “fajita flu” who may “wipe their behinds with their hands.” Pat Buchanan sells books with this title: “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.”  (from here)

The implication, of course, is that Republicans don’t like Hispanics.    The poster at ANTI-BVBL used this editorial to accuse Republicans of pandering to extremists.  In other words, the author called Republicans bigots, but carefully skittered around using that word.

Frankly, I think the author, Michael Gerson, wrote a bigoted article.  When ANTI-BVBL praised such trash, they joined in the same behavior.

In my comment, I pointed out that Americans have every right to protect their cultural heritage.   Democracy is an invention.  Just like any other invention, democracy requires experience and expertise to operate, but we are we doing?   What would the people who call Republicans extremists have us do?  They would have us open our borders and let anyone who wants enter our nation.  Would they give strangers the keys to other people’s homes?  Who knows?   As it is, they insist on giving the children of illegal immigrants a free education, and they insist subsidizing the health care of illegal immigrants.  What reason do we have to doubt that they would happily and self-righteously allow illegal immigrants  to vote, even to the point of printing our voting ballots in a dozen languages?

Yet to complain of such rapacious stupidity is extreme.  Thus Moon-howler promptly answered my comment with this reply:  “You are the bigot because you come here and look at us all as one rather than individuals who have united on a blog to exchange ideas.”   What can I offer in defense?  I ask my readers to consider Moon-howler“s own words.  He and his fellow blog compatriots have and are united.  If Moon-howler does not want to be associated with ANTI-BVBL’s other bloggers (Elena and Alanna seem to the only others in the last couple of weeks.), he can blog on his own blog.  He can at least put up a page that describes the views of the individual authors and what the website is about. As it is there is nothing — nothing except what each author posts that distinguishes one author from another.

Nonetheless, Moon-howler did offer “positive” advice.

Why would any minority want to be a Republican? I have yet to even understand the Log Cabin Republicans. In order to get people to join, you have to offer something for them to identify with, appeal to their belief system. That is the place to start–not with platitudes or trotting out token Latinos or blacks.  (from here)

What are we to make of Moon-howler’s helpful advice?   It seems Moon-howler thinks Republicans need is to start thinking like Moon-howler.  Otherwise, we are evil, stupid, bigoted or some other such thing.   And, of course, Black and Latino Republicans are just tokens.  So there is no reason treat them with any respect.  Perhaps, that is why Democrats so readily and enthusiastically trash the reputations and character non-WASP Republicans.  How else can you explain why such tolerant souls so readily call others bigots?

ANTI-BVBL quotes FAIR?  See here, and go figure.  My guess is the corporate news media was keeping too mum.  Wonder why?  Well, give Alanna credit for wanting to put out the story.

What is the subject?  It appears the Obama administration is doing what it can to gut the 287(g) program.

After you marvel at the ANTI-BVBL post, you can check out their reference for yourself here.  It is only a litte ways down the page.

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

Once again I am commenting at ANTI-BVBL.  Since the topic of Illegal Immigration will most likely soon arrive in Congress once again, I decided to see what ANTI-BVBL had to say about it.  Here is the latest post, Dare to Dream a Dream….universities and colleges support the Dream Act.

Like too many these days, Elena seems to think government has all money needed to do anything.  I guess she thinks that is what printing presses are for.

Anyway, in her last two comments (starting here), Elena tried to justify providing the children of illegal immigrants an education.  She sees that as an appropriate expense for the American taxpayer.  This is supposedly an appropriate reward for the desperation their parents showed in coming here.  Somehow, we are responsible and obligated.  She even turned my use of the word “struggle” to her own purposes.  Here is my answer.

Elena – By struggle, I did not mean law-breaking such as robbery or extortion.  For example, if someone wants an education badly enough, they could rob a bank to pay for it.  Would you approve?  No?  Then consider your support for having our government pay for the education of illegal immigrants.  To do this our government must deliberately turn a blind eye.  When the children of illegal immigrants attend public schools and colleges, our government must ignore the fact these people are in the country illegally.  How is that different from letting bank robbers use their ill-gotten gains to pay for a college education?  Are not taxpayers are being extorted to pay for the education of people who are not even suppose to be here?

You asked about welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Do I approve?  No!  Government exists so we can solve our own problems.  Government exists to protect our rights so we can solve our own problems.  Government does not exist so it can solve our problems for us.  That does not even work.  When we use government to solve our problems, we eventually end up abusing each other’s rights.

Some things are predicable.  Aristotle identified the processes by which democracies destroy themselves thousands of years ago.  Aristotle explained these processes in a book he appropriately named Politics.  Benjamin Franklin summarized these processes more succinctly….

When the people find they can vote themselves money; that will herald the end of the republic. — Benjamin Franklin

Most of the Federal Budget now goes to pay for social programs such as welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, education, and so forth.  These programs result from citizens voting to raid the public treasury.  Such programs are the main reason why we cannot balance the budget.  Unless we wise up, the result must be national bankruptcy and then tyranny.

Perhaps you have yet to consider what the right of free association really involves.  Government is just one of many types of organizations that people can use to get things done.  What makes government different is that we do not have a choice.  When government is involved, we must submit to doing what needs to be done somebody else’s way.  We are not allowed to work with people who share our beliefs.

Government is not necessary for education.  Before there were government-run schools, people managed to educate themselves and their children.  At the time of the American Revolution, about 90 percent of New Englanders could read and write (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Literacy).  Horace Mann did not start his so-called education reforms until 1837.

Change is not always a good thing.

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

Congress had its plan.  That flopped.  So perhaps the blogosphere is as good a place as any to come up with an immigration plan.  What is out there?  Well, there does not necessarily seem to be a lot of “plans”.  There are, however, some.

• As I have mentioned before, Henryk A. Kowalczyk put up his Freedom of Migration Act.  Henryk has little use for anything he thinks smacks of socialism.  He is prepared to drop most immigration laws.  Instead of amnesty, Henryk thinks our leaders should offer everyone an apology.  Henryk arguments focus essentially on the economics the problem.  Henryk’s plan is also relatively detailed.  However, since Henryk intends to let the free market regulate immigration, most of his detail is in explaining why the least of amount of government interference is best.
• Anti-BVBL’s Elena offers up a “humane solution“.  Elena’s plan is to put teeth in immigration enforcement and to offer current illegal immigrants amnesty.  To me, it sounds 1986 again.
• Sorro of Two Guys from Quantico proposes a welcome mat.  His is an avidly libertarian plan.  Again, like Henryk, he perceives most of the problems as economic and self-regulating.
• Katherine of Luxurious Choices has her “Revised Immigration Plan” (no reason why these things cannot be improved).  Katherine has praised Elena’s plan.  Both Katherine’s and Elena’s plans are intended to be humane solutions.
• Jay of “First Principles” offers a “Modest Proposal on Immigration“.   He puts it rather bluntly:  “What if it were this simple: eliminate all government assistance for illegal aliens, outside of extraordinary health care (i.e. someone is hit by a car and needs surgery – we can debate about “who pays” in this scenario). Provide first choice for available jobs for US citizens and resident aliens. Provide illegals with second choice.”
• To add an international flavor, here is a post by Lance Wiggs, “Immigration– Bring us your masses“.  Lance offers another version of the free market open borders solution.
• Of course, I also have my own relatively brief plan, “Amnesty and Illegal Immigration“.

Most bloggers do not have plans; instead, they have expectations.  Joan McIntyre of The Tentacle offers her expectations in  “The Implications of Illegal Immigration“.  Then she closes the following:

If you are concerned about illegal immigration, start talking to your elected officials. Let them know how you feel and let them know often. Request that they keep the immigration issue on the top of their agendas. If you don’t like how they respond, remember that and make sure you voice that complaint when it comes to election time.

Joan does not have a pie in the sky plan that involves economic theory.  She is not unconcerned about the humane treatment of illegal immigrants.  She just wants the law enforced.  Unfortunately, as Joan points out at the beginning of her post, our leaders do not seem to be listening.   With respect to immigration policy, our leaders are indifferent to the expectations of the average citizen.  It would appear that they have their own plan, their own theory about economics and their own concerns about the humane treatment of illegal immigrants.  I very much suspect that they call their plan ”The Status Quo”. 

Perhaps that is why Joan offers her closing suggestion:  “start talking to your elected officials”.  Any plan that does not deal with the obstructionism of our leaders is not going anywhere.