Friday, November 16, 2007
“just an attempt to, as they say on Wall Street, ‘put lipstick on that pig‘“
While waiting to see what, if any, public converstaion takes place on those border issues there’s another, somewhat related, conversation trying to take shape. In the Irish Times, campaigner Frank Sharry, executive director of the US National Immigration Forum, reckons it could take up to 10 years before US immigration reform “becomes viable to have it back at the table” - and not just because of contradictions between Ministers of State. From the Irish Times article [subs req]
Sharry believes that despite the tough measures contained in the Bill (undocumented migrants would have had to pay thousands of dollars in fines and would not have been eligible for permanent residence for eight years, for example), Republican opponents succeeded in portraying the proposal as an amnesty that would reward law-breakers. Democrats, themselves unsure about its feasibility, were half-hearted advocates. “So the combination meant the grand bargain that was negotiated in the backroom, when it went public, was something of an orphan.”
Frank Sharry is also sceptical of any proposed bilateral ‘special case’ agreement for Irish illegal immigrants, as suggested by Dermot Ahern previously.
While Sharry is supportive of the Government’s efforts to secure a bilateral agreement that would regularise the status of the undocumented Irish, he is not convinced it will succeed.
“I would be supportive of it, but I don’t see its viability, because people on the right will label it an amnesty and people on left will say, ‘how come these white immigrants are going to get status rather than many others?’”
Meanwhile inside the paper there’s an additional article [subs still], by Trina Vargo founder and president of the US-Ireland Alliance, who argues that “Irish-Americans trying to get a special deal only for Irish illegal migrants in the US are wrong.”
The US immigration system needs fixing, but it requires a comprehensive and united approach. The deportation of 12 million people is clearly not possible, and pragmatism favours efforts to create an earned path to citizenship for those in the US illegally. Sadly, that effort has been stalled.
But to support a special deal that would single out illegal Irish immigrants for preferential treatment would be morally wrong, could harm the US-Ireland relationship, damage the high regard in which Irish-Americans are held, and lead to a divisive debate in the US between the Hispanic community and the Irish-American community.
The Irish economy is strong, and a special deal is not justified on economic grounds. The majority of those attending the rallies for the illegal Irish immigrants are young people, people who came to the United States when jobs were plentiful at home.
These are not people who fled extreme economic hardship, political persecution, physical torture, or an undemocratic government. Jobs are so plentiful in Ireland that in recent years, Government officials have travelled to the US to urge the Irish to return home. It is to be celebrated that Ireland is now a country of wealth, prosperity and opportunity. Now one of the richest countries in the world, it is a not a place anyone has to leave.
Supporters of a special deal for the Irish say there is precedent, that this was done for Australia. What they neglect to point out is that those visas had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. They were about trade agreements and facilitating the movement of professionals to the US. They were temporary visas subject to stringent eligibility requirements. The visas were only available to those with specific professional skills and for specific jobs pursuant to trade agreements.
There is also talk of trying to mask a “special deal” by cloaking it in innocuous immigration provisions but this is just an attempt to, as they say on Wall Street, “put lipstick on that pig”.
Pete Baker @ 12:10 PM
Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it…
On “Cheers”, Woody said that the same is true for mathematics.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:50 PMGeorge: “As for what illegal immigrants should or should not expect, they are human beings like the rest of us so make their decisions accordingly. Sometimes their dreams and hopes and expectations are rational, sometimes not. “
To come into a country illegally is to break the law. I really could care less what their expectations are, George. They don’t have to like it, but illegal immigrants should expect to be deported.
George: “As for the you “cannot break the law and then claim to be “law-abiding” logic, I find it a bit glib and a nice phrase to justify ignoring their real-life situation. “
What, that they crossed the border illegally, are residing in the United States unlawfully and are evading taxes on the Federal, State and possibly local level? This doesn’t even take into account the criminal element to enter illegally to escape their criminal records or commit crimes in the US.
George: “Your standards are approaching those set out by the guy who came up with the idea of original sin. “
bollocks. You can’t be in the United States illegally and not be a criminal. You cannot work with either a false or stolen SSN and not be a criminal. You cannot be paid under the table and not be a criminal.
Identity theft, fraud and tax-evasion. Are these not crimes where you are?
George: “It seems you favour leaving these particular souls outside the consecrated ground of legal right of residence simply becauses your doctrinal logic dictates it. “
The “legal right of residence” requires a green card in the United States. No tickee, no laundry.
If you want legal residence, follow the legal requirements. If not, the illegal immigrant runs the risk of being caught and punished / deported.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 09:03 PMMR: “Those “illegals” who are in professional positions, with a certain amount of jiggery-pokery they and their company/organisation can legitimate their position.”
That’s a very thin number, especially given the fact that those industries wanting white-collar immigrants have their own visa designation and seek to enlarge it every year.
MR: “My confident prediction is that the Immigration Service will continue to harass this group, from time to time, sufficiently for the whingers to sleep peacefully in their beds, and for forestalling the vigilante problem worsening. And that will be it. “
Depends. The gophers seek to have woken up and gotten incensed on the issue. As such, something more than “rounding up of the usual suspects” will be in order.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 09:07 PMWhy should the Irish receive special treatment in the US? No reason other than that they demand special treatment and are prepared to manipulate Capitol Hill to get it. If they get it, they deserved it. Life isn’t fair, kids. You need to keep in mind that all nations look after their own people and that process is chauvinistic and not based on merit, need or other factors. We don’t go to Europe and say “Yes, we need two billion for road infrastructure, but we don’t think it fair to ask for it because Poland’s need is greater than ours.” Likewise, the IDA doesn’t say to a company considering a choice between two equals, “Invest in X. They need the investment more than we do.” We should bully our way through Capitol Hill on behalf of the Irish and to hell with the rest.
And there is no need to be consistent. Just because we demand special treatment for Irish illegal immigrants in the US doesn’t mean we shouldn’t boot illegal immigrants in Ireland back to from whence they came. It’s politics, not morality plays.
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 09:14 PMThe Dubliner: “No reason other than that they demand special treatment and are prepared to manipulate Capitol Hill to get it. If they get it, they deserved it.”
No, they won’t have deserved… the merely would have wrangled it, which is not nearly the same thing.
The Dubliner: “And there is no need to be consistent. Just because we demand special treatment for Irish illegal immigrants in the US doesn’t mean we shouldn’t boot illegal immigrants in Ireland back to from whence they came. It’s politics, not morality plays. “
Painfully obvious hypocrisy doesn’t sell, not even on Capitol Hill, particularly in a climate where illegal immigration, as a political issue in on the front burner. No sense letting the camel’s nose in the tent, anyway. The other crabs in the basket aren’t going to let the Irish out unless they get out, too…
Posted by on Nov 16, 2007 @ 09:27 PM“I’d be willing to support a constitutional amendment that would limit / eliminate citizenship by birth, save for those born to citizens, to eliminate the “anchor baby” phenomenon.”
Posted by Dread Cthulhu on Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:45 PM
We don’t doubt it, Dread Cthulhu. Why not station immigration agents in the neonatal units, lest the wee “scofflaws” form the impression that being six hours old and cute as a bug’s arse gives them carte blanche to break the law?
Very thoughtful and well-presented points, George and kensei. Joe, brilliant that you brought up “Cheers”—Dread Cthulhu’s condescending posting style and numbing overdependence on animal kingdom metaphors (gators in the swamp, camels in the tent, crab in the baskets) does remind one of that other paragon of perfection, Cliff Claven.
One of the more distasteful aspects of Trina Vargo’s presentation of herself in the Times and on RTÉ today are her claims that she “supports” comprehensive immigration reform, yet she is lecturing the activists who actually, substantively supported comprehensive reform the last two years—by tirelessly marching, lobbying, networking, etc. the last two years on so — on “morality” when she knows the bilateral agreement is only their last ditch effort to support those they pledged to help after the collapse of all their efforts.
Her timing could not be more damaging, as Mayo’s Michael Ring emphatically pointed out, and she is well-placed enough to know it.
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 03:36 AM“No, they won’t have deserved… the merely would have wrangled it, which is not nearly the same thing.” - Dread Cthulhu
Wrong, if they get it, they deserved it - just as if you get delivery of a brand new Mercedes on Christmas Eve while someone else can’t even afford a turkey then you both deserved what you got. That’s the system and it’s up to folks to work it to their own advantage to the direct disadvantage of others, since it is the free, and as I said “life isn’t fair, kids.” It you don’t like how it works, try some form of global socialism with its inbuilt ‘morality’ and see how that works out for you.
“Painfully obvious hypocrisy doesn’t sell, not even on Capitol Hill, particularly in a climate where illegal immigration, as a political issue in on the front burner. No sense letting the camel’s nose in the tent, anyway. The other crabs in the basket aren’t going to let the Irish out unless they get out, too…! - Dread Cthulhu
There isn’t any hypocrisy on the applicable dynamic. There is only your failure to understand that the nature of a state is to serve the interests of its people before the interests of all other peoples. Ergo, serving the interests of Irish citizens in the US before the interests of the citizens of other countries is immaculately consistent with the applicable dynamic. The only “inconsistency” is in the imagined principle of universal morality wherein all states of the world are imagined to serve the interests of all citizens of the world without preference. Since that universal morality/imperative is imagined and not real, there is “no need to be consistent” with it.
Now, are “other crabs in the basket” acting as a union who are all demanding ‘all or none’ preferences or are they all fighting their own corner? If they are sane and if their state is backing them, then they are fighting for their own interests above all others. The folks on Capitol Hill know how the system works - they got elected under it - so the Irish Lobby will have bluntly told them that the Irish will twist their nipples (and not in an enjoyable way) at the next election if they don’t get special treatment. If you don’t think small groups have power and ger special treatment on Capitol Hill to the direct detriment of others, I refer you to the Jewish lobby. Those guys don’t play fair; they play to win - and they do win.
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 05:58 AMSusan, how many blood transfusions a day does it take to keep that bleeding heart of your beating?
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 06:14 AMNot at all, Dub. I’m mean as they come. Still, I need to calm down. After all, if you don’t want fuzz on the lasagna, you can’t be washing the sink basin down with your cat. As Dread might say.
This opinion of yours is a mystery to me, though, Dub --
“Wrong, if they get it, they deserved it - just as if you get delivery of a brand new Mercedes on Christmas Eve while someone else can’t even afford a turkey then you both deserved what you got. “ It seems to me the great sorrows of the world can be pretty evenly divided between those who must endure what they do not deserve and those who never get what they do.
BUT on the need for perispicacity and focus, on that we completely agree.
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 11:15 AMIt simply means that the individual is responsible for meeting his or her own needs, not the state or others. There are exceptions and the state should provide for their needs, but they are the exceptions and not the norm.
An individual’s success is determined only by his ability to succeed in the free market, where the state has provided free education, health care, and welfare assistance for the children of poorer parents to level the field to the mandatory minimum standards for all who wish to play on it. There is not a damn thing holding the individual back from succeeding in Ireland if he wants to succeed and has the ability. So, whatever you get is whatever you deserve. The only thing you get - or should get - with birth is human rights. Everything else, you only get if you either work hard or work smart for it. Yes, I’m fully aware that Ireland is now full of rich brats who feel deprived if they don’t have the latest Nokia or Versace handbag at 16 and will accomplish nothing in life beyond inheriting the wealth of their parents. They, however, are the exceptions. They don’t mean that Versace handbags and trust funds must fall from the sky for all 16-year-olds.
What NI’s perennially fashionable socialists have yet to grasp is that somebody has to work hard to pay the taxes that pay for the invented ‘rights’ of those who don’t want to work. They can forget that, of course, because those currently working hard for it are located in the rest of the UK, funding their subvention - and expected to fund more of the same via the attempt of PSF to make socialism mandatory via the proposed Bill of Rights.
So, back to the south: we can demand special treatment for Irish immigrants in the US and still show no mercy to illegal immigrants in Ireland because the state is obliged to operate out of self-interest, not some imagined system of universal morality. It serves our self-interest to protect Irish citizens abroad, just as it serves our self-interest to evict those who enter this country illegally. Perfectly consistent self-interest, as it should be.
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 12:37 PMDC
I’m shocked...shocked!!! Surely as a good libertarian you should be advocating the free movement of workers across borders (nasty statist things that they are) in response to market demands?
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 03:09 PMsusan: “Why not station immigration agents in the neonatal units, lest the wee “scofflaws” form the impression that being six hours old and cute as a bug’s arse gives them carte blanche to break the law?”
As a fellow who audits hospitals, I gave a grasp of just how much bad debt is is generated by the border-jumpers going popping their anchor babies on this side of the border. A good many border area hospitals have closed their emergency rooms for just that reason, susan.
Why should American tax-payers “enjoy” higher costs and greater risks to reward illegal aliens? Your whinges about feelings and the cuteness of the spawn of wet-backs not withstanding, there is a cost—a high cost—associated with illegal immigration. This cost is in dollars, but it is in the lives of law-abiding citizens who are injured and killed by criminal illegal aliens, who die as a result of the changes illegals inflict on society (don’t get into a car accident near the border—fewer ER to handle your case...) and the harm they inflict on communities.
The Dubliner: “There is only your failure to understand that the nature of a state is to serve the interests of its people before the interests of all other peoples. Ergo, serving the interests of Irish citizens in the US before the interests of the citizens of other countries is immaculately consistent with the applicable dynamic. “
Wrong end of the stick, Dubliner… The US Government would, in the event they bought into this plan, have to turn around and sell it to the American people—and there are too Americans watching for just this sort of thing for too many up on Capitol Hill for it to have much of a chance, especially since it would invite howls of “racism” from the left and “amnesty” from the right. There is no incentive for either side to take up the standard. Just because the Irish feel obligated to sell it doesn’t mean the American gov’t is going to buy it, particularly in light of the domestic political cost they would incur being far higher than any benefit they receive.
The Dubliner: “The folks on Capitol Hill know how the system works - they got elected under it - so the Irish Lobby will have bluntly told them that the Irish will twist their nipples (and not in an enjoyable way) at the next election if they don’t get special treatment.”
LOL! That’s a good one, Dub. The Irish lobby… Unless you plan to resurrect “Old Smoke” Morrissey and Tommy Pendergast, I think you will find that that threat is a fairly empty one. Irish Americans are not nearly the bloc they once were, having been fairly assimilated and with the fall of machine politics. And the Irish, as opposed to Irish-Americans, don’t get a vote. You can lobby all you want. I’m sure the whores on Capitol hill—the ones is suits and vests—are just as willing to take you money as the other sort.
SdB: “I’m shocked...shocked!!! Surely as a good libertarian you should be advocating the free movement of workers across borders (nasty statist things that they are) in response to market demands? “
The less strictures you place upon a society, the more important that those few strictures become. Likewise, unless that flow of workers is adequately vetted, you are going to get far more than just workers responding to market demands. Leeches gaming the system, criminals fleeing their records down south, drug dealers trucking their wares, etc.
Don’t confuse “libertarian” with being some sort of wishy-washy globalist willing to lie back and “think of England.” The United States is some seventy years down a path of socialistic dependency on the central government and twice that on the notion of a strong centralized government. Just as Rome wasn’t built in a day and didn’t fall in a day, it wasn’t re-built in a day. A great deal of foundation work has to be done before I am willing to take that leap.
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 04:01 PMDC
Obviously there need to be controls of some sort, but the Libertarian Party in the US are actually pretty clear on this - they’d do strict checks on criminality, etc., but they basically advocate an ‘open-door’ policy, leaving immigration and emigration entirely up to individual choice. Which, of course, is more or less what America had before it’s “descent into socialism”.
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 05:22 PMYou know, Dread, your assessment of the “Irish Lobby” in the US actually makes good sense. They wouldn’t get far with their “nipple-twisting”—(a phrase I’ve never used before , and hope never to use again) on Capitol Hill, although the film footage might run on YouTube for eons. Nor would I dispute the soundness of your argument of the need for America achieving more secure borders, or the need for more enforcement and “impact aid” in border areas attempting to cope with the largest influx of illegal aliens. All of that makes good sense.
Where you lose me is the argument that twelve million people already working and living in the US illegally will somehow slink quietly off into the shadows. It seems a bit like declaring that simply banning alcohol will eliminate alcoholism and drunk driving, rather than create an underground economy and making criminals of people who would in other circumstances not choose to break the law.
Most polls I’ve seen indicate that a majority of Americans do favour some sort of “earned legalization,” for OTHERWISE law-abiding undocumented, and the politicians—even in Arizona --espousing extreme, send ‘em all home policies are not getting elected. TIme will tell.
Meanwhile, I see that at least two of the four or five most influential people working for the undocumented Irish in America—Niall O’Dowd and Brian O’Dwyer—are hosting a fundraiser for Hils in Dublin, and that Bill is having a sit down with Bertie. If Bill and Bertie put their heads together, perhaps something will be done.
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 07:21 PMSdB: “Obviously there need to be controls of some sort, but the Libertarian Party in the US are actually pretty clear on this - they’d do strict checks on criminality, etc., but they basically advocate an ‘open-door’ policy, leaving immigration and emigration entirely up to individual choice. Which, of course, is more or less what America had before it’s “descent into socialism”.”
Not every small “l” libertarian is a card-carrying big “L” Libertarian, SdB… mainly due to the idiots I’d have to put up with. I have a few qualms with the “do-as-thou-wilt” wing of the party. Societies are a bit like supertankers—regardless of how fast the wheel spins, the vessel only turns so quickly. The masses, so long at mother gov’t teat, are not ready for the responsibility of fending for themselves. A great deal of societal repair is necessary.
Likewise, to do strict checks on criminality, you would have to get a strict control on the border. Logically, the control should be in place before the easing of other restrictions.
susan: “Where you lose me is the argument that twelve million people already working and living in the US illegally will somehow slink quietly off into the shadows. It seems a bit like declaring that simply banning alcohol will eliminate alcoholism and drunk driving, rather than create an underground economy and making criminals of people who would in other circumstances not choose to break the law. “
Your analogy is flawed, insofar as alcohol has no initiative or wants of its own. Illegal immigrants come because there are “under the table” jobs for them. Eliminate the jobs—make employing illegal immigrants too expensive—and those willing to employ them will shrink. Frankly, I’d like to see the business penalty for employing an illegal immigrant approach the political penalty for most politicians found to be employing domestics under the table. Likewise, make someone sufficiently uncomfortable, they will move. Eliminate those incentives that draw them—jobs, primarily, but other benefits they obtain—Medicaid in some states, etc.,—and they will move on. Likewise, make it too expensive for the sanctuary cities to continue to be sanctuaries and they will cease to do so.
To be honest, I would like to see the two issues de-linked, or at least the border be solved prior to any serious discussion of amnesty / earned amnesty / guest worker. Like I said before, this is the same discussion that was had in 83-84, when the same shoddy bargain was put up and passed—legitimize the illegals and get control of the border. This time, as a minimum, I want the border controlled first before we discuss any sort of amnesty. Until such time, the “get rid of them all” plan suits me. Solve the borders and we can talk. But as I said, they are not “otherwise law-abiding,” insofar as tax-evasion, identity theft and fraud are still crimes, last I checked.
Posted by on Nov 18, 2007 @ 10:21 PMDread Cthulhu @ 10:21 PM:
The masses, so long at mother gov’t teat, are not ready for the responsibility of fending for themselves. A great deal of societal repair is necessary.
Ah, the irony! To achieve true liberty, one must have a strong leader, nay, a Führer, who knows how to “repair society”.
On the other hand, there is that true libertarian, Anselme de Bellegarrigue, wo said of the Commune: “You have already enslaved yourselves—have you not appointed a government?”
By the way, have you noticed that all these opponents of “socialised medicine” get very edgy when the next person in the line has something really catching? And, for those of us who find this Ayn-Rand-obsession a morbid condition in its own right, that’s the test: are you prepared to have a bad, a dangerous neighbour? And how does your daft egoist philosophy cope with that? Answer on one side of a postage stamp, avoiding uses of terms like “mutualism”.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2007 @ 09:20 AMThe masses, so long at mother gov’t teat, are not ready for the responsibility of fending for themselves. A great deal of societal repair is necessary.
DC
Your’re starting to sound scary - that sounds remarkably like Marxists and their ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ nonsense - and we all know what that led to.
Funnily enough, I remember reading an article online a while back saying Libertarianism was the Marxism of the Right. I’ll try and find a link.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2007 @ 01:34 PMMR: “Ah, the irony! To achieve true liberty, one must have a strong leader, nay, a Führer, who knows how to “repair society”. “
A weak attack, Malcom, as it relies on things I have not said and, second, usually the fella that invokes “Nazis” into the discussion has pretty much admitted he has no real argument.
But, for the sake of discussion, no, what is needed is not a strong leader, but a steady deflation of the socialistic aspects of the state over time, so as to re-introduce the notions of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency as civic virtues. In a libertarian state (please note, small “l") there would be far fewer (and, ideally, no) entitlements. There are too many individuals who are too reliant on gov’t transfer payments. These programs need to be wound down and terminated—but it would be cruel to simply kick them to the curb without making some effort to prepare them for the change. Likewise, removing all the fictions in government—like the notion that Social Security is a good program, that the government is here to help, etc., will take time.
Unlike most large “L” Libertarians, I don’t think that these things can be changed with a simple wave of a wand. Even if they could, I am certain that the chaos that followed waving the wand would be as bad, in a wholly different way, as the problems that preceded it.
SdB: “Your’re starting to sound scary - that sounds remarkably like Marxists and their ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ nonsense - and we all know what that led to. “
Freedom is a scary thing, SdB, because responsibility for one’s own actions comes part in parcel with it. But, to make an analogy, just as it would be wholly unfair to take a bottle-raised zoo animal and toss it into the wild without any sort of effort to prepare it to the new environment, it would be equally unfair to simply dump the welfare recipients (of all stripes—individual and corporate) of the state into a libertarian (or, heaven forfend, a Libertarian) state without transition or preparation.
SdB: “Funnily enough, I remember reading an article online a while back saying Libertarianism was the Marxism of the Right.”
Frankly, I think it gives big “L” Libertarians too much credit for organization. An unhealthy percentage of the large “L” Libertarians are anarchists too uptight to accept the label and too dim to understand that their proposals are unworkable within the time frame they would like to enact them. Having been to a party convention (a friend was speaking), a little Marxism—just enough to keep them from descending to the “herding cats” level of futility—would go a long way.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2007 @ 04:05 PMA simple challenge to Dread Cthulhu @ 04:05 PM and all comers:
Back in the ‘60s, when I was young and green enough to take these things seriously, there was the issue about academic campuses being “private property” (the Randian view) or collectives/social property (the anarchist verson, based on the prime revenue for such place being public funds). Be careful which way you opt: one way gives the right to hire goons to beat up protesting students; the other means that teaching and learning (the prime purpose of such places) becomes impossible under certain circumstances.
Which libertarian are you?
Note that the analogy of the campus might largely apply to wider society and immigration (which was once the subject of this thread).
Posted by on Nov 19, 2007 @ 05:15 PMMR: “Which libertarian are you? “
Neither, since I am not so naive as to believe in some quasi-mystical “purity of vision.” In most things, monocultures are the weaker option: just as alloys are stronger than native metals, just as cross-bred dogs lack the flaws of pure-breds, for liberty to exist, there needs to be some mechanism that holds people to their responsibilities. I would also suggest that your alternative to Randian ownership is not anarchism, but socialism, anarchism being the belief that all forms of government are, by their nature, oppressive and are to be opposed. I think you would find an honest anarchist would not be inclined to go along with the notion that everything he makes is the property of the state / community.
That said, I lean closer to the “Randian” notion that what is mine is mine, although I would suggest that she is by far a late-comer to the conversation.
That which is not earned but merely given is not valued by the recipient, be the transfer of wealth a farm subsidy, a welfare check or a tax-break for a business. The national government should busy itself with national business—national defense, border security, etc., and not create Ponzi schemes such as the US Social Security system. Likewise, permitting politicians to rob Peter to pay Paul corrupts the political process, incentiving the transfer of wealth to create voting blocs, or, to put in bluntly, buying votes using the public purse.
As for the rest, I am not the one who decided to take this detour, Malcom, nor the one who decided to be casually insulting, with flights of fancy regarding Nazism.
Illegal immigration is, at present, an anathema to the United States, insofar as one party, through its opposition to clean elections and its pandering, is seeking to “purchase” the illegal immigrants votes. The intersection between “motor-voter” laws (laws that allow the registration of voters at the DMV as a part of the licensing process) and granting driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants is, if not a naked attempt to pad the voter rolls with ineligible voters, a scantily clad one.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2007 @ 07:01 PMDread Cthulhu @ 07:01 PM:
The issue of ownership of Columbia University (which you avoid answering) is relevant nearer home, and was discussed at some length by an editorial in “The Libertarian” of 1 May 1969. The “correct” answer (as appraised by Murray Rothbard) was that the campus belonged to those who used it. Once the state is eliminated from the equation, it becomes a matter of “40 acres and a mule”, home-steading.
Another way of approaching that is to deed ex-state property on those who seize it from the defunct state (or quasi-state) apparatus. That, to me, sounds very like “expropriating the expropriators”, which, as I recall was the answer provided by Karl Marx in “Das Kapital”, chapter 27.
Now, one might feel that Marx was being a trifle simplistic, as did H G Wells (in “The Shape of Things to Come”, Chapter 4). Since Marx was a communist, and Wells a Fabian socialist, with which does the 24-carat Libertarian stand? Or does the Libertarian come out as a rank capitalist, defending private ownership, if necessary with billy-clubs and rifles against unarmed students?
Now, as implied by my opening sentence, here’s another thought, a bit more relevant:
The citizens of the modern United States are choosing to decide which of all the immigrants into that territory are “legal”, and, in that decision, national origin, language and skin complexion play a significant part. As far as I am aware, not many of the ancestors of those “legal” 300m were invited by the few hundred thousands who previously inhabited those lands, who might and did have had strong objections on grounds of national origin, language and skin complexion. Therefore most of the 300m are “illegals” who have arrived (or descended from arrivals) since—say—20th November 1620. I do not hear many challenges to the right of those 300m to stay.
Similarly, since 1606 Scots settlers have been in Ulster (actually, they were re-occupying lands granted to the Scots four centuries earlier, but let’s not quibble). Can all US citizens, libertarian or not, now accept the unquestionable rights of occupation and ownership to the Scots-descendants in Ulster? Which is a polite way of asking them not to be so nebby about business that is not theirs.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2007 @ 08:12 PM“You can lobby all you want.” - Dread Cthulhu
As I said: “I refer you to the Jewish lobby.” As Bishop Desmond Tutu said: “The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal in the US, and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic. People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful.” It is so disproportionately powerful, in fact, that governments and others will deny it even exists simply because the Jewish Lobby is sophisticated enough to know that it should not be seen to exist, and those who claim it does exist will have their nipples twisted.
Just because the Irish lobby isn’t presently well-organised enough to advance Irish interests in the same manner that the Jewish lobby presently advances Jewish interests doesn’t mean that isn’t the standard we should aspire to. 45 million of the US population are Irish-American, making them the second largest ethnic group in the US. Jewish people, on the other hand, are less than 2%. Yet, they have lobby highly sophisticated groups such as AIPAC and we have… what exactly? A bunch of half-assed defeatist wankers by the looks of things.
It’s way past time that the Irish government was the potential power of the Irish diaspora and began to organise them into affiliated groups for the greater good of Ireland, both politically and commercially.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2007 @ 08:33 PMTwo typos:
Yet, they have highly sophisticated lobby groups such as AIPAC and we have… what exactly?
It’s way past time that the Irish government saw the potential power of the Irish diaspora and began to organise them into affiliated groups for the greater good of Ireland, both politically and commercially
Posted by on Nov 19, 2007 @ 08:36 PMThe Dubliner: “Just because the Irish lobby isn’t presently well-organised enough to advance Irish interests in the same manner that the Jewish lobby presently advances Jewish interests doesn’t mean that isn’t the standard we should aspire to. 45 million of the US population are Irish-American, making them the second largest ethnic group in the US. Jewish people, on the other hand, are less than 2%. Yet, they have lobby highly sophisticated groups such as AIPAC and we have… what exactly? A bunch of half-assed defeatist wankers by the looks of things. “
You analysis is flawed, insofar as the Israel lobby enjoys circumstance that Ireland does not.
1) Israel is a steadfast ally of the United States and the only democracy in its region. Ireland fails on both sides of this issue. It does not have either the tenure as an ally, nor does it represent a democracy in the region.
2) Israel enjoys the support of a much larger group of voters, the Evangelicals, particular the Evangelical Right, who support it for reasons of their own. Ireland does not have similar friends in the voting public.
3) Israel can be presented as under siege and surrounded by hostile neighbors who have, on several occasions since 1948, attempted to invade Israel. Ireland, not so much.
The time and opportunity for an “Irish lobby” has past. The Irish are not a single entity, nor is Ireland at any particular risk from its neighbors.
This is not to say things can’t be better, just that you don’t have nearly as fertile a field to work with.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2007 @ 09:18 PMMalcom: “The issue of ownership of Columbia University (which you avoid answering)”
I didn’t avoid answwerng it, Malcom. I implied it was a stupid question, bordering on the ignorant.
Malcom: “The citizens of the modern United States are choosing to decide which of all the immigrants into that territory are “legal”, and, in that decision, national origin, language and skin complexion play a significant part. As far as I am aware, not many of the ancestors of those “legal” 300m were invited by the few hundred thousands who previously inhabited those lands”
Not material to the equation, Malcom. The more you dwell upon irrelevancies, the less seriously I am inclined to take you.
Malcom: “Can all US citizens, libertarian or not, now accept the unquestionable rights of occupation and ownership to the Scots-descendants in Ulster?”
Interesting question… now, by that same logic, does that mean the SF crowd will sit down and shut up about Israel’s presence in the West Bank? It would seem to me you’re trying to hinge your argument on length of tenure, while I am taking the pragamatic approach of accepting the facts as they lie and working from there. You arguments, coming from a rather narrow and clumsy “Ivory tower” origin border on the useless.
Do I think that the Ulster Scots are in danger of being displaced? No.
Do I think they need to have their nose rubbed in the shite of their ancester’s efforts at ethnic and cultural cleansing, much in the same fashion that Europeans like to try to do to the U.S. (ironic, insofar as it was, at most, the continuation of European colonial policies)? Perhaps, but only occasionally.
Malcom: “Which is a polite way of asking them not to be so nebby about business that is not theirs. “
I would point out that Europeans, including the Irish, have no such restraint when commenting on American cultural norms they find disagreeable…
Which is a polite way of saying just as soon as y’all can meet the same standard, I might consider it.
Posted by on Nov 19, 2007 @ 09:31 PM
