Old farts pushing amnesty for illegal aliens.

Senator Trent Lott*, (R-MS), I thought that gutless bastard would
disappear after recanting the nice comments he made at a birthday
party for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Great
White Whale, or is it a sun-bleached pile of dog droppings? Sen. Juan
"Shitstain" McCain. This age-spotted old bloat is about to be
"Swiftboated" by fellow POW's who will detail the special privileges
he got at the Hanoi Hilton. Sen. Leslie Graham, (R-SC), this guy looks
like an escapee from an Allstate Insurance Agents convention. As to
the Democrats cheers to the bold eight who voted to continue debate.
As to the other Democrats I will deal with them shortly.

ted

http://www.vdare.com/ V-Dare
http://www.amren.com/ American Renaissance





*At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to
rein in "younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the
bill." (Lott's comments regarding the second attempt to pass the the
dangerous immigration bill. 6/14/07)

I'd live to see America try to round up 10-12-15-20-whatever-million
illegals. Hell, it can't even find a bunch of Iraqi street fighters,
and Osama's still thumbing his nose at the U.S. after six years!
Besides, America is flat broke, and business wants 'em. What the
American people want is irrelevant.

"Ted" < Sen. Juan "Shitstain" McCain. This age-spotted old bloat is about to
be
> "Swiftboated" by fellow POW's who will detail the special privileges
> he got at the Hanoi Hilton.>>

It is pretty obvious that A) the press always gave him a free pass because
they felt sorry for him. B) Even if he probably sold out some of the other
guys, it was not easy surviving in a VC POW camp. BUT C) There is no
question that McCain had to play ball with the VC in order to survive 5-6
years when many of the guys he went in with died from the conditions and
torture. Did McCain inform on other prisoners? Was it all misdirectiona and
just BSing the VC? Did McCain get any POWs killed in order to save his own
skin???? I guess we will find out someday.

Eventhough this is a complete off-topic for this NG, I am commenting.
Almost none of the people who were given amnesty in 1986 are in the
same profession where they were due to their illegal status in 1986.
If illegals are given amnesty, they will not do the low paying jobs
they are doing now. They'll all pursue better careers with much better
pay and we are in the same situation all over again.

One intersting story about the amnesty of 1986. If you entered the US
before 1/1/1982 and worked in the US ILLEGALLY, you are eligible for a
green card. However, if you were a nonimmigrant and worked legally,
you are NOT eligible for a green card. That is, breaking the law was
rewarded and NOT breaking the law was punsihed.

Eggs Ackley wrote:
> I'd live to see America try to round up 10-12-15-20-whatever-million
> illegals. Hell, it can't even find a bunch of Iraqi street fighters,
> and Osama's still thumbing his nose at the U.S. after six years!
> Besides, America is flat broke, and business wants 'em. What the
> American people want is irrelevant.
>

Not even the Reichsbahn transported 20 million prisoners, or separated
so many families, though it did sever more souls from bodies than this
massive project would, as when Luftmenschen became Luft. We could put
some of the more extreme xenophobes, like Lou Dobbs (alias Eichmann) and
Rush Limbaugh (alias Goebbels) in charge, since our reputation abroad
could hardly get any worse. Could it?

Anyway all buses and trains would have to be requisitioned, so that
would help to reduce obesity in America, but it might make good veggies
virtually unavailable.

jimbat

<sjobs12@yahoo.com>if you were a nonimmigrant and worked legally, you are
NOT eligible for a green card. That is, breaking the law was rewarded and
NOT breaking the law was punsihed.>

I don't have a problem with immigration, BUT anyone who is an illegal alien
or resident alien who commits a violent crime should be put on death row
with an express ticket to the death chamber.

Criminals come to America knowing that if they get convicted they will get
deported. Most of the time they never do the jail time. So it is a free
pass. Then they go to their native countries and become part of gangs like
Mala Savatrucha (or whatever it is called). F them. If you come to America
and commit a crime, the penalties should be doubled. If you do a violent
crime, extermination is the answer.

Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> writes:

[round up the illegals and deport 'em]

> Anyway all buses and trains would have to be requisitioned, so
> that would help to reduce obesity in America, but it might make
> good veggies virtually unavailable.


I don't know about "unobtainable," but it would probably make them
more expensive by forcing farmers to pay a higher wage in order to
attract non-illegal workers.

But would that necessarily be a bad thing? Maybe we've been getting
a free ride for too long as far as the price of vegetables is con-
cerned thanks to illegal-alien labor, and it's time we started paying
what they're really worth. If the problem of illegal immigration is
solved at the same time, maybe it might just be worth it -- or even be
a net gain.



Geoff

--
"Hell has no fury like a pacifist." -- Pete Stickney

Smegmato <smegmato75zoid@yahoo.com> writes:

> I don't have a problem with immigration, BUT anyone who is an illegal
> alien or resident alien who commits a violent crime should be put on
> death row with an express ticket to the death chamber.

*Illegal* aliens commit a crime simply by crossing the border.

I don't understand why we don't just take a Berlin Wall approach
and create a "death strip" inside the border, with land mines and
attack dogs. Eventually, word would get around among the Mexican
underclass that keeping their backs dry would be a wise policy.

(That might just be a good slogan: "If we keep ourpowder dry, they'll
keep their backs dry." I like it!)


> If you come to America and commit a crime, the penalties should be
> doubled. If you do a violent crime, extermination is the answer.

Drop-kick 'em into the Great Beyond, and then stack 'em like cordwood!



Geoff

--
"Hell has no fury like a pacifist." -- Pete Stickney

In article <137ahj090ur3440@corp.supernews.com>, geoffm@lava.net (Geoff
Miller) wrote:

> Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> writes:
>
> [round up the illegals and deport 'em]
>
> > Anyway all buses and trains would have to be requisitioned, so
> > that would help to reduce obesity in America, but it might make
> > good veggies virtually unavailable.
>
>
> I don't know about "unobtainable," but it would probably make them
> more expensive by forcing farmers to pay a higher wage in order to
> attract non-illegal workers.
>
> But would that necessarily be a bad thing? Maybe we've been getting
> a free ride for too long as far as the price of vegetables is con-
> cerned thanks to illegal-alien labor, and it's time we started paying
> what they're really worth. If the problem of illegal immigration is
> solved at the same time, maybe it might just be worth it -- or even be
> a net gain.
>
>
>
> Geoff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A workable solution: require any employer of an undocumented alien to
pay the cost of transportation of that undocumented alien to the
nearest border crossing. This would discourage employment of
undocumented aliens; and would provide for their de-portation on a
case-by-case basis. Violation should carry a substantial criminal
penalty, but upon showing that the undocumented alien has in fact been
de-ported, no further adverse action would be taken against the
employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
> Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> writes:
>
> [round up the illegals and deport 'em]
>
>> Anyway all buses and trains would have to be requisitioned, so
>> that would help to reduce obesity in America, but it might make
>> good veggies virtually unavailable.
>
>
> I don't know about "unobtainable," but it would probably make them
> more expensive by forcing farmers to pay a higher wage in order to
> attract non-illegal workers.

With a 4.x% unemployment rate, you wouldnt get enough at any viable wage.

Essentially because they wouldnt need to do that work.

> But would that necessarily be a bad thing?

Yep, you'd just see the veggys imported from low labor cost countrys
instead with much worse controls over how they are grown etc.

> Maybe we've been getting a free ride for too long as far as the
> price of vegetables is concerned thanks to illegal-alien labor,
> and it's time we started paying what they're really worth.

No such animal, they'd just be imported.

> If the problem of illegal immigration is solved at the same time,
> maybe it might just be worth it -- or even be a net gain.

Nope, see above.

Geoff Miller wrote:
> Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> writes:
>
> [round up the illegals and deport 'em]
>
>> Anyway all buses and trains would have to be requisitioned, so
>> that would help to reduce obesity in America, but it might make
>> good veggies virtually unavailable.
>
>
> I don't know about "unobtainable," but it would probably make them
> more expensive by forcing farmers to pay a higher wage in order to
> attract non-illegal workers.
>
> But would that necessarily be a bad thing? Maybe we've been getting
> a free ride for too long as far as the price of vegetables is con-
> cerned thanks to illegal-alien labor, and it's time we started paying
> what they're really worth. If the problem of illegal immigration is
> solved at the same time, maybe it might just be worth it -- or even be
> a net gain.
>
>
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "Hell has no fury like a pacifist." -- Pete Stickney
>


Good point. It's a system in which we all participate and all are
guilty. Go to supermarkets and get the green veggie sales, and don't
think about the short-hoe illegals on which we depend. Americans won't
do that work, so growing the veggies without the illegals (would never
happen) would take an expensive technological revolution in farming.

And going to local farmer's markets to escape the system is only an
illusion in my opinion, because I'll bet that many of them, even here in
Maryland where there are few industrial-scale farms use illegals from
Guatemala and Michoacan and other places. My wife is not as suspicious
as I am about this. Ask the farmers, and you know they will lie, just
as people do on sensitive polls.

Our townhouse development, about 15 acres, employs laborers for our
grounds keeping who are primarily from Guatemala and Michoacan. And our
Association charges, which also support a swimming pool, kids play-park,
water, street lights, and some other things has a fairly low monthly
charge, which we like of course. Now that we have worked ourselves into
a modest amount of money in the last 15 years, we'd be willing to pay
more, but we don't have to.

The laborers are far more polite than most Americans but speak virtually
no English. They were a little edgy at first (hence, illegals) when I
asked them where they were from, but when they said Guatemala, I asked,
"Maya?", as they looked Indian, and they nodded vigorously, and I said
they had a great civilization, with big cities. A few of them together
were able to put together what I said, so I have been regarded as a
harmless friend since. The word has been passed around, so that even
those from Michoacan are not wary. I'd like to take photos of them to
keep, but have never asked, as that would make them suspicious.

BTW, they do a far better job than any Americans would do, so Lou Dobbs
and Rush Limbaugh, go out behind the barn and waste a few presidents
(you wish!) against the barn wall!

jimbat

Geoff Miller wrote:
> Smegmato <smegmato75zoid@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I don't have a problem with immigration, BUT anyone who is an illegal
>> alien or resident alien who commits a violent crime should be put on
>> death row with an express ticket to the death chamber.
>
> *Illegal* aliens commit a crime simply by crossing the border.

And you commit a crime when you piss into the bushes, or let your dog
off the leash, except in designated "free runs", or go 40 in a 25-mph
zone. Or drive very carefully with alcohol above 0.08 and never get
caught. Etc, etc. I don't know any American who is not an
unapprehended criminal.
>
> I don't understand why we don't just take a Berlin Wall approach
> and create a "death strip" inside the border, with land mines and
> attack dogs. Eventually, word would get around among the Mexican
> underclass that keeping their backs dry would be a wise policy.
>
You are writing a satire, right? I'll consider the rest as a satire, as
no sane person would say such things.

> (That might just be a good slogan: "If we keep ourpowder dry, they'll
> keep their backs dry." I like it!)
>
>
>> If you come to America and commit a crime, the penalties should be
>> doubled. If you do a violent crime, extermination is the answer.
>
> Drop-kick 'em into the Great Beyond, and then stack 'em like cordwood!
>
>
>
> Geoff

To make this little essay work, you need to pump it up a little, get
more vivid about the punishments - such as my favorite "Drag them
through the streets and then hack them to pieces", and really foam at
the mouth at length! Hack their vermin kids to pieces, too! The little
quote there was a characterization of the accused that I used in various
forms to stay off juries, after an unfortunate experience in LA that
left me with months of nightmares.

I am no longer on the jury rolls, but barely managed to escape contempt
of court a few times.

jimbat
Baltimore

Bul Work wrote:
> In article <137ahj090ur3440@corp.supernews.com>, geoffm@lava.net (Geoff
> Miller) wrote:
>
>> Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>> [round up the illegals and deport 'em]
>>
>>> Anyway all buses and trains would have to be requisitioned, so
>>> that would help to reduce obesity in America, but it might make
>>> good veggies virtually unavailable.
>>
>> I don't know about "unobtainable," but it would probably make them
>> more expensive by forcing farmers to pay a higher wage in order to
>> attract non-illegal workers.
>>
>> But would that necessarily be a bad thing? Maybe we've been getting
>> a free ride for too long as far as the price of vegetables is con-
>> cerned thanks to illegal-alien labor, and it's time we started paying
>> what they're really worth. If the problem of illegal immigration is
>> solved at the same time, maybe it might just be worth it -- or even be
>> a net gain.
>>
>>
>>
>> Geoff
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> A workable solution: require any employer of an undocumented alien to
> pay the cost of transportation of that undocumented alien to the
> nearest border crossing. This would discourage employment of
> undocumented aliens; and would provide for their de-portation on a
> case-by-case basis. Violation should carry a substantial criminal
> penalty, but upon showing that the undocumented alien has in fact been
> de-ported, no further adverse action would be taken against the
> employer.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can get that through Congress and the President, thou art a
better man than I am Gunga Din.

jimbat

A few points.

Only 4% of illegals work in agriculture, and many illegals, just like
americans, would not work in the fields; there are labor shortages of field
workers today, even tho there are 13-20 million illegals. They'd rather work
construction.

If you paid a higher wage for pickers, the impact would be minimal on food
prices. Say $60/hr . If you picked one piece of fruit a minute, that would be
$1 a minute labor cost, for $60/hr. - 1 dollar added to the fruit's price.
Realistically, you can pick many more than one a minute, say 10 units a
minute(very slow). 10 cents a unit labor cost, at $60/hr !

1 billion people live ok lives, 5 billion don't. They all can't come here, but
those that know about America want to come here. We aren't helping Mexico by
importing their poverty problem.

The choice of deportation and amnesty is a false one. It drives me crazy when
morons say" We'd need every bus in the USA to deport them..." etc.
How about enforcing laws regarding hiring illegals and nothing but emergency
aid to illegals. With no jobs, and no welfare, they'd deport themselves.

In article <9yhdi.1431$jb5.1308@trndny09>, Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net>
wrote:

>Geoff Miller wrote:

>> I don't understand why we don't just take a Berlin Wall approach
>> and create a "death strip" inside the border, with land mines and
>> attack dogs. Eventually, word would get around among the Mexican
>> underclass that keeping their backs dry would be a wise policy.
>>
>You are writing a satire, right? I'll consider the rest as a satire, as
>no sane person would say such things.

All prison wardens are insane too, aren't they? I mean, some escapee might
get hurt by all that razor wire and guards in lookout towers with high
powered rifles.

Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
> Maybe we've been getting a free ride for too long as far as the
> price of vegetables is con- cerned thanks to illegal-alien labor,
> and it's time we started paying what they're really worth.

Labor cost percentage of the retail price is reported to be low,
whether it's legal or not. This article

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...mprices19.html

gives an estimate for the proportion of the total price of vegetables
in a store as 2-3% for illegal vs 4-5% for legal labor cost.

DZ <27080@1125729838.2780820409.7792.18321.32540> wrote:
> Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
>> Maybe we've been getting a free ride for too long as far as the
>> price of vegetables is con- cerned thanks to illegal-alien labor,
>> and it's time we started paying what they're really worth.
>
> Labor cost percentage of the retail price is reported to be low,
> whether it's legal or not. This article
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...mprices19.html
>
> gives an estimate for the proportion of the total price of vegetables
> in a store as 2-3% for illegal vs 4-5% for legal labor cost.

And there's that other fundamental, that even if the price is free
at the farm gate, that has almost no effect on the retail price.

Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> wrote:
> Geoff Miller wrote:
>> *Illegal* aliens commit a crime simply by crossing the border.
>
> And you commit a crime when you piss into the bushes, or let your dog
> off the leash, except in designated "free runs", or go 40 in a 25-mph
> zone. Or drive very carefully with alcohol above 0.08 and never get
> caught. Etc, etc. I don't know any American who is not an
> unapprehended criminal.

True, but there are degrees of course, so a better analogy for an
illegal alien would be a guest that I invited for just a dinner, but
who then hides in the yard and tries getting back into the house to
sleep with my girlfriend.

DZ wrote:
> Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Geoff Miller wrote:
>>> *Illegal* aliens commit a crime simply by crossing the border.
>> And you commit a crime when you piss into the bushes, or let your dog
>> off the leash, except in designated "free runs", or go 40 in a 25-mph
>> zone. Or drive very carefully with alcohol above 0.08 and never get
>> caught. Etc, etc. I don't know any American who is not an
>> unapprehended criminal.
>
> True, but there are degrees of course, so a better analogy for an
> illegal alien would be a guest that I invited for just a dinner, but
> who then hides in the yard and tries getting back into the house to
> sleep with my girlfriend.

My are *you* paranoid! Don't you always keep a plate for Elijah?

jimbat

Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> writes:

: *Illegal* aliens commit a crime simply by crossing the border.

> And you commit a crime when you piss into the bushes, or let
> your dog off the leash, except in designated "free runs", or
> go 40 in a 25-mph zone. Or drive very carefully with alcohol
> above 0.08 and never get caught. Etc, etc. I don't know any
> American who is not an unapprehended criminal.

Nice attempt at diversion. What does any of that have to do
with illegal aliens?

In addition to the diversionary ploy, you're engaging in another
form of argument that I find is common among the Left; I call it
"the universality of guilt." If everyone is guilty, then no one
is guilty. Unfortunately, we're discussing illegal immigration
categorically, not pissing in the bushes or any of the other things
you mentioned.


: I don't understand why we don't just take a Berlin Wall approach
: and create a "death strip" inside the border, with land mines and
: attack dogs. Eventually, word would get around among the Mexican
: underclass that keeping their backs dry would be a wise policy.

> You are writing a satire, right? I'll consider the rest as a satire,
> as no sane person would say such things.

And why wouldn't they? I'm as serious as the proverbial heart attack.

It's a given that uncontrolled immigration across our southern border
is undesirable. That's why we have a barrier there in the first place:
to keep people from crossing the border illegally. With me so far?

Now, given that that present barrier clearly isn't serving its intended
purpose adequately, the logical thing to do is to make it more formid-
able, until it ultimately *does* serve its desired function. And
speaking of sane people, how could any sane person possibly argue with
that reasoning?

Crime prevention (and illegal immigration *is* a crime) is an economy
of sorts. In order to deter crime, the penalty for a given offense is
raised above what the "market" will bear. If the penalty for trespas-
sing into the United States were the extreme likelihood of death within
minutes thanks to a landmine or having one's throat torn out by an attack
dog, then obviously there'd be fewer takers than there are now.

(There'd be the occasional autodarwination, but that's already the case.
People try to walk across the Sonoran Desert and are discovered weeks or
months later, dessicated husks that've been picked at by vultures and
coyotes. "The more things change," &c.)


> To make this little essay work, you need to pump it up a little, get
> more vivid about the punishments - such as my favorite "Drag them
> through the streets and then hack them to pieces", and really foam at
> the mouth at length! Hack their vermin kids to pieces, too!

Here, of course, you're trying to paint me as a bloodthirsty savage.
It's the usual lefty thing of emoting as a substitute for reasoning.
Get back to me when you're able to proffer a reasoned rebuttal.


> I am no longer on the jury rolls, but barely managed to escape
> contempt of court a few times.

It's heartwarming to see how seriously you take your civic respon-
sibility. You're truly an inspiration to us all.



Geoff

--
"We are like genitals unto the gods; they play with us
for their amusement." -- Black Adder

Dennis M <dennmac@dennmac.net> writes:

> All prison wardens are insane too, aren't they? I mean, some
> escapee might get hurt by all that razor wire and guards in
> lookout towers with high powered rifles.


That's right. Why, somebody might get an owie!

And all that drab, gray concrete has *got* to take a toll on the
poor convicts' self-esteem...



Geoff

--
"We are like genitals unto the gods; they play with us
for their amusement." -- Black Adder

DZ <27080@1125729838.2780820409.7792.18321.32540> writes:

> Labor cost percentage of the retail price is reported to be low,
> whether it's legal or not. This article

> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...mprices19.html

> gives an estimate for the proportion of the total price of vegetables
> in a store as 2-3% for illegal vs 4-5% for legal labor cost.



Excellent! So then, let's get started rounding these people up
and shipping them back across the border from whence they came.

Say, buses carry fifty people, right? Maybe Halliburton can rig up
some industrial-scale trebuchets, with seating for fifty at a throw.

<THWANG!>



Geoff

--
"We are like genitals unto the gods; they play with us
for their amusement." -- Black Adder

Geoff Miller wrote:
> Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> writes:
>
> : *Illegal* aliens commit a crime simply by crossing the border.
>
>> And you commit a crime when you piss into the bushes, or let
>> your dog off the leash, except in designated "free runs", or
>> go 40 in a 25-mph zone. Or drive very carefully with alcohol
>> above 0.08 and never get caught. Etc, etc. I don't know any
>> American who is not an unapprehended criminal.
>
> Nice attempt at diversion. What does any of that have to do
> with illegal aliens?
>
Aah, perhaps the word 'illegal' is invisible to you. You have
deliberately committed crimes yourself, so you have no high horse.
Are you making a living or living with your mother? Perhaps you'd like
a season with the short hoe?

> In addition to the diversionary ploy, you're engaging in another
> form of argument that I find is common among the Left; I call it
> "the universality of guilt." If everyone is guilty, then no one
> is guilty. Unfortunately, we're discussing illegal immigration
> categorically, not pissing in the bushes or any of the other things
> you mentioned.
>
What you mean 'we', White Man? I can't be labelled as Left, but there
is a universality of guilt as a practical matter, and of course Original
Sin. I'll bet against the nearest Sequoia that you are guilty of at
least 100 crimes.
>
> : I don't understand why we don't just take a Berlin Wall approach
> : and create a "death strip" inside the border, with land mines and
> : attack dogs. Eventually, word would get around among the Mexican
> : underclass that keeping their backs dry would be a wise policy.
>
>> You are writing a satire, right? I'll consider the rest as a satire,
>> as no sane person would say such things.
>
> And why wouldn't they? I'm as serious as the proverbial heart attack.
>
Is there a proverb about heart attacks? I must have missed it.

> It's a given that uncontrolled immigration across our southern border
> is undesirable. That's why we have a barrier there in the first place:
> to keep people from crossing the border illegally. With me so far?
>
No.

> Now, given that that present barrier clearly isn't serving its intended
> purpose adequately, the logical thing to do is to make it more formid-
> able, until it ultimately *does* serve its desired function. And
> speaking of sane people, how could any sane person possibly argue with
> that reasoning?
>
BS. Nothing within the Geneva Conventions, to which we are a signatory,
would have any effect, and even your barbarous one would not, either.
Apparently you don't think the rest of the world doesn't despise our
hypocrisy enough, and have no plans to go abroad.

> Crime prevention (and illegal immigration *is* a crime) is an economy
> of sorts. In order to deter crime, the penalty for a given offense is
> raised above what the "market" will bear. If the penalty for trespas-
> sing into the United States were the extreme likelihood of death within
> minutes thanks to a landmine or having one's throat torn out by an attack
> dog, then obviously there'd be fewer takers than there are now.
>
Well, let's enforce these rules then. You go down to the local police
station and confess all your crimes. Then take your 5 years or so for
those not past the statute of limitations.

> (There'd be the occasional autodarwination, but that's already the case.
> People try to walk across the Sonoran Desert and are discovered weeks or
> months later, dessicated husks that've been picked at by vultures and
> coyotes. "The more things change," &c.)
>
>
You need serious mental help.

>> To make this little essay work, you need to pump it up a little, get
>> more vivid about the punishments - such as my favorite "Drag them
>> through the streets and then hack them to pieces", and really foam at
>> the mouth at length! Hack their vermin kids to pieces, too!
>
> Here, of course, you're trying to paint me as a bloodthirsty savage.
> It's the usual lefty thing of emoting as a substitute for reasoning.
> Get back to me when you're able to proffer a reasoned rebuttal.
>
But it's what you are.
>
>> I am no longer on the jury rolls, but barely managed to escape
>> contempt of court a few times.
>
> It's heartwarming to see how seriously you take your civic respon-
> sibility. You're truly an inspiration to us all.
>
>
Ahh, well, I had a *very* bad experience on a jury in LA, which gave me
nightmares for months. I was removed from the jury roll here in
Baltimore when I told a judge that I could not believe any police
testimony ('testilying' they call it) in a case in which two Baltimore
cops had shot an unarmed black teenager in the back. So it is not me
who does not take his civic duty seriously, it is our cops. The judge
is isolated from the jury rolls, so the cops got to someone.


Get rec.backcountry off your list, you moron, and crawl back under your
rock. We have no interest in your deranged rants.

jimbat

Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
> Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> *Illegal* aliens commit a crime simply by crossing the border.
>
>> And you commit a crime when you piss into the bushes, or let
>> your dog off the leash, except in designated "free runs", or
>> go 40 in a 25-mph zone. Or drive very carefully with alcohol
>> above 0.08 and never get caught. Etc, etc. I don't know any
>> American who is not an unapprehended criminal.
>
> Nice attempt at diversion. What does any of that have to do
> with illegal aliens?
>
> In addition to the diversionary ploy, you're engaging in another
> form of argument that I find is common among the Left; I call it
> "the universality of guilt." If everyone is guilty, then no one
> is guilty. Unfortunately, we're discussing illegal immigration
> categorically, not pissing in the bushes or any of the other things
> you mentioned.
>
>
>> I don't understand why we don't just take a Berlin Wall approach
>> and create a "death strip" inside the border, with land mines and
>> attack dogs. Eventually, word would get around among the Mexican
>> underclass that keeping their backs dry would be a wise policy.
>
>> You are writing a satire, right? I'll consider the rest as a satire,
>> as no sane person would say such things.
>
> And why wouldn't they? I'm as serious as the proverbial heart attack.

> It's a given that uncontrolled immigration across our southern border is undesirable.

No it isnt, you can make a case that it worked fine when that wasnt there.

> That's why we have a barrier there in the first place:
> to keep people from crossing the border illegally.

Its more to reduce the flow to a low level. Thats all any policed
border ever does, none has ever been 100% perfect.

> With me so far?

Nope.

> Now, given that that present barrier clearly isn't serving its
> intended purpose adequately, the logical thing to do is to make
> it more formid- able, until it ultimately *does* serve its desired
> function. And speaking of sane people, how could any sane
> person possibly argue with that reasoning?

Someone who considers the cost of that approach, and compares
that cost with the benefits of stopping the last minute percentage.

While ever you allow foreigners to visit a country, they will always be able
to show up as tourists even if you are silly enough to spend an immense
amount of money on an effective border for 0.1% of the border of the country.

> Crime prevention (and illegal immigration *is* a crime) is an
> economy of sorts. In order to deter crime, the penalty for
> a given offense is raised above what the "market" will bear.

No such animal. Even the death penalty doesnt do that.
There will always be some gamblers prepared to risk it.

> If the penalty for trespassing into the United States were the
> extreme likelihood of death within minutes thanks to a landmine
> or having one's throat torn out by an attack dog, then obviously
> there'd be fewer takers than there are now.

Yes, you can always produce fewer, but what matters
is the cost of doing that and the reduction achieved.

While ever you allow foreigners to arrive as tourists, its pointless
spending an immense amount of money on just 0.1% of the border.

> (There'd be the occasional autodarwination, but that's already the case.
> People try to walk across the Sonoran Desert and are discovered
> weeks or months later, dessicated husks that've been picked at
> by vultures and coyotes. "The more things change," &c.)

And a few were prepared to risk the east german guards shooting them too.

>> To make this little essay work, you need to pump it up a little, get
>> more vivid about the punishments - such as my favorite "Drag them
>> through the streets and then hack them to pieces", and really foam at
>> the mouth at length! Hack their vermin kids to pieces, too!

> Here, of course, you're trying to paint me as a bloodthirsty savage.

He doesnt need to do anything, you did that yourself.

> It's the usual lefty thing of emoting as a substitute for reasoning.
> Get back to me when you're able to proffer a reasoned rebuttal.

>> I am no longer on the jury rolls, but barely managed to escape
>> contempt of court a few times.

> It's heartwarming to see how seriously you take your
> civic responsibility. You're truly an inspiration to us all.

Corse this isnt you doing exactly what you howled about just above eh ?

Jim Roberts <jimbat@verizon.net> writes:

: Nice attempt at diversion. What does any of that have to do
: with illegal aliens?

> Aah, perhaps the word 'illegal' is invisible to you. You have
> deliberately committed crimes yourself, so you have no high horse.

First, classifying trivial and victimless legal transgressions like
speeding and peeing in the bushes, which are as often as not viola-
tions of arbitrary laws, in the same category as entering the country
illegally is ludicrous. Jumping the border is not only more serious
and more fundamental an offense than those things are, it's a slap in
the face to the thousands of people who play by the rules and wait
patiently for years for the opportunity to come to the U.S. legally.

Second, even though I *have* sped and peed in the bushes, I did it
in, and as a citizen of, my own country. I friggin' *belong* here,
whether draining the lizard in the bushes or with my Levi's neatly
zipped up. Illegal aliens do not.

Third, setting aside the matter of relative seriousness for the
moment, none of the things you mentioned (speeding, peeing in the
bushes, driving with a BAL at or in excess of the legal limit, etc.)
has anything to do with the matter at hand, which is illegal immi-
gration.

And fourth, by your reasoning, not just immigration laws but *no* laws
should be enforced, because each and every one of us has violated the
law at some point; we're a nation of "unapprehended criminals," as you
put it. That's your argument taken to its logical conclusion, and it
illustrates just how puerile and idiotic an argument it is.


> Are you making a living or living with your mother? Perhaps you'd
> like a season with the short hoe?

Making a living...and quite a nice one, I daresay. 'Course, you'd
probably insist that my prosperity was built on the backs of others...


: In addition to the diversionary ploy, you're engaging in another
: form of argument that I find is common among the Left; I call it
: "the universality of guilt." If everyone is guilty, then no one
: is guilty. Unfortunately, we're discussing illegal immigration
: categorically, not pissing in the bushes or any of the other things
: you mentioned.

> What you mean 'we', White Man?

What's the title of this thread? I'll wait a moment while you
scroll back up and look at the Subject: line. It's something
to do with illegal immigration, as I recall.

Ready? Okay, let's get back on track.


> I can't be labelled as Left,

The hell you can't be. You can, and have been. Your position, and
the silly-assed arguments you employ to support it, are leftist to
the core.


> but there is a universality of guilt as a practical matter, and of
> course Original Sin. I'll bet against the nearest Sequoia that you
> are guilty of at least 100 crimes.

And none of them have anything to do with illeal immigration, which
is what *we* are talking about here.


: I'm as serious as the proverbial heart attack.

> Is there a proverb about heart attacks? I must have missed it.

That's not all you missed, evidently. You clearly weren't issued
a full seabag.


: It's a given that uncontrolled immigration across our southern
: border is undesirable. That's why we have a barrier there in
: the first place: to keep people from crossing the border ille-
: gally. With me so far?

> No.

You deny that the purpose of a barrier on the national border is to
keep people from crossing the border illegally? So what's it for,
then, if not that?


>> Now, given that that present barrier clearly isn't serving its intended
>> purpose adequately, the logical thing to do is to make it more formid-
>> able, until it ultimately *does* serve its desired function. And
>> speaking of sane people, how could any sane person possibly argue with
>> that reasoning?

> BS. Nothing within the Geneva Conventions, to which we are a sig-
> natory, would have any effect,

You're prattling out your patoot. The Geneva Convention has nothing to
do with the integrity of national boundaries or the enforcement thereof.


> and even your barbarous one would not, either.

The fact that you call it "barbarous" proves that it would have quite
an effect, indeed.


> Apparently you don't think the rest of the world doesn't despise our
> hypocrisy enough, and have no plans to go abroad.

Not exactly true. The fact is, I don't give a rat's ass what the rest
of the world thinks one way or another, and have gone on record saying
as much many a time right-cheer on Usenet (Google is yer fren'). We're
the Hyperpower; we don't *have* to care what anybody else thinks. I get
hard just thinking about it...

Much of the rest of the world apparently believes that every country
on the planet is perfectly justified in looking after its own interests,
*except* for the United States. I beg to differ.

If and when I *do* go abroad, I'm sure I can handle myself in the
face of any sniveling, whiny-assed anti-Americanism (like there's
any other sort) that I may encounter.

Oh, and the way you place something as fundamental as the security of
our national borders at the mercy of public opinion in other countries
*also* brands you as a leftist. Right-wingers like me are far more
likely to say, "Who asked them, anyway? In the unlikely event that
we want their opinion, we'll read it from their entrails!"

You see, leftists are herd aninmals (do you think it's any accident
that collectivism is a philosophy of the Left?), and as such they
crave the approval of the rest of the herd. That's why they like
bumper stickers so much: "See? I have the correct opinions! Approve
of me! Approve of me!"


: Crime prevention (and illegal immigration *is* a crime) is an economy
: of sorts. In order to deter crime, the penalty for a given offense is
: raised above what the "market" will bear. If the penalty for trespas-
: sing into the United States were the extreme likelihood of death within
: minutes thanks to a landmine or having one's throat torn out by an attack
: dog, then obviously there'd be fewer takers than there are now.

> Well, let's enforce these rules then. You go down to the local police
> station and confess all your crimes. Then take your 5 years or so for
> those not past the statute of limitations.

Let's do a _gedankenexperiment_: What exactly do you think would happen
if I were to do that? "Yes, sergeant, it's true: I've exceeded the speed
limit countless times, voided where prohibited, and have even on a few
occasions driven when I probably shouldn't have. Oh, and there's that
traffic signal at Lafayette St. and Montague Expressway that I blow
through on my way to work three or four mornings a week because it turns
red for no reason. I stop first, but of course, it's still illegal."

What would happen? Nothing. Not a goddam thing. Why not? Because no
officer of the law would've witnessed me doing those things, that's why.
There'd be no evidence. And besides, they were trivial. I did them, no
harm was done, and I got away with it. It wouldn't be a good use of the
police's time to pursue them, especially since they'd have nothing to go
on except my word. For all they'd know, I'd be a crank with no livelihood
who was just looking for three hots and a cot on the taxpayers' dime.

Now, if I were to, say, get pulled over and cited for speeding, that'd be
a different matter entirely. The law would be duly enforced, and I wouldn't
cry foul -- because I'd know ahead of time that I was taking the risk of
being caught whenever I chose to flout the law.

Bottom line: my account is up to date, legally speaking. Now that I've
decisively kicked the legs out from under your argument, what say we
knock off this silliness and return to the topic at hand, mmmkay?


: (There'd be the occasional autodarwination, but that's already the case.
: People try to walk across the Sonoran Desert and are discovered weeks or
: months later, dessicated husks that've been picked at by vultures and
: coyotes. "The more things change," &c.)

> You need serious mental help.

Do you deny that what I wrote above is true? If so, why? And if not,
then on what basis do you claim that I need mental help, serious or
otherwise?


: Here, of course, you're trying to paint me as a bloodthirsty savage.
: It's the usual lefty thing of emoting as a substitute for reasoning.
: Get back to me when you're able to proffer a reasoned rebuttal.

> But it's what you are.

Am I? Which is more humane in the long run?:

(a) having a half-assed border fence that can be crossed easily,
with the result that many people do cross it and end up dying
of thirst and heatstroke while trying to walk across the desert,
or risk being robbed and abandoned by unethical _coyotes_ they'd
paid to get them safely across;

(b) building a barrier so formidable that few, if any, people would
be willing to risk virtually certain death by trying to cross it?

I think what bugs you about option (b) is the appearance of it. It
wouldn't be "nice," and with liberals, it isn't enough simply to be
right; one also has to be nice. And if one isn't, the topic suddenly
shifts from whatever was being discussed to a harangue about one's
appalling insensitivity (see above, re: "bloodthirsty savage").


: It's heartwarming to see how seriously you take your civic respon-
: sibility. You're truly an inspiration to us all.

> Ahh, well, I had a *very* bad experience on a jury in LA, which gave
> me nightmares for months. I was removed from the jury roll here in
> Baltimore when I told a judge that I could not believe any police
> testimony ('testilying' they call it) in a case in which two Baltimore
> cops had shot an unarmed black teenager in the back. So it is not me
> who does not take his civic duty seriously, it is our cops.

And so because the system is already partially corrupt, you decided to
help make it *completely* corrupt by removing any remaining shred of
honesty and principle it might otherwise have had. Beautiful.

Reminds me of what my kindergarten teacher used to say in response to
the time-honored "He started it!" defense: "And *you* finished it!"


> Get rec.backcountry off your list, you moron, and crawl back under
> your rock.

There's nothing like insulting people when it comes to getting them
to comply with your request, eh?


> We have no interest in your deranged rants.

Translation: You've lost the argument and you know it, but you're
trying to preserve what little remains of your shattered dignity
by tossing an insult over your virtual shoulder as you scuttle for
the nearest exit.

Oh, and what do you mean "we," White Man? When were you elected
official rec.backcountry spokesjackass?



Geoff

--
"We are like genitals unto the gods; they play with us
for their amusement." -- Black Adder

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:

: It's a given that uncontrolled immigration across our southern
: border is undesirable.

> No it isnt, you can make a case that it worked fine when that
> wasnt there.

I can make a case that immigration worked fine when the border
wasn't there? That's nonsensical. When there was no border,
there were no countries, and thus no immigration. *Migration,*
yes; but "immigration" presupposes a national border.

And if that wasn't what you meant, then what exactly *did* you
mean?


: That's why we have a barrier there in the first place:
: to keep people from crossing the border illegally.

> Its more to reduce the flow to a low level. Thats all any
> policed border ever does, none has ever been 100% perfect.

The wall between the West Bank and Israel proper seems to be.
If there've been any recent homicide bombings there recently,
it's escaped my notice.

The Berlin Wall (excuse me, I mean the "Anti-Fascist Protective
Barrier") was damned effective, too, especially after its 1970-71
rebuild when it was heightened and topped with steel pipe, the
buildings close to it demolished, and the mined "death strip"
added. I'd be awfully surprised if its effectiveness wasn't 100%.

Even if what you say is true, the current fence could certainly
stand to be improved. Sections are even missing in places.


: With me so far?

> Nope.

ObYoda: You will be.


> Someone who considers the cost of that approach, and compares
> that cost with the benefits of stopping the last minute percentage.

You strike me as one of those people who knows the cost of everything
and the value of nothing. The idea of the current barrier is to keep
people from crossing the border illegally. The percentages are irrel-
evant; it's a matter of principle. Especially now that terrorism is
a significant concern.

Did you read that Clancy novel where the al Qaida types came in
through Mexico and staged a bloodbath at a shopping mall? It's
only fiction, you say? Well, it might interest you to know, in
the unlikely event that you didn't already, that Clancy wrote an
earlier book wherein someone flew a 747 into the Capitol. That
also seemed pretty far-fetched...at the time.

It's desirable to keep as many people as possible from entering
illegally. What's possible now is greater than ever before, from
both a technical and an economic standpoint.

Expense? It'd be an economic stimulus and a source of jobs in a none-
too-prosperous part of the country, just like Hoover Dam was.


> While ever you allow foreigners to visit a country, they will always
> be able to show up as tourists even if you are silly enough to spend
> an immense amount of money on an effective border for 0.1% of the
> border of the country.

People who show up as tourists have their entrance recorded. They
also don't get in without our permission. Ever heard of no-fly
lists? They don't just keep aging pop stars out of the country.
(That episode was a flaw of implementation, not of concept.)


: Crime prevention (and illegal immigration *is* a crime) is an
: economy of sorts. In order to deter crime, the penalty for
: a given offense is raised above what the "market" will bear.

> No such animal. Even the death penalty doesnt do that.
> There will always be some gamblers prepared to risk it.

And the greater the penalty, the fewer there'll be, because the
price of losing is higher than most are willing to risk paying.
It's kind of like how you don't see many blue-collar workers in
the baccarat rooms of Vegas.

How effective does deterrence have to be in order to be considered
deterrence? Here's a thought experiment for you: Would you feel
more comfortable, or less, if the penalty for murder were reduced
to, say, five years in the slammer?


> Yes, you can always produce fewer, but what matters is the cost
> of doing that and the reduction achieved.

In that case, wouldn't it make sense to at least research and discuss
the alternatives, with the goal of finding out how to improve the
present situation most cost-effectively? Maybe come up with several
competing proposals?

You come across as though you don't even want such a dialogue to take
place, because you're ideologically opposed to the idea of making it
any harder for people to slip into the country illegally.


> While ever you allow foreigners to arrive as tourists, its pointless
> spending an immense amount of money on just 0.1% of the border.

That's just plain silly. One, as I said above, tourists are here by
permission and at our discretion. And two, you're taking it for
granted that just because the country can't be hermetically sealed,
there's no point in trying to make our borders any more secure than
they already are.


> And a few were prepared to risk the east german guards shooting them
> too.

Far, far fewer of them were prepared to take that risk as the Wall (as
well as the outer East German border) was made more secure, and the
odds of being killed increased to a virtual certainty. There were a
lot more escape attempts in the early 1960s when the Berlin Wall con-
sisted of hastily-assembled cinderblocks topped with barbed wire, than
there were in later years.

You keep focusing on the fact that *some* people are willing to take
the risk while ignoring the matter of *how many* feel like taking it.
Probably deliberately.


: Here, of course, you're trying to paint me as a bloodthirsty savage.

> He doesnt need to do anything, you did that yourself.

How do you figure?

I'll challenge you with the same question I asked him. Which do
you think is more compassionate in the long run?:

(a) a barrier that's so puny and ineffectual that many are tempted
to cross it, and to risk dying in the desert or being robbed and
abandoned by unethical "coyotes" they'd paid to get them across;
or

(b) a barrier so formidable and deadly that few would be tempted to
even try?

Of course, those few who were foolhardy enough to try would die quickly.
But the number of deaths would obviously be far lower. And in the case
of those who'd be killed trying to cross, wouldn't dying quickly be pref-
erable to dying slowly of thirst and heat?

Granted, that isn't a pleasant calculus. But it accomplishes precious
little to shy away from it on that basis, and to label anyone who has
the intellectual fortitude to confront it a bloodthirsty savage. Such
people are, in fact, better than you are.


: It's heartwarming to see how seriously you take your civic respon-
: sibility. You're truly an inspiration to us all.

> Corse this isnt you doing exactly what you howled about just above eh ?

Excuse me? I sure wish I knew what you were talking about.



Geoff

--
"We are like genitals unto the gods; they play with us
for their amusement." -- Black Adder

Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote

>>> It's a given that uncontrolled immigration
>>> across our southern border is undesirable.<