« Panic on the Streets of Carlisle...Dublin, Dundee, Humberside | Main | Hope, Faith, Her Vanity »

June 14, 2010

Comments

My support for Arizona enforcing existing immigration laws and Georgia enforcing existing state laws regarding education institution tuition is explained by Brett Bellmore's comment at 6:15 am.

'You want your welfare state, your redistribution? Then we can't afford open borders, it's as simple as that.'

GOB: 'You want your welfare state, your redistribution? Then we can't afford open borders, it's as simple as that.'

I've said it before, I'll say it again: it always amazes me how willing American right-wingers are to argue that the US is so completely inferior to the European Union that the US can't ever even aspire to doing things as well as we can...

(Not that "Fortress Europe" has anything to brag of - but Brett's notion that a wealthy tax-and-spend country like Denmark wouldn't have open borders with a "Mexico of Europe" like Poland...)

What is it about these laws that better enables Arizona and Georgia to find the illegals who commit crimes as opposed to the ones who don't? And what is it about these laws that better keeps the ones who do commit crimes from coming back after they're deported?

It seems unlikely that these laws will make it easier to find illegals who commit crimes. OTOH, if they can make living in the state unpleasant enough for illegals in general, the illegals will go somewhere else and at least some of those that leave will be criminals.

The case numbers cited up near the beginning of these comments seem clear: 10% of violent crimes in Arizona are committed by illegals. I can understand that Arizonans are upset by this, and frustrated when the federal government takes little or no action to stop those people from entering the country. It seems to me unsurprising that states would start to take steps that they hope will cause the illegals to move to California or New Mexico or Colorado instead.

It seems to me unsurprising that states would start to take steps that they hope will cause the illegals to move to California or New Mexico or Colorado instead. (emphasis added)

This should thrill JJ.

My thinking is that hispanics in general, illegal or not, and otherwise criminal or not, will be speaking to police as little as possible, even when the victims of crime, and even when victims of crimes committed by illegals. Even if the policy succeeds in getting rid of some number of illegals, I think will be mostly the ones who are just unlucky and less likely to be criminals. I have to think that cooperation from hispanic communities would enable the police to find the criminals, illegally in the country or not, in those communites more than would the lack thereof.

Let's try to raise the credibility of the discussion a bit. My point was that the citizens of individual states are the appropriate source for governing their jurisdiction. Just because they approach that differently than how someone else 'feels' they should does not make them racists or bigots. My statement is not an attack on your free speech but an attempt to direct you away from name-calling and get some 'thinking' into the discussion.

Interesting.

Has there ever been a point in this great nation's history when individual states had racist and bigoted laws on the books? Would it have ever been appropriate for the federal government or non-state residents to either opine on those laws, or work to undo them on Constitutional grounds/federal law grounds?

It is clear to me that Georgia has the right to charge out of state tuition for people who are not legal residents of Georgia. Just like every other state.

In your opinion, does that mean that the property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenue produced as a natural result of in-state residence (often including wage taxes) are irrelevant to deciding whether unauthorized immigrants qualify for in-state tuition?

This is a genuine question. It seems to me that you're saying "If they violated one federal law in arriving here, then the state is justified in treating them as though they don't really live here. Even though they are supporting the Georgia economy in the same ways as everyone else who does get in-state tuition." This is certainly a legitimate position to hold (although I personally don't agree), but I want to make sure that's what you're actually arguing.

If not, would you be willing to clarify your position again? I talk about these issues all the time and it's helpful to understand where people's concerns lie, especially when it comes to questions of "fairness."

On another note, regarding crime statistics, it's important to distinguish between federal and state crimes. Most violent crimes are prosecuted at the state level. The feds are responsible for things like organized crime, tax avoidance, white-collar crime, and -- oh hey -- immigration violations. They do prosecute some gun crime as well, but usually in conjunction with state or local prosecutors.

So claiming that immigrants are responsible for an increasing percentage of federal convictions often means nothing more than "The feds are prosecuting (rather than merely deporting) more immigration cases than they used to." Not new information.

Besides, Arizona is a net recipient of federal tax dollars. When it can pay its own way in the world, it can make its own decisions.

As a "westerner", I am usually offended when this argument is applied to western states. The federal government "owns" 48% of the land in Arizona. If that land -- even with exclusions for national parks and Indian reservations -- were signed over to the state, so the state could sell/transfer it to private parties who would pay state taxes, or otherwise derive even modest income from it, the tax situation could well be reversed. Because of federal land ownership, western states have a very different relationship with the federal government than eastern states do.

And I would argue that significant amounts of the federal spending should be ignored for a "net benefits" case: the Grand Canyon is where it is, and so long as the good citizens of Massachusetts or Indiana want to maintain a national park there, they need to pay for it.

Why not call a bank robber an "undocumented customer" of the bank? A car thief an "undocumented car owner", because they're not in possession of a title?

So sure, there's an illegal immigrant crime wave if you include the act of illegal immigration in your definition of crime, but that seems a bit circular to me.

Re-reading the thread, it seems to me that a lot of folks are missing a pretty relevant point of fact.

Being in the US illegally -- without the permission of the federal government -- is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense.

Robbing banks and stealing cars are criminal offenses. Being in the US without proper permission and documentation is not.

Also: Uncle K, thanks for the kind words, they are appreciated.

OT - here's a reason never to travel abroad again:

For six weeks, Mr. Wehelie has been in limbo in the Egyptian capital. He and his parents say he has no radical views, despises Al Qaeda and merely wants to get home to complete his education and get a job.

But after many hours of questioning by F.B.I. agents, he remains on the no-fly list. When he offered to fly home handcuffed and flanked by air marshals, Mr. Wehelie said, F.B.I. agents turned him down.
...
civil liberties advocates have identified a half-dozen Americans or legal United States residents on the no-fly list who are stranded abroad, most of them after visiting Yemen.

On Tuesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group that has been working with Mr. Wehelie’s family, wrote to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to protest what its executive director, Nihad Awad, called “apparently illegal pressure tactics” against Muslim American travelers.

“If the F.B.I. wishes to question American citizens, they should be allowed to return to the United States, where they will be able to maintain their constitutional rights free of threats or intimidation,” Mr. Awad wrote.
Mr. Awad noted that Yahya Wehelie’s younger brother, Yusuf, 19, who was stopped with him in Cairo, faced a shorter but even more harrowing time in Egypt. Questioned first by the F.B.I., Yusuf was later held for three days by Egyptian security officers, blindfolded, chained to a wall and roughed up before being allowed to travel home May 12, he said in an interview.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Jesus, it gets worse:

Advocacy groups say they are trying to help Americans stranded in Yemen, Egypt, Colombia and Croatia, among other countries. At least one American, Raymond Earl Knaeble IV, who studied in Yemen and is now in Colombia, was returned to Colombia by the Mexican authorities after he sought to cross the border into the United States, the groups say.
...
The American authorities in Cairo canceled his passport and issued a new one Sunday with the notation, “valid only for return to the United States before Sept. 12, 2010,” Mr. Wehelie said. That is his goal, he said, but he has no idea how to get home.

We've gone insane.

Guilty until proven innocent.

They did worse to Mahar Arar - and neither Bush's nor Obama's DoJ has admitted that it was illegal for the US to kidnap Mahar Arar from a US airport where he was transiting to Canada, take him to Syria, and have him held in a cell to be tortured for over a year. As you may remember, or if not, click on the Mahar Arar link in the right hand column of this very blog...

I miss Katherine.

I know Jes, just adding one more, obviously less serious, outrage to the pile.

A country with high levels of taxation and redistribution is in many ways similar to a gated community with high rent and amenities. Such a country next to a third world country with an ongoing civil war is similar to that gated community next to a slum with a gang problem.

A "gated community" would seem to be the exact antithesis of Libertopia. A proud Libertarian like Brett would surely be ideologically more comfortable in a "slum with a gang problem".

Alas, poor Brett lives in a "gated community" of a country, which he loves. He is not thrilled by its "community" aspect, but likes its "gated" nature. At the very least, he warns us, we need the gates if we want to remain communists with "high rents and amenities".

It's hard to argue with Brett's tastes. If his ideal is a gated NON-community -- a place where Liberty thrives behind closely guarded gates -- then who am I to say he's wrong?

I can only suggest that he can't eat his cake and have it too. If he wants the gates, he can't reasonably complain when the "community" forbids him to paint his house purple or mandates that he mow his lawn.

--TP

'Has there ever been a point in this great nation's history when individual states had racist and bigoted laws on the books? Would it have ever been appropriate for the federal government or non-state residents to either opine on those laws, or work to undo them on Constitutional grounds/federal law grounds?'

Yes and yes. Please always make a distinction between laws and people. The newly enacted Arizona law should only be termed racist or bigoted if one is prepared to declare U.S. immigration law similarly. It has come to my attention that California penal code provisions of long standing are comparable to Arizona's new law and forbid state officials to fail to enforce them as well.

I grew up in Georgia and lived most of my adult life in Virginia. Both states had numerous bigoted and racist laws that have now been repealed or declared unconstitutional. I doubt any of our states are free of this condition having existed at some time.

A Constitutional challenge to Arizona's law could settle this dispute. Of course, it may do damage to Federal law, too.

That states are not sovereign is news to me. How about free individuals?

That states are not sovereign is news to me.

You won't find the word "sovereign" in the US Constitution. (In the Articles of Confederation, yes, but not the 1788 revision.) You will, however, find Articles IV and VI.

The newly enacted Arizona law should only be termed racist or bigoted if one is prepared to declare U.S. immigration law similarly.

Um, no. There are key distinctions between US immmigration law and the AZ statute.

It has come to my attention that California penal code provisions of long standing are comparable to Arizona's new law and forbid state officials to fail to enforce them as well.

Comparable? On some level, all laws are comparable. Would need specifics to evaluate this.

That states are not sovereign is news to me.How about free individuals?

Sovereign to a point, though their laws in many cases do not trump the federal government's, or the US Constitution's. This shouldn't really be news to anybody.

Ditto with individuals: free to a point.

russell In 2006, as an example, a little over 1.2M immigrants were naturalized, of whom not quite 175K were Mexican.

Thanks for the clarification, russell. Now add 6,601,059 to the numbers of workers from Mexico who legally were admitted here last year, on visas issued under the NAFTA provisions, which is the number of Non Immigrant admission visas provided to Mexican workers under the NAFTA provisions. see tables here.

And add to that the daily dayworkers who cross the border for non-NAFTA jobs and what do you get?

A lopsided immigration policy that favors Mexico.

A lopsided immigration policy that favors Mexico.

If you're counting things that aren't immigration to make your argument, why do you then use "immigration policy?" That aside, it's a weird way of looking it. Is it lopsided that I end up in casual conversation with my next-door neighbor more often that with someone who lives a few hundred miles away? People from Poland who need work can't afford to get here. Seems circumstantial to me, in a very obvious way.

And add to that the daily dayworkers who cross the border for non-NAFTA jobs and what do you get?

A lopsided immigration policy that favors Mexico.

I see 14,559,083 from Europe and and 8,963,282 from North America in that table, which hardly seems to favor Mexico. Granted it is the #1 country, but the UK (4.7M), Japan (3.3M), Germany (2.0M), France (1.6M), and Italy (1.0M) all have significant numbers (and there are several other countries that are close to 1.0M) and are, like, a whole hell of a lot farther away.

That hardly seems to be particularly favorable to Mexico.,

eric martin: "In response to JJ's spurious stats, I defer to Larv."

No, your assertion was the spurious one. And still is. You need retract it.

It's troubling to me that as a lawyer you didn't immediately realize the statistics Larv indicated from the Pew site were deceptively incomplete.

Did you assume those eight-in-ten (81%) non-citizen Hispanic immigration offenders in 2007' who were 'sentenced for entering the U.S. unlawfully or residing in the country without authorization,' were just dayworkers with knapsacks on their backs caught by the Border Patrol, bundled up and sent off to Federal detention? Or young kids loitering outside Home Depot, looking for day work?

Whatever kind of law you practice it obviously hasn't familiarized you with the way the Federal Court system works. Those 'illegally residing' immigration convictions were either given to formally deported aggravated felons who illegally returned to the U.S, or to defendants who remained in the US following a removal order issued after a conviction for other crimes. The US Federal Sentencing guidelines make it clear what kind of illegals we're talking about: those who committed crimes including murder, rape, drug trafficking, firearms trafficking, or other crimes of violence or theft for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.

In other words none of these prisoners are illegals who just happened to get swept up by the INS for plucking chickens at Tyson or serving burgers at McDonald's.

The assertion that crimes committed by illegals is an insignificant 'blip' is pure B.S. The Federal and State illegal crime rates are, in fact, higher then the indicated conviction rates: about 25% to 30% of offenders work out plea-bargains or other deals to get their sentences down-graded or dismissed. U.S. taxpayers pay billions of dollars each year in policing and trying and incarcerating them --

Your original statement that illegals commit less crime then natives was wrong. So fess up, and admit it.

Now add 6,601,059 to the numbers of workers from Mexico who legally were admitted here last year, on visas issued under the NAFTA provisions, which is the number of Non Immigrant admission visas provided to Mexican workers under the NAFTA provisions. see tables here.

The tables you link to are all non-immigrant admissions under form I-94, which includes not just workers but diplomatic admissions, tourists, business travelers -- basically anyone who comes to the US without intending to stay here.

Please see here for an explanation.

Of the 6,601,059 Mexican nationals admitted to the US in 2009 on a non-immigrant basis, 6,156,298 were tourists and business travelers. About 91K were students, about 11K were diplomats.

301,558, about 5% of your six million, were temporary workers. See table 28 for the breakdown.

And quit making everybody else do your damned homework.

JJ,

You just shouted louder and larded your comment with insults.

You are citing federal crime stats, but federal crimes are not the whole picture. Not by a lot. Frex, there's state crime.

Try arguing with more clarity, and less ad hominem.

It might help your arguments - but that's a long shot as is.

And jaybird is pwned once again. Maybe that is why you keep changing your nick.

eric: "Has there ever been a point in this great nation's history when individual states had racist and bigoted laws on the books? "


I guess 34% of Hispanics who approve of the Arizona law now ON THE BOOKS are self-hating racists, and the 25% of Black American who support it are reverse racists, and 57% of Independents are racists too -- even the misguided among them who voted for Obama

Quinnipiac poll

Right.

Because the argument is that everyone that supports the law is racist.

Straw much?

"Being in the US illegally -- without the permission of the federal government -- is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense."

I've remarked on this before: If you walk across the border, once, and spend the rest of your time camped out in the wilderness, avoiding all human contact, you will be guilty of only a misdemeanor. And you're probably not the illegal immigrant anybody is complaining about. We're not talking about the illegal alien equivalent of a neutrino, the ghost alien that interacts with nobody.

OTOH, if you get a job, or return after being deported, you most assuredly ARE a felon. Probably several times over.

Congratulations on the impending partnership, I know the route to it is incredibly difficult.

Thanks Marty, didn't see this before.

Oh, and JJ, your original stats you excerpted referenced the ethnicity of the offenders, not their status as illegals.

eric: "You are citing federal crime stats, but federal crimes are not the whole picture. Not by a lot. Frex, there's state crime."

This is disingenuous, Eric.

I posted the Arizona State crime link, which shows higher percentages of Hispanic convictions per their population percentages.

And the Federal convictions, which you claimed were spurious, deferring to Larv's mistaken reading of the meaning of the chart diagram, are in fact a indicator of high percentages of aggravated felonies committed by illegals.

I provided state stats, and fed stats, and you haven't provided anything to back up your assertion, except to snidly and wrongly say mine are spurious.


Hey, FOX news reported today (via Washington Monthly) that President Obama just ceded a strip of Arizona to Mexico.

When do they take Texas back?

This is gerrymandering a guy can believe in.

eric: "Oh, and JJ, your original stats you excerpted referenced the ethnicity of the offenders, not their status as illegals."

Yes and your original words only reference the ethnicity, not the status

Normally I don't like feeding trolls, but two points that I think are important for lurkers to know:

1. While 29% of people in Arizona are Hispanic, only 15% of Arizonans are foreign-born. Thus, even if *every* immigrant in Arizona were from Latin America, it would still be barely half of the Hispanic population. Source: http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/37.pdf


2. "Aggravated felony" sound really serious and dangerous. However, since the Oklahoma City bombing, this category has expanded rapidly and now includes a host of items that are not what most people think of when they hear the term. This week, the Supreme Court recognized this, with a 9-0 ruling that possession of a single Xanax pill should not be sufficient to trigger deportation.

(More on aggravated felonies.)

Jay,

And the Federal convictions, which you claimed were spurious, deferring to Larv's mistaken reading of the meaning of the chart diagram, are in fact a indicator of high percentages of aggravated felonies committed by illegals.
Huh? First, it wasn't a chart diagram, it was from the text of the full report. Second, how am I mistaken? You attempted to rebut Eric's claim that the immigrant population commits crime at relatively low rates by citing a report that 40% of all federal offenders were Latino. You still haven't addressed this rather revealing conflation of Latinos with illegal immigrants, btw. I pointed out that the same report states that a majority of non-citizen Hispanics were sentenced for immigration violations. Whether or not they were bad people is irrelevant. Your original citation was misleading in not noting that half of your numbers came from immigration violations (also, the aforementiond Latino=illegal thing). If those people committed other crimes, then fine, cite those numbers. But you're trying to count them twice - once for the original crime, and again for the immigration charge.

And on preview, what Philadelphian said about aggravated felonies. It's counterintuative to say the least, but aggravated felonies aren't always felonies.

OTOH, if you get a job, or return after being deported, you most assuredly ARE a felon.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that this is not quite correct.

Entering the country other than through lawful means is a crime. Returning to the US after being deported is definitely a crime. Overstaying a legal visa is not.

Employing an illegal alien is a crime. Holding a job while in the country illegally is not, unless accompanied by other criminal action like identity fraud (falsifying a SSN for instance).

Overstay your student visa and work under the table, frex, my understanding is that no crime has been committed.

It's a complicated body of law and I am not a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt, but unless I'm seriously mistaken there is significantly more headroom in the purely civil violation sphere than living out in the desert as a hermit.

And the original issue you raised -- being in the US without proper documentation -- is most definitely a civil violation, not a criminal one.

Again, I defer to Larv, with an assist from the Illadelpihatic*

*PS: Went to the Yankees/Phils game tonight with a couple mates from Philly. Bastards.

Just because they approach that differently than how someone else 'feels' they should does not make them racists or bigots.

Meiosis.

The anti-Latino legislation in Arizona is not being criticized as racist/bigoted because "it's a different approach": it's being criticized as racist, because it's pretty evidently anti-Latino, and its supporters are generally being identified as bigots, because supporting legislation that justifies racist harassment by the police generally makes you look bigoted.

The problem is not it's "a new approach". The problem is, it's a bigoted approach.

" Holding a job while in the country illegally is not, unless accompanied by other criminal action like identity fraud (falsifying a SSN for instance)."

Either you're not paying your taxes, OR you're committing identity fraud. Both are crimes.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure some states have laws on the matter...

Either you're not paying your taxes, OR you're committing identity fraud.

3. Or you're getting paid in cash and filing your taxes using an ITIN rather than a Social Security Number.

4. Or you're using a SSN which doesn't exist and doesn't belong to anyone, meaning there is no identity issue and your SS deductions are just going in to the earnings suspense file at SSA (which I think generates about $7B a year, but don't quote me on that).

*PS: Went to the Yankees/Phils game tonight with a couple mates from Philly. Bastards.

I heart Jamie Moyer.

5. Or, you're not working at all. You're somebody's kid, or stay-at-home spouse.

Not a crime.

The old man had it last night.

If you know Young Philly Politics, I was with the older brother of Dan U-A (Alex U-A, an old friend)

I'm not familiar with them, Eric, but I checked them out, and there was something relevant to our current discussion in the top post:

(...)

PARS information sharing is bad, bad news. It effectively lets federal immigration officials mine arrest data from the Philadelphia PD, to see the immigration status of anyone who is arrested. As PICC has noted in a letter to many of our elected officials, this is wrong for a number of reasons:

Members of immigrant communities will be less and less likely to report crimes, and will be less willing to serve as witnesses. Integrating ICE investigations with local police activities through programs like the PARS Agreement concerns not only immigrant communities, but also local law enforcement, t rely on community trust to do their jobs effectively. As a result of this reluctance to trust the police, our city as a whole will become less safe.

(...)

This sounds oddly familiar to me. I may have written something like this in an earlier comment on this thread.

The old man had it last night.

Incidentally, last night was the 24th anniversary of his major-league debut, which was within days of my high school graduation. Crazy.

I know Dan and Alex, and I voted for their father in a City Council primary in 2007. (And I hope to do it again.)

The U-A clan is good people.

"3. Or you're getting paid in cash and filing your taxes using an ITIN rather than a Social Security Number."

Theoretically possible, but really! You figure somebody is going to deliberately violate our immigration laws, hunt down a job which doesn't involve proper records being maintained, and THEN, after all that, go out of their way to voluntarily pay those taxes? I suppose such freaks do exist, but I'd be willing to bet they're few and far between.

"4. Or you're using a SSN which doesn't exist and doesn't belong to anyone,"

My initial response to this was going to be, "And call attention to yourself, as the feds would certainly notice that taxes were being paid on a SS number that didn't exist.", but then I remembered that it's government policy to NOT enforce our immigration laws, so the SS administration goes out of it's way to turn a blind eye to identity theft. THAT one might work.

Theoretically possible, but really! You figure somebody is going to deliberately violate our immigration laws, hunt down a job which doesn't involve proper records being maintained, and THEN, after all that, go out of their way to voluntarily pay those taxes?

This may come as a surprise to you, Brett, but there exist honest people who prefer to pay their taxes.

There exist immigrants who feel loyalty and connection to the country they made their home, whether or not they or their parents entered legally. (You can read about some of them here: Stop the Deportation of Immigrant Military Veterans.)

There exist people who understand that, if you want to live in a country and enjoy its benefits, you're ethically obligated to pay its taxes.

Of course there are a stackload of people who pay taxes or don't pay them without thinking about it one way or another.

And then there are the "libertarians", who think they're special snowflakes who deserve a free ride from everyone else.

I suppose such freaks do exist, but I'd be willing to bet they're few and far between.

I'd like to think that the Reason Foundation might be a suitable source for you, but the deployment of the word 'freaks' leaves me with little optimism. But for the others, a few quotes

According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file taxes.

One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS' scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers. No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status — a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows.

When you are someplace and your presence is thru the grace of the authorities, you tend to be more careful and follow all the rules compulsively. I speak from experience here. I didn't think that this observation required such a massive leap of the imagination, but apparently for some, it does.

What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the "earnings suspense file" — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

btw, I am taking in the Germany-Serbia and this Guardian article is somewhat related to our discussion.

...so the SS administration goes out of it's way to turn a blind eye to identity theft.

Whose identity is being stolen when using a non-existent SS number?

Thank you LJ, for the fact-bsed, on point rebuttal to Brett's misinformed assertion.

Well, O.K., 8 to 12 million freaks; that's alot of freaks. What's that, four or five Woodstocks?

That doesn't disprove Brett's "such freaks exist" supposition.

Like the oil in the Gulf, estimates can vary. Six weeks ago it was two to four million barrels a day, now we're throwing around estimates of 40 to 60 million barrels a day.

Plumes? What plumes? Oh, those plumes. I meant pelican plumage.

The supposition (I suppose such oily-ness exists) just requires a little more supposing.

When the freaks learn of their essential freakishness, they'll join the Tea Partiers, caress their Second Amendment freak toys, hold aloft funny pictures of swarthy Presidents, and deport themselves.

It's a whole new market segment for Dick Armey to demagogue.

When libertarians use their weapons to violently overthrow the U.S. Government and execute the thieves who steal from us in the form of taxes, not only will I respect them, I'll join them.

Mostly out of boredom .. but a lot of big stuff originates in boredom.

Organize an army of several million well-armed soldiers and let's do it. I'm not interested in a merry band of shith3ads in the woods in whose beards sparrows nest.

Until then, I don't want to hear about getting rid of all government, except of course for the government's weaponry, which enables it to both protect libertarians from me and steal from them.

It's funny. And boring.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad