Off-Message Quote of the Week
“The Muslims have said either we kneel, or they’re going to kill us.”
- McCain spokeshero Bud Day (whom I believe has permanently glued his Medal of Honor to his shirt)
The Week in Brief
- Bob Barr kept up his offensive on John McCain over judicial appointments.
- Dick Heller tried to register his guns.
- The GOP opened up its platform online and was promptly overrun by Ron Paul supporters. Seriously, they didn't see that coming?
- Congress's other Dr. No headed back to Congress.
- Barack Obama made advances in the war on poverty.
- Congress overrode the president's Medicare veto.
Below the Fold
- Tom Knapp, a Libertarian who's un-endorsed Barr (and is running as the Boston Tea Party's VP candidate), has interesting ruminations on the purity fight within the movement.
- Richard Spencer reviews Grand New Party.
- Ben Friedman tells Obama how to handle Iran.
- The Algernonization of the Right continues apace.
- Naomi Klein vs Jonathan Chait: the long-awaited sequel to Bambi vs. Godzilla.
The new issue of the Believer includes—of all things—a Gentle Giant appreciation by Rick Moody. The perfect excuse to post this.
SATURDAY UPDATE: I think Ed Morrissey is rattling the chains too wildly here. So: When she left the presidential race, Hillary Clinton's close allies bought hillary2012.com. Is it evidence that she wants Obama to lose? I seriously doubt it. One, her Senate re-election bid is coming in 2012. Two, if Clinton is as Machiavellian as the Right spent the last 20 years saying she was, would she actually telegraph her Obama doltschuss plan by buying a web domain? It's more likely her team bought the domain to stop Clinton's more Alex Forrestian followers from launching their own "defeat Obama now and get Hillary later" site. (Party Unity My Ass, the much-hyped if little-populated anti-Obama group, geared up days after this web domain was purchased.) Obama's fundraising and consistent poll lead over McCain are dripping pesticide over any left-wing or Clinton revanchist movement to stop him.
Oh, and who's that at Netroots Nation in Texas?
The Friday Political Thread: Did You Know Pat Leahy Has a Cameo in The Dark Knight?
Comments to "The Friday Political Thread: Did You Know Pat Leahy Has a Cameo in The Dark Knight?":
Elemenope | July 18, 2008, 8:01pm | #
The Algernonization of the Right continues apace.I am a trepidatious fan of neologisms, such that if they work and are suitably punchy, they can sometimes be better than tired or overused stand-bys. However, they can just as easily be terrible aural train-wrecks.
I'm not sure how I feel about the aesthetics of "Algernonization", but any comparison of GOPers to Charlie from Flowers for Algernon can't be *all* bad. It's like they took an economics 101 course once and they became *super smart*, and then being in power burned out their brains so now they are all slobbering retards.
You know, the more I think about it, the more it works.
Reilly | July 18, 2008, 8:13pm | #
Thanks for the link to the Jonathan Chait article. Knowing that there's at least some people on the left who can see through Naomi Klein's BS makes me feel a lot better about this world.Orange Line Special Presents the People's Righteous Friday Political Thread | July 18, 2008, 8:32pm | #
1. Barack Obama wants to build his own "force" that would be as well-funded as the U.S. military. Oddly enough, Reason has completely ignored this story. Meanwhile, I've gotten thousands of hits to that page from HotAir, email, and forums. I guess "Sargeant Weigel" has better things to report on.2. Bob Barr continues trying to fool people.
3. "GreaterMexico"? Yep: peekURL.com/zdrldr1
4. Peace through anti-prog.
Elemenope | July 18, 2008, 8:36pm | #
Only four today, LoneWacko?SIV | July 18, 2008, 8:37pm | #
That Lou Aguilar piece was truly painful.He writes for USA Today. All their stuff is Algernonized.
David E. Gallaher | July 18, 2008, 8:39pm | #
I'm old enough to have heard about Horatio Alger. Also about when Jimmy Carter flubbed and called Hubert H. Humphrey " Hubert Horatio Hornblower. The Little Woman and I saw that one live.This much I know is true:
"Obama gets support from Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, and every weenie in Hollywood. Plus, Susan Sarandon has vowed to leave the country if McCain gets elected. "
Anybody named Horatio will easily forsake politics to live in the same country as Susan Sarandon.
I'm just sayin'.
Did everybody see her as Brooke Shields' momma in "Pretty Baby"?
I'm just sayin'. You can get the DVD at your local library.
Ruthless
Franklin Harris | July 18, 2008, 8:43pm | #
Jonathan Chait's takedown of that blithering idiot Naomi Klein is the best yet.BG | July 18, 2008, 8:53pm | #
Maybe it was announced too recently to make the list, but I think this should get mentioned in the comments of any general political thread:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071801308.html?nav=rss_email/components
whomever | July 18, 2008, 8:58pm | #
McCain spokeshero Bud Day (whom I believe has permanently glued his Medal of Honor to his shirt)This is totally off the subject, but if I had a Medal of Honor, I'd glue it to my shirt too.
No Name Guy | July 18, 2008, 9:21pm | #
The "civilian security force" thing is the new birth certificate gate.Besides, isn't the FBI kind of a "civilian security force" anyway?
LoneWacko Antidote | July 18, 2008, 9:31pm | #
1) Dubya and Colin Powell tased and sprayed.2) Fannie and Freddie party on.
3) Ron Paul gets Bernanke to admit that the Fed is the biggest taxer of them all.
4) Your prog and Natalie Merchant antidote (music to stalk by). RIP, Natasha.
Justin Watts | July 18, 2008, 9:38pm | #
I cannot wait to see this flick. I never go on opening weekends because I really hate crowds.JT
www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
pip | July 18, 2008, 9:57pm | #
If it weren't for Politics 'n Prog, I would've killed myself long ago. Keep it coming. My life is in your hands.Mike Laursen | July 18, 2008, 9:57pm | #
2. Bob Barr continues trying to fool people.Disturbing link. Of course, not for the reason's that you, Lonewacko, think it's disturbing.
Too many brown people becoming U.S. citizens through birth -- we white people had better revoke birthright citizenship. That was one of the first warning signs of Ron Paul's racism.
No Name Guy | July 18, 2008, 10:05pm | #
He still hasn't answered my question about why taking the Metrorail makes one an "elitist" or "globalist".David E. Gallaher | July 18, 2008, 10:09pm | #
Mike Laursen,You got an issue with UPS?
By the way, the UPS guy gave me a "Big Brown" button just before the Kentucky Derby.
(Sorry about his--Big Brown's--luck.)
Where the F*CK is the Keith Emerson clip? I see that the Mexican government is honoring Prince Teddy K. When's Reason gonna get its reward for pushing open borders and assuming the Mexican govt's shift of burden to U.S. Taxpayers?
Brandybuck | July 18, 2008, 11:26pm | #
The GOP opened up its platform online and was promptly overrun by Ron Paul supporters.And 99% of the responses were "abolish the Fed and get on a gold standard." What about free trade? Oh right, they don't want that. They want to "keep our jobs from going overseas". I had an argument with a guy Monday who claimed Mises was his hero, yet he wanted trade to stop. He kept trying to convince me that all international trade was conducted by government agents, and that by stopping trade we would have freedom.
Ron Paul is still my hero, but he did a lousy job of getting his message across.
Kolohe | July 19, 2008, 12:25am | #
I said this before on the analogy.Algernon and Charlie got really really smart before they got *SPOILER*
When did the republicans get really really smart? (to be fair, when did the democrats?)
And, IIRC, Algernon was never retarded to begin with.
Kolohe | July 19, 2008, 12:35am | #
I'm also willing to give a medal of honor winner a pass on saying any kind of crazy s***. As long as he does no evil, he's got a free ride in my book to say whatever he wants. There's only about 100 of these guys around, and there's about a 2 in 3 chance to begin with that you get it drapped around your picture vice your neck.Larry Anderson | July 19, 2008, 12:56am | #
Besides, isn't the FBI kind of a "civilian security force" anyway?Um, NO. They are not. Please turn in your Libertarian card for even thinking so. Unless the concept of an American Stazi has merit here?
Mike Laursen | July 19, 2008, 1:01am | #
(Sorry about his--Big Brown's--luck.)David, I was saying I have a problem with people who have a problem with brown people.
prolefeed | July 19, 2008, 2:00am | #
The "civilian security force" thing is the new birth certificate gate.Now, if by that he meant, "armed individuals vigorously exercising their 2nd amendment rights, that would be great.
But, he means the fucking opposite.
greenish | July 19, 2008, 3:24am | #
Obama has voted the left-wing line every single time, and been designated the most liberal Senator in Congress.Actually, McCain is the most liberal Senator in Congress.
There, I did it - he has been designated - he'll never live this one down, bwahaha!
JMR | July 19, 2008, 6:31am | #
So, if illegals (not just Mexicans are here illegally) just had less melanin in their skin, the average US citizen would suddenly welcome them and Ron Paul wouldn't have said the things he did? Wow. Lots of assumed racism here, but all I can see in realityville is people who'd prefer it if immigrants maybe followed the law for a change. A radical concept, to be sure...JMR
Hypothetical Hippopotamus | July 19, 2008, 6:56am | #
So, if illegals (not just Mexicans are here illegally) just had less melanin in their skin, the average US citizen would suddenly welcome them and Ron Paul wouldn't have said the things he did?If the average immigrant (legal or illegal) were an female eatern european supermodel, do you think there'd be any complaining?
tarran | July 19, 2008, 7:06am | #
So JMR,What if the law were changed and 95% of those who applied would be issued Green cards?
Would that satisfy your objections to illegal immigration?
GrammatikNazi | July 19, 2008, 9:09am | #
Bud Day (whom I believe has permanently glued his Medal of Honor to his shirt)I'd just like to point out, this should be who here, not whom, because Bud is the subject of the sentence (or sentence fragment, or whatever).
Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 9:33am | #
BrandybuckEvery body I've talked to that had a Paul sticker on their car seemed to be for him in the main not beause of the fed issue (though an alarming number mentioned this imo) but because of the abortion and ol' time religion issue, immigration opposition, and/or gun rights. Many of them, oddly enough, indeed hated "big government" but seemingly because they worried about 1. their guns being taken 2. the government imposing on their religion. I say oddly because another concern was shutting down illegal immigration which would certainly take some "big government." Interestingly, I never met one (in person) that mentioned ending the War on Drugs or Iraq as a prominent concern.
I'm certainly not saying that is a representative sample of his supporters btw. From interactions here it would seem not to be. I also don't imply that this strange comingling is not a result of Paul's statements themselves. I simply submit that for some significant number of his supporters his seemingly traditional conservatism was a big selling point. Which strikes me as very, very interesting...
J sub D | July 19, 2008, 9:36am | #
Attention anti-islamofascist red state warriors.Since y'all got so up in arms about Barack Obama's willingness to have talks with the Mad Mullahs of Iran™, WTF do you think about this ominous development?
Color me curious (yellow).
J sub D | July 19, 2008, 9:41am | #
I'd just like to point out, this should be who here, not whom, because Bud is the subject of the sentence (or sentence fragment, or whatever).GrammatikNazi, I've noticed that the grammar SS has gotten awfully fucking sloppy as of late.
Shape up or it's a trip to the eastern front for you.
JMR | July 19, 2008, 9:48am | #
I doubt there'd be objections to supermodels of ANY color or shade. And my objection has to do with breaking the law, so either a change in the law or a change in behavior or a change in enforcement all might work better than what we're seeing now, but my main objection is to those who, for dishonest reasons IMO, conflate racism and respect for law. Any comments on that aspect of things??JMR
tarran | July 19, 2008, 10:05am | #
I'll tackle it:100 years ago it was against the law in some states to teach black people how to read and write.
Would you throw teachers who flouted that law into jail?
Should the Lovings done time because they flouted the law forbidding them to marry each other?
What about any pacifists living in that town in Arkansas where the town rulers passed a law mandating that all households keep a firearm on the premises? Should they go to jail or pay a fine for refusing to violate their moral principles?
Bad laws deserve contempt, not respect. And, frankly, you are the first person whom I have ever encountered who claims to be opposed to illegal immigration who has been willing to accept relaxing the law. Every other opponent of "illegal immigration" who has ever bothered to answer my questions has also been opposed to permitting a similar number of people to immigrate legally. In my experience the opposition to the "illegal" part is usually a convenient front for the opposition to the "immigration" part. And, all too frequently they bitch about Mexicans and people speaking Spanish.
BakedPenguin | July 19, 2008, 10:23am | #
I think that "GrammarEinsatzgruppen" is more accurate.Lead by the Öbergrammatikführer?
JMR | July 19, 2008, 10:24am | #
I wouldn't -- the government would. I don't have to like laws to follow them as a citizen-unit. As a juror, I'd nullify such a law, of course. But we're talking about people whose first act is to do something that's not legal. I have no problem with relaxing immigration laws IF the welfare state is drastically cut back. If someone wants to come here to work, it's one thing. If they're coming for the great medical care and welfare BS, it's another, and that's the magnet.No comment besides the final words, maybe, about the false accusation of racism, but I still maintain that makes much of those who argue against me look very, very stupid. It's the last rhetorical gasp at an attack they know is not true, but pointing it out infuriates them. They'd best get used to it, though. I have a question for you. Why not implement an exact English translation of MEXICAN immigration laws in the USA, complete with prisons for breakers of such laws with Mexican-style conditions? Sound good to you??
JMR
BakedPenguin | July 19, 2008, 10:43am | #
Also, there might not be any objection on this board to the massive importation of supermodels, but I suspect fat girls everywhere might rise up against immigration laws were they to become ubiquitous.LarryA | July 19, 2008, 11:16am | #
What about any pacifists living in that town in Arkansas where the town rulers passed a law mandating that all households keep a firearm on the premises? Should they go to jail or pay a fine for refusing to violate their moral principles?You mean Kennesaw, in 1982? That was in Georgia, and the law exempted those who conscientiously objected.
Every other opponent of "illegal immigration" who has ever bothered to answer my questions has also been opposed to permitting a similar number of people to immigrate legally.
Agreed. That’s been my experience as well.
there might not be any objection on this board to the massive importation of supermodels
Given how massive an importation of supermodels would be necessary before any of us here had a chance to do more than look, I’d rather concentrate on admitting folks who were eager to mow lawns, pick fruit, and harvest Christmas trees. Along with the supermodels, of course.
joe | July 19, 2008, 11:38am | #
Lots of assumed racism here, but all I can see in realityville is people who'd prefer it if immigrants maybe followed the law for a change.Moving to another country without filling out the paperwork doesn't make you part of a criminal class. "Follow the law for a change," as if they're all holding up gas stations.
This is what calling people "Illegals" gets you. That's why the term was invented; to get you to think about people who live here and work under the table as a dangerous criminal class, instead of people.
You like the rule of law? Get ride of the laws that forbid a class of our society from availing themselves of the courts, police, and even the ability to open sell their labor. That's do wonders for the rule of law.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 11:41am | #
What about any pacifists living in that town in Arkansas where the town rulers passed a law mandating that all households keep a firearm on the premises? Should they go to jail or pay a fine for refusing to violate their moral principles?You mean Kennesaw, in 1982? That was in Georgia, and the law exempted those who conscientiously objected.
Catron County New Mexico passed a law requiring all heads-of-household to own a gun as well. It did not pass constitutional muster when challenged.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 11:47am | #
If they're coming for the great medical care and welfare BS, it's another, and that's the magnet.Pretty sure the magnet is the chance to earn money through honest labor.
J | July 19, 2008, 11:57am | #
I am very pro-immigration, it's one of the key things I disagree with Dr. Paul about (but I still like him better than any of this years candidate crop).Being anti-immigration has little to do with race, though, at least as I think of race. It has to do with outsiders. In the past other european immigrant groups were treated similarly.
Ayn_Randian | July 19, 2008, 12:10pm | #
JMR:I have no problem with relaxingCan you tell me the difference between your argument about illegal immigration and the similar one I "fixed up" above?immigrationdrug laws IF the welfare state is drastically cut back.
After all, there most assuredly (at least, in my mind) would be an ever-so-slight increase in use of State resources (like State hospitals, welfare, WIC/food stamps, on and on) if more folks were addicted to drugs. Does that mean that we have to continue to wage the "War on Some Drugs" just like the "War on Some Class of Immigrants"?
No Name Guy | July 19, 2008, 12:13pm | #
It isn't racism, its xenophobia. I really do think the minuteman crowd would be just as upset if it were millions of pale-white Russians.Its xenophobia combined with some weird fear of the "one world government" BS.
Elemenope | July 19, 2008, 12:37pm | #
After all, there most assuredly (at least, in my mind) would be an ever-so-slight increase in use of State resources (like State hospitals, welfare, WIC/food stamps, on and on) if more folks were addicted to drugs.It wouldn't be slight (unless they were all just smoking pot), but it's still a a good argument.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 12:40pm | #
I'm an opponent of immigration, but I'll readily admit the "they are bad because they are illegal" argument to support keeping it illegal is not going to wash. It's like arguing to someone who wants to end drug illegalization that the drugs should be illegal because they are bad and bad because they are illegal.My opposition to immigration is that currently that immigration will not be very diverse, in fact it will be largely from Mexico. And I don't want to live in either Mexico or a U.S. with a large influence by Mexico.
I think a nation's current institutions and situations are largely products of their people's and their requisite histories, culture, social capital, etc.,. And I vastly prefer the institutions that dominate in the United States today over the ones that dominate in Mexico. If a crapload of folks from Mexico suddenly appear in the US then we will move closer to the culture, institutions, etc., of Mexico. I agree that we will "Americanize" them, probably more than they will "Mexicanize" us, but they will most certainly have an effect and judging from their institutions and culture I don't see that effect being in a direction I would prefer.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 12:41pm | #
ElemnopeI agree about the drugs. It would be a huge public health problem, though one imo vastly preferable to what we get with the WOD.
joe | July 19, 2008, 12:43pm | #
I have no problem with relaxing immigration laws IF the welfare state is drastically cut back.These measures are only necessary during a transitional period, until the withering away of the welfare state.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 12:44pm | #
MNG,You've put that argument out many times before.
I can't help but see it as an attempt to rationalize xenophobia.
It seems you over estimate the homogeneity of US cultural roots, and under-estimate the shared history of Mexico and a large chunk of the US.
joe | July 19, 2008, 12:46pm | #
Mister Niceguy,I disagree on precisely the point you raise, and think that the cultural changes that immigration produces on our country is a huge net positive.
But, regardless, there are going to be a whole lotta Mexicans coming here, and I don't see that as optional. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way. It's like people drinking alcohol.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 12:51pm | #
MNG argument boils down to: I don't want the rest of the country to start looking more like the Southwest United States.Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 12:58pm | #
NMI think a person can prefer the institutions and culture's of some nations (and even people's) without necessarily being xenophobic.
For example, I'm a huge Anglo-phile. To me English history is hugely inspiring, with it's relative decentralization and (admittedly slow and imperfect) steady "march of liberty" through the development of their culture and institutions. I like the English system of common law, and English institutions like grand juries for example. I find the distinct brand of English analytic philosophy to be superior to any other. I like English novelists and hell I like English food.
I'm no fan of French culture. The absolutism that reigned so long then broken by a manic Revolution. I have to look very hard to find a novelist from France I like. French (in fact all Continental philosophers) seem purposely vague and unenlightening to me.
Does this make me a xenophobe in relation to France and xenocentric in relation to England?
(btw-my heritate is German so no dog in that fight)
joe
I think a common argument of proponents of immigration is "it's going to happen anyway." I don't think that is true (even were it that would not be a conclusive argument to embrace it). To use your example, Prohibition did not get rid of drinking alcohol, but it did cut it down a great deal. If we really want to and apply some will we could cut a huge dent into illegal immigration.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 1:00pm | #
For the Prohibition claim, check out Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History by R. Shenkman. He cites more scholarly sources.Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 1:02pm | #
NMIn a sense you are right, though I would add that SW US is in great flux now. I think if that flux does continues in its current direction it will be something I really do not like, yes.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 1:09pm | #
MNG,I think a person can prefer the institutions and culture's of some nations (and even people's) without necessarily being xenophobic.
It only becomes xenophobic when you use that preference as a rationalization for your fear of the change you predict will be wrought by immigration.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 1:10pm | #
though I would add that SW US is in great flux now. I think if that flux does continues in its current direction it will be something I really do not like, yes.It has been in flux for 500 years...as has the rest of the country.
dr_dog | July 19, 2008, 1:13pm | #
I really do think the minuteman crowd would be just as upset if it were millions of pale-white Russians.I really don't. Even when the natalist folks of yesteryear were raging against immigrants that we would call "white" today, there was always a racial subtext. Consider the Irish, eastern Europeans, etc.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 1:14pm | #
FWIW,I think the history of New Mexico is one that libertarians should look at carefully. The SW US in the 19th century was a working example of minarchy. Most of the population lived in NM. The question on a historical front comes from the question: did the SW benefit from the relatively greater central authority that came with joining the US officially and grew over time from that point?
dhex | July 19, 2008, 1:19pm | #
So, if illegals (not just Mexicans are here illegally) just had less melanin in their skin, the average US citizen would suddenly welcome them and Ron Paul wouldn't have said the things he did?yeah, i think that's entirely true.
out on long island, ny, there were (and are) a tremendous amount of illegal aliens within a certain population set. like, A LOT.
but they're from ireland.
oddly enough, you don't see LoneWacko posts about the IrishGovernment, or local irish-american support for terrorism abroad.
this doesn't mean every anti-immigration person is racist; but i have no real difficulty believing that it counts for a tremendous amount of anti-immigration support. you can call it xenophobia if you like, since that is probably less antagonistic and a bit more accurate, but it's still mindless parochial bigotry.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 1:21pm | #
Also, FWIW,The arguments that delayed for 50 years statehood for New Mexico were couched in exactly the same language used by MNG today. Allowing NM to enter the US was said to be too risky due to the corrosive nature of allowing so many people with a different cultural history/language/traditions into the US.
So has having NM, Colorado, Arizona, Texas, and California been a positive or negative influence on the country? Would the US be better off if they had not been admitted?
J sub D | July 19, 2008, 1:25pm | #
Gore: Carbon-free electricity in 10 years doableFormer Vice President Al Gore called Thursday for a "man on the moon" effort to switch all of the nation's electricity production to wind, solar and other carbon-free sources within 10 years, a goal that he said would solve global warming as well as economic and natural security crises caused by dependence on fossil fuels.Is he just blowing smoke
J sub D | July 19, 2008, 1:30pm | #
Please allow me to finish ny previos post. Remember, boys and girls, Preview is your friend!.The closing should read
Is he just blowing smoke (bullshit artist) or does he really believe this is possible (batshit insane)? Either way, I'll have to search elsewhere in my continuing quest for rational environmentalists.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 1:31pm | #
JsubD,Please notice this sentence:
To speed up the transition to new energy sources, Gore said the single most important policy change would be to "tax what we burn, not what we earn," advocating a tax on carbon dioxide pollution.
Single most important...he's not just blowing smoke but advocating the elimination of the income tax in favor of a tax on material throughput as the primary mechanism for achieving a major change in the way things are done. It isn't his idea, but he has been advocating this mechanism as the primary policy change fairly consistently.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 1:32pm | #
As for the 10 years timeline, I don't see it as realistic, but if the goal is 10 years, we might get it done in 25.joe | July 19, 2008, 1:34pm | #
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.
Obama has called for a shift away from a "single-minded" focus on Iraq and wants to pull out troops within 16 months, instead adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan.
Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.
"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."
Can you imagine if Maliki had said exactly the opposite? "U.S. candidate John McCain talks about American forces staying in Iraq until the 'bad guys' are defeated, and I think that sounds right. Whoever is thinking about maintaining troops indefinitely until conditions are right is closer to reality. Artificially cutting off the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."
Orange Line Special | July 19, 2008, 1:36pm | #
dhex stupidly says: oddly enough, you don't see LoneWacko posts about the IrishGovernmentNo, you never see anything like that.
The bottom line is that I cover this issue closely and have for years. All the wimpy arguments provided by supporters above are easily destroyed, as I have on my site and in past comments here. What they support would give a great deal of power inside the U.S. to people who shouldn't have any power to begin with, and they'll use that power in ways destrimental to the U.S.
Scan through my archives if you want to find out what's really going on with this issue.
J sub D | July 19, 2008, 1:57pm | #
Neu,I think that half a century is a realistic hope.
also fron the AP article
Gore told the AP that his plan counts on nuclear power plants still providing about a fifth of the nation's electricity while the U.S. dramatically increases it's use of solar, wind, geothermal energy and clean coal technology*.[emphasis added]
"Clean coal technology means sequestering massive amounts of CO2, typically by injecting it into the lithosphere. It's a technology neither developoed or proven feasible. Nonsense like this gives rational carbon dioxide reduction supporters a bad image.
Elemenope | July 19, 2008, 2:01pm | #
Lonewacko,WhatAreYouAfraidThey'llDo?
Seriously, why are you so scared of people from other countries? Is it their food?
I'll admit, boiled potatoes aren't my favorite, even though I'm from ScaryLeprechaunStock for the most part. But I do enjoy a burrito. Does this make me a BadAmericanInThrallToForeignPowers?
J sub D | July 19, 2008, 2:14pm | #
LMNOP, You're a mick? And you admit it? Are you a papist as well? I'm only asking because loyalty to foreign potentates applies.;-)
P.S. Hope ya had a racous birthday.
Gogol | July 19, 2008, 2:15pm | #
Would you throw teachers who flouted that law into jail?The big difference is that those teachers were not engaged in crimes. If you do not know the difference between civil disobedience and criminal activity, then I suggest you reread your Thoreau. To the government the two may appear identical, but in moral terms they are quite different.
What happens when narcotics are legalized? Do you free all the drug dealers in prison? The vast majority of them engaged in, and were convicted of, violent crimes. These include extortion, assault, murder, theft, etc. Ditto for many drug users. No matter how moral you think getting high is, robbing a liquor store to get money for your fix is still a violent crime!
Thus you do not give blanket amnesty to all drug users and dealers when the WoD finally ends.
Illegal immigration is not an identical situation, but there are several similarities. Coyotes (the smugglers) routinely engage in extortion, slavery and rape. These violent crimes must not be pardoned by hand-wringing do-gooders. And while most immigrants themselves are mere pawns in this powerplay, their illegal status does lead to a scofflaw attitude. Immigrants convicted of crimes need to be deported if they are not to be incarcerated domestically.
I do support the radical liberalization of our immigration laws. But as long as any immigration restrictions remain on the books (disease checks, background checks, etc), then any amnesty must require illegal immigrants to exit the country and get back in line, before they can get legal residency status.
Elemenope | July 19, 2008, 2:22pm | #
J sub D --I have a rich a diverse background; my ScaryLeprechaunStock is balanced out by TartanWearingHighlander, and when I feel like it, I wear a MickmackMohawk while DrinkingBottlesOfMapleSyrup.
Approximately the only thing my ancestors had in common was that they all liked killing Limeys.
---------
As for the B-Day, I don't normally celebrate *on* the B-Day. It so happens that a few of my friends have very close birthdays to mine, and so we all celebrate in a giant party which shall occur next Friday. For now, just the Pecan Pie. Mmmmmm.
Travis | July 19, 2008, 2:23pm | #
"But as long as any immigration restrictions remain on the books (disease checks, background checks, etc), then any amnesty must require illegal immigrants to exit the country and get back in line, before they can get legal residency status."You have a very vivid imagination Gogol. Personally I like to fantasize about winning the lottery.
Elemenope | July 19, 2008, 2:25pm | #
The vast majority of them engaged in, and were convicted of, violent crimes.*Vast* majority? That's quite a claim. Even if it is true, I still don't see the problem; you vacate their drug charges and relevant sentences, and they're still on the hook for anything else illegal they may have done like the aforementioned extortion, assault, murder, theft, etc..
This is much like the people who want to keep pot illegal because they are afraid that someone might drive while under the influence of pot! Why not just make it illegal to *drive while under the influence of pot*. Simple, direct, makes the point, doesn't overreach.
SIV | July 19, 2008, 2:30pm | #
"War on Some Class of Immigrants"Middle class skilled/educated/ professionals?
Ayn_Randian | July 19, 2008, 2:58pm | #
Why not just make it illegal to *drive while under the influence of pot*. Simple, direct, makes the point, doesn't overreach.Because driving while in another state other than "Hands at ten and two and full concentration on the road" is not an initiation of force by any stretch of the imagination.
If you want to outlaw "dangerous driving habits", outlaw having passengers! :-D
Middle class skilled/educated/ professionals?
What does that mean?
If you do not know the difference between civil disobedience and criminal activity, then I suggest you reread your Thoreau. To the government the two may appear identical, but in moral terms they are quite different.
Oh I get it:
civil disobedience = criminal activity with a moral purpose (which Gogol will conveniently designate to conform to his prejudices).
Civil disobedience is BREAKING THE LAW, Gogol. That doesn't mean that I don't support it, akin to how silly immigration laws should be broken.
Elemenope | July 19, 2008, 3:11pm | #
Ayn_Randian,You aren't being a very good helper! One step at a time with these people. They're fragile! First, pot in homes but not in cars. We'll cross the driving bridge when we come to it, eh?
Ayn_Randian | July 19, 2008, 3:25pm | #
My fault; my pragmatic incrementalism sometimes gets overridden by the the little devil of absolutism.Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 3:26pm | #
LMNOPE & NMI can't and won't speak for Lonewacko.
I will also say for the record that it's undoubtedly true that for some people their opposition to loosening our immigration stance is rooted in either racism or xenophobic "irrational fear."
But what I "think they'll do" is to make our nation's culture, institutions and politics more like Mexico's. I'd like to hear folks suggestions about how plopping down millions (and one could only imagine the millions if we had truly open borders) of Mexicans into this nation would NOT have such an effect.
I readily admit that some of this change could be positive (yes, yes, I like burritos too). I also readil admit that we will "Americanize" them, probably more so than they would "Mexicanize" our institutions, politics and culture.
I just find Mexico's history and current situation of politics, culture and institutions to be something I'm not much in admiration of...
Why would we assume that immigrants would only bring the positive cultural features of their homeland and not the negative? And if the cultural/political/institutional scence of their homeland is a net negative in our opinion then why is it irrational or crazy to assume that the net result of their contributions would be negative as well?
I also worry about what social scientists call "balkanization" but I have no crystallized stance there. I also worry about the nature of much current immigration which involves poverty unheard of here and it's attendant social pathologies (lack of education, disease, superstition, etc.). I don't think influxes of all that are good for us.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 3:37pm | #
I should lastly add that for conservationist reasons I would like to not see the population of the US grow, and to the extent that immigration is a cause of recent population growth and would be the cause of future population growth it troubles me.I'm not just trying to throw whatever arguments exist against the wall to see what sticks (for example I don't care if I have to "press 1" for English and I don't think, from what I've read, there is any clear evidence that immigration is causing big unemployment or economic problems).
I'm not dogmatic on this issue. I think there are certain cultural pluses to this kind of thing (for example, I think that if you look at cultural/intellectual centers throughout history (e.g. Athens) and today I think there it's amazing how many of them were ports where diversity was common).
I also think a powerful argument on the side of opening up immigration is that who is anyone to tell another person where they can or cannot go as long as they are not tresspassing on their specific land?
Gogol | July 19, 2008, 3:37pm | #
Suggestions that "everyone imprisoned due to the drug war need to be released immediately" are even more fantasy based than my suggestion to require illegal immigrants to get back in line and go through the process.There have been two violent incidents in my nearly five decades of life: I was once mugged, and my neighbor's home was once straffed by gangland bullets. Both were caused by the black market in drugs. I want narcotics legalized, completely. Not decriminalized, but fully legalized. But I don't want these violent criminals released just because some bleeding heart libertarian thinks they're poor victims of DEA.
No, not all drug dealers are violent. But to suggest that violence in the drug distribution business is rare is to live in a fantasy. All "gangland" violence and organized crime in this country is the result of black markets in proscribed goods, whether it be narcotics, prostitution or gambling. Even the protection racket exists because of the black market, as there would be no "territory" to extort without it.
Calling for a blanket pardon of all drug dealers is ludicrous. Ditto for no-questions-asked amnesty for illegal immigrants and their coyotes. Pardon the act of immigration, but do not pardon any other crimes they may have committed.
p.s. And if you think selling crack on the street corner is a moral act of civil disobedience, you've been smoking too much of your inventory.
Ayn_Randian | July 19, 2008, 3:46pm | #
And if you think selling crack on the street corner is a moral act of civil disobedience, you've been smoking too much of your inventory.Yes, because if you do it with the right "intentions", then it's all kinds of special. If you do it in the pursuit of happiness or pleasure or for selfishness, then you deserve locked up.
You have weird priorities.
J sub D | July 19, 2008, 3:57pm | #
p.s. And if you think selling crack on the street corner is a moral act of civil disobedience, you've been smoking too much of your inventory.I used to sell reefer to my friends and co-workers, an act different only in degree, not in kind. I actually considered it (breaking a dumbass immoral law) an act of civil disobedience.* Might the street crack dealers that I see daily also feel that way?
* The profit, taken in free dope, was an incentive as well.
Mike Laursen | July 19, 2008, 4:06pm | #
I'd like to hear folks suggestions about how plopping down millions (and one could only imagine the millions if we had truly open borders) of Mexicans into this nation would NOT have such an effect.Well, that they are leaving Mexico to come to the United States tends to indicate that they like at least some aspects of the United States as it is, and dislike at least some aspects of Mexico as it is.
Also, part of opening up the border could be to let people come here to work, and then return home. Thus, if they like Mexico better than the United States, they could return there.
I also worry about the nature of much current immigration which involves poverty unheard of here and it's attendant social pathologies (lack of education, disease, superstition, etc.). I don't think influxes of all that are good for us.
Are you implying that we don't already have loads of the uneducated and superstitious? As for disease, I have no problem with checking folks for disease before they cross the border -- liberalizing our border laws would make it more likely that folks would enter the country at a checkpoint, making it possible to check them for disease.
Mike Laursen | July 19, 2008, 4:09pm | #
think there are certain cultural pluses to this kind of thing (for example, I think that if you look at cultural/intellectual centers throughout history (e.g. Athens) and today I think there it's amazing how many of them were ports where diversity was common).This is one of the most important arguments for more open borders. You're doing pretty well presenting arguments against your own premise -- keep going!
Orange Line Special | July 19, 2008, 4:19pm | #
Elemenope: why do you and most others here continue to embarrass your "movement" by failing to understand and accurately represent your opponents' arguments? Don't you realize that normals who read these threads think much lower of libertarians because of that?A Little Perspective | July 19, 2008, 4:25pm | #
There are a number of things wrong with Bud Day, being proud of his Medal of Honor is not one of themElemenope | July 19, 2008, 4:30pm | #
Lonewacko --I didn't represent your position in any way. I *asked* you a *question*.
Namely, what terrifies you so specifically about immigrants?
J sub D | July 19, 2008, 4:33pm | #
Lonewacko,In the cause of improving the libertarian image, I, and others, consistently treat you like the ignorant, monomaniacal fool that you are. I would like everybody who stops by these board to realize that you are in no way considered libertarian or respected by libertarians.
That you are tolerated is nothing more than an advertisement that libertarians believe in free speech, no matter how obstreperous and misinformed the speaker may be.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | July 19, 2008, 4:46pm | #
The idea of a spinoff from the LP strikes me as very "People's Front of Judea."prolefeed | July 19, 2008, 4:48pm | #
Every body I've talked to that had a Paul sticker on their car seemed to be for him in the main not beause of the fed issue (though an alarming number mentioned this imo) but because of the abortion and ol' time religion issue, immigration opposition, and/or gun rights.MNG -- I would say that the Paul supporters who chose to talk to you are not a representative sample of the full populace of Paul supporters. I have a Ron Paul sticker on my car. I went to a Meetup group of Paul supporters to watch one of the debates. The people I've met are a broad cross-section of libertarians and constitutionalists who, for the most part, want a much smaller government across the board.
prolefeed | July 19, 2008, 4:56pm | #
The idea of a spinoff from the LP strikes me as very "People's Front of Judea."One such spinoff: an Objectivist Party has been formed recently. Bumper sticker: "Like libertarians, but without all those pesky NIOF principles or sense of humor!"
SIV | July 19, 2008, 5:04pm | #
"War on Some Class of Immigrants"Our immigration policy is most restrictive of immigrants who are least likely to strain our social services. We tolerate and subsidize the entry of relatively impoverished and uneducated people while severely restricting the entry of a higher social class.
Middle class skilled/educated/ professionals?
What does that mean?
I would prefer open immigration but if we are to have a restrictive policy isn't it kind of backwards?
prolefeed | July 19, 2008, 5:07pm | #
I should lastly add that for conservationist reasons I would like to not see the population of the US grow, and to the extent that immigration is a cause of recent population growth and would be the cause of future population growth it troubles me.I am OK with anybody who feels that way not having children, in accordance with their principles.
Or do you mean you want other people, especially those with less skin melanin than you, to not be cluttering your landscape?
And do you live in a big city? Because then your revealed preference would be for massive population growth.
Or perhaps your point is that you've got yours, and those others who also want to move here and live under a somewhat less coercive government can suck it up and deal, because their obtaining more freedom and happiness might inconvenience you?
/snark
prolefeed | July 19, 2008, 5:11pm | #
I should lastly add that for conservationist reasons I would like to not see the population of the US growOh, and those people are going to live somewhere, and impact the environment there, so closing off the borders here isn't going to make the world a more sustainable ecological paradise.
Minion of URKOBOLD with some more prespective | July 19, 2008, 6:15pm | #
"A Little Perspective" is a little silly.P Brooks | July 19, 2008, 6:17pm | #
Our immigration policy is most restrictive of immigrants who are least likely to strain our social services. We tolerate and subsidize the entry of relatively impoverished and uneducated people while severely restricting the entry of a higher social class.I hear there are some Iraqi doctors looking for a home. Probably some economists, as well.
Neu Mejican | July 19, 2008, 6:26pm | #
Oh, and those people are going to live somewhere, and impact the environment there, so closing off the borders here isn't going to make the world a more sustainable ecological paradise.To nit pick here, those living in the US have a bigger impact per capita than those living outside the US...
MNG,
much current immigration which involves poverty unheard of here and it's attendant social pathologies (lack of education, disease, superstition, etc.). I don't think influxes of all that are good for us.
It is not like people are coming here bringing their poverty. They are coming here to escape poverty by offering their labor to the more robust economy. Most also come with the hopes of education (for their children at least)...as for the diseases of poverty, keep out the contagious until they are well, sure, but improved nutrition and sanitation take care of most of the others.
Tying two threads together | July 19, 2008, 6:36pm | #
We are going to need to have a lot more supermodel immigration if we want to have 10 girls for every dude in the bunkers after the 2012 apocalypse. We must fill the supermodel gap.JMR | July 19, 2008, 6:37pm | #
The vast majority of drug dealers in jail are NOT there for violence, and for Ayn Randian, Amsterdam exists. Their usage rates, despite conservatives pretending otherwise, are lower than the rates in the USA. Therefore, I needn't concede high health care costs for drugwar sanity in the first place. This will remain true no matter how many times people insist legal = higher usage rates in the face of the facts...JMR
David E. Gallaher | July 19, 2008, 6:42pm | #
I know economists are giving many reasons for the recession we're in. I wonder if there are one or two who could control for the crackdown on Mexican immigrants and estimate how many points of GDP that has cost us.Is everyone aware Adam Smith said the best indicator of a healthy economy and good wages is a rapidly increasing population? Ironically, he was using the US of A as his example.
SIV | July 19, 2008, 6:43pm | #
It is not like people are coming here bringing their poverty.
They don't leave their culture at the border.
European immigrants and southern Blacks increased the poverty and "social problems" in the northern US cities they migrated to..
I am not making an argument for restricting migration but to suggest we aren't "importing poverty" is wrong.
William Berry | July 19, 2008, 6:45pm | #
We are going to need to have a lot more supermodel immigrationIn 1963, we had two girls for every boy.
Will Obama restore the national greatness achieved by his mentor, JFK?
SIV | July 19, 2008, 6:48pm | #
JMR,Apples meet Oranges. We don't know what effect "legalizing drugs" would have on usage and "abuse" here in the USA. Drugs aren't exactly legal in Amsterdam either.
From a libertarian perspective the social impact of drug legalization is irrelevant.
Did my screwup with the tags at 1:34 somehow make LoneWacko's comment appear in italics, too?
VM | July 19, 2008, 6:52pm | #
"I know economists are giving many reasons for the recession we're in"they are?
Orange Line Special | July 19, 2008, 7:04pm | #
Elemenope says it isn't misrepresenting my positions, and then does. Thankfully, the irony won't be lost on those lurking here.Anyway:
CLEARANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED!
Now that Barack Obama's creepy plan has been discussed at Volokh - and linked by Insty no less - Reason can feel free to discuss the plan. Or, perhaps they're waiting for the NYT to give them the go-ahead.
Elemenope | July 19, 2008, 7:09pm | #
European immigrants and southern Blacks increased the poverty and "social problems" in the northern US cities they migrated to...Could that be because of restrictive renting and selling covenants and ghettoization, and discriminatory hiring practices driven by racism?
Did my screwup with the tags at 1:34 somehow make LoneWacko's comment appear in italics, too?
One need never apologize for thwacking a Lonewacko comment.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 7:27pm | #
"Or do you mean you want other people, especially those with less skin melanin than you, to not be cluttering your landscape?"I don't especially want people with less skin melanin than me to, but yes I want other people to have less children. Their having children directly impacts on myself and my children's life. More people=more pollution, more use of the resources that I and my children, as a citizen, are entitled to enjoy (state and national parks for example). In addition we probably disagree here but as an American and citizen of this nation I and other citizens have a stake and interest in the overall conservation picture of this nation (this is the idea behind statutes like the Endangered Species Act which protects endangered animals for me (as well as others of course) even if NONE of them live on my "particular" land).
"Oh, and those people are going to live somewhere, and impact the environment there, so closing off the borders here isn't going to make the world a more sustainable ecological paradise." I can dig the idea of a global eco-system worth protecting, but that does not mean that I can't also be for making my direct local environment more livable and pleasing. So yes I don't see why I can't coherently want to guard this nation, or my state's, or my neighborhood's environment and resources distinct from Gaia as a whole...
Elemenope | July 19, 2008, 7:28pm | #
LoneWacko, since I in particular, and libertarians in general, are apparently too stupid to understand your awesome wisdom, please start slowly and in small words:When did I misrepresent your position?
What exactly is your position? (See, this is key, since you are too totally awesome of an intellect for me to comprehend what your position is, so how could I intentionally misrepresent what I do not understand?)
Why do you *fixate* on immigration as your issue of choice?
Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 7:33pm | #
"Well, that they are leaving Mexico to come to the United States tends to indicate that they like at least some aspects of the United States as it is, and dislike at least some aspects of Mexico as it is."I'm not sure that necessarily follows. They might just assume there is more dough to be made here in their case. In fact, quite a few seem to prefer and identify with their mother nation apart from those material benefits (I don't argue a majority, I don't know about that)...
"Are you implying that we don't already have loads of the uneducated and superstitious?" We don't have anything like the volume Mexico has. It is, at best, a second world nation, what do you expect? Something like 3 out of 5 border jumpers don't have a high school education. That's a bit higher than our national numbers...
Um, wackjob, they have | July 19, 2008, 7:45pm | #
Obama's public service proposals discussedhier
and hier
and hier
and in passing hier
Did you read the Volokh post? and grok his (Lindgreen's) point?
Obama is saying that 'nat'l security' is not obtained by guns alone, but by every good deed america does at home and abroad. Now, this is usual left-liberal boilerplate (and, in Lingreen's - and in Reynold's - and imo, a bit of nonsense, but not entirely without merit) But it is hardly a mechanism to create a shadow army beholden to the new fuhrer.
(btw, red state calling Obama a nazi is a bit rich, but that is the world in which Jonah Goldberg has found success.)
Elemenope | July 19, 2008, 7:46pm | #
It is, at best, a second world nation, what do you expect?You mean it's allied with the USSR? Wha...??!
Man, that rubric has fallen fast and hard.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 7:49pm | #
"It is not like people are coming here bringing their poverty."Huh? They are coming very poor, if that is what you are getting at (lacking wealth that many Americans have and upon which our government and some policy debates rely on most of its citizens having btw). But more to the point people who are crazy poor have a host of characteristics that I bet you'd not enjoy living, voting, etc., right next to you (belief in the supernatural and supersition, credulity, low self control, illiteracy [both actual and functional], etc.). I don't hold that it is there "fault." Usually it can be traced to force/fraud in origin and then incredible bargaining imbalances causing unequal opportunities existing for generations. But they are there...
"European immigrants and southern Blacks increased the poverty and "social problems" in the northern US cities they migrated to...
Could that be because of restrictive renting and selling covenants and ghettoization, and discriminatory hiring practices driven by racism? "
Certainly not all of it (been to one of those cities lately, with most of the things you mention [at least de jure] stricken?).
Anthropologists and sociologists talk about the "culture of poverty" (and criminal subcultures) all the time (though many dispute it I admit). Institutional economists do as well.
This isn't to say, LMNOP, that oppressive practices did not start these pathological social trends among certain populations at some time, in fact most theorists that entertain such notions think that is in fact their origin.
Also, LMNOP, in reference to Lonewacko, it could be argued that when you asked him this:
"Namely, what terrifies you so specifically about immigrants?"
You were implicitly "misrepresenting" him by implying that his immigration views are driven by "terror" or "fear." It's common among immigration proponents...I think it's as respectable as when people who criticize those who advocate civil liberties for terrorist suspects claim those people must be motivated by "anti-Americanism" or insufficient patriotism...
MNG, a question | July 19, 2008, 7:52pm | #
At the beginning of the 20th century, most of the black population of the south was poor, illiterate and 'superstitious'.Was it a tragedy that millions moved north in one of the most massive migrations in human history? Were there long term catastrophic consequences?
I'm even willing to grant you that there were deleterious short term affects and that endemic poverty exists in this population to this day.
The question is, did Chicago become exactly like Mississippi?
Nevermind, mng | July 19, 2008, 7:54pm | #
i see you have answered in the cross postMr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 7:56pm | #
Mexico GDP per capita: 12,800Russia GDP per capita: 14,7000
That's what I mean, that it's economic characterstics are analagous to a traditional 2nd world nation. You are right that the concept 2nd world, as I learned it in school, usually included "formerly communist nation." However, that actually adds to my point: one reason to distinguish 2nd from 3rd was the higher (though much lower than 1st world) economic indicators. But a bigger one was the "social characterstics", that is infant mortality, literacy rates, age distribution of population, etc. Mexico is actually WORSE on these indicators than Russia, for example...
*these figures are from the CIA World Factbook
Mr. Nice Guy | July 19, 2008, 8:03pm | #
"I'm even willing to grant you that there were deleterious short term affects and that endemic poverty exists in this population to this day."And in these populations with endemic poverty that you admit exists to this day there are few social pathologies rampant, eh? Yes? Well then why admit more of same poverty to this nation?
A lot of people here dump on the Progressive movement (and I defend them a lot here). Are you guys aware of how the Progressive movement was largely empowered to deal with the "social problems" that were seen as endemic to urban areas during periods of high immigration?
Elemenope | July 19, 2008, 8:03pm | #
This isn't to say, LMNOP, that oppressive practices did not start these pathological social trends among certain populations at some time, in fact most theorists that entertain such notions think that is in fact their origin.That was basically my point. At the turn of the 20th century, northern urban whites took out all their insecurites on black people and immigrants, and ghettos and endemic poverty among those groups resulted, thus helping to perpetuate the very reasons why they were afraid of them in the first place. Since then, victim-psychology and self-destructive community behaviors have for the most part taken over to perpetuate those conditions.
Point being, if we didn't repeat those mistakes with Hispanic immigrants but instead tried very hard not to be complete dicks, we may avoid much the problem we anticipate.
Also, LMNOP, in reference to Lonewacko, it could be argued that when you asked him this:
"Namely, what terrifies you so specifically about immigrants?"
You were implicitly "misrepresenting" him by implying that his immigration views are driven by "terror" or "fear." It's common among immigration proponents...I think it's as respectable as when people who criticize those who advocate civil liberties for terrorist suspects claim those people must be motivated by "anti-Americanism" or insufficient patriotism...
I would not make such an assumption about most anti-immigrant folks. Just the ones, like Lonewacko, who see shadow puppetry by foreign governments behind the eyes of everyone who arrives at our shores. (Even the Irish, apparently, are looking to score some 'influence' according to him, by his own proud admission.) When someone portrays themselves in a very specific way and adopts rhetoric to reinforce that assumption, they are not allowed to bitch about being called on it without being laughed at.
IMH