Friday, November 24, 2006

Localities Take On Illegals

I've mentioned here before that I'm not an open borders libertarian. Ok, I kind of agree witht the sentiment of that libertarian mantra; Peaceful people should be able to immigrate and emigrate freely..., but I think that's simplistic, to say the least.

I don't know what the answer to illegal immigration is. Nonetheless, I find some proposals to deal with illegal immigration disturbing. For instance, one of the latest posts on the Calnews.com forum lists measures a number of communities have taken, or are in the process of taking, to deal with illegal immigration.

Maybe some make sense. Maybe some don't. My concern is, regardless of the illegal immigration issue, how will this affect those who are already legal residents of the country?

Can you imagine being a renter and having to register with city hall to obtain a residency permit so the city can do a background check on you? Hazelton, PA has just passed an ordinance requiring just that.

Some time ago, when the idea of a National I.D. card was in the news (I hope I'm note mixing subjects here. I think it was the National I.D. card), I read that all citizens would be required to show proof of citizenship when they apply or re- apply for drivers licenses. That got me to thinking: How the heck would I be able to prove I'm a U.S. citizen?

Not that I couldn't prove it, but the hassle of gathering the paperwork would be just that; a hassle. And what if I couldn't locate some of the necessary paperwork?

Those favoring such ideas need to think about how they'll feel when they have to prove their own citizenship. And keep in mind, this would likely just be the beginning of the hassles. You can bet that, once started, these identification requirements will take on a life of their own, just like most other government projects do.

31 Comments:

At 9:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahahaha! A libertarian calling an opposing perspective simplistic. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 
At 9:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This demonstrates a simple idea. People start with guiding principles and then reshape them to fit their own opinion. We see the best examples of this in religion and politics. Take the Humboldt DCC controversy. The accused have no problem with their actions because it suits their feelings, not their bylaws. People have a hard time holding true to their highest ideals.

 
At 10:00 AM, Blogger Fred said...

9:54 wrote, "Pot. Kettle. Black.".

I don't know that that's an accurate analogy, but I haven't thought about it much.

 
At 10:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm all for a BIG fence all along the border. In Mexico it's a crime to assist illegal aliens, though most of theirs come from Central America.

And all the hoppla about the illegals doing the work that Americans won't ?! Well here's a different spin; if the illegals (Mexicans) didn't bring in the heroin, cocaine, and meth that hundreds of thousands of Americans were addicted to those Americans could work. Instead of being on SSI cause they're addicts. Just a thought.

 
At 11:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You assume the drug traffickers all come from Mexico. You also equate drug traffickers as being the same people who are working the below-minimum-wage jobs that Americans won't take. You've got three groups of people all rolled up into one. Your argument makes no sense. Oh, but it's full of truthiness.

 
At 2:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But tearing down the Berlin Wall was a good thing - and the ide of the Great Wall of China has always represented that same thing - why would we become what we have always stood against?

 
At 3:33 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

10:59,decriminalizing drugs is a much more effective and less costly approach.

 
At 4:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, with more people running around stoned, and more people driving stoned. More accidents and deaths will surely benefit our society.

 
At 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:12AM

I don't assume that ALL drug traffickers come from Mexico, but it is pretty much a documented fact that most of the mid to upper level drug traffickers come from Mexico. Just check the local press releases in the E/R and the T/S! If the amount seized is large, or good sized, the dealer is almost always a Mexican. Check the DEA website. Check the Sacramento Bee, the Fresno Bee, even the SF Chronicle, Dateline, 20-20, 60 minutes. It's not just my assumption or my opinion.

With a little research you will find that 99% of all Heroin west of the Missippi comes from Mexico, the State of Sinoloa to be more precise. Most of the meth now comes from Mexico, most from Michoacan, Jalisco, or Baja. The Mexican National cartels were making much of it in the big "super labs" in the Sacramento valley but now make it in Mexico and smuggle it in. You know those tunnels that run from Mexico to the US that are being found every few months! Cocaine, the same thing. Made in Columbia transported to Mexico by the Mexican Cartels and then onto the US. The Columbians learned it's easier, and less risky, to let the Mexican Cartels smuggle the dope into the US. The Columbian Cartels sell it to the Mexican Cartels at a reduced rate but take fewer risks. It's smart business for them. The Mexican CArtels get a better deal on the cocaine and have the smuggling routes into the US. Sometimes being carried on the backs of illegal aliens.

And it is not uncommon for a Mexican National to be working as a bus boy or dishwasher at a local dining establishment and selling meth and or cocaine on the side. And you would be amazed at how many minimum wage workers at the bulb farms sell meth and heroin on the side! They speak spanish, they have an edge. The real edge is that very very few of the Mexican Nationals use meth or heroin. My argument makes perfect sense as it is based on documented facts.

Your internet can be used for much more than blogging.

 
At 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:12AM

I don't assume that ALL drug traffickers come from Mexico, but it is pretty much a documented fact that most of the mid to upper level drug traffickers come from Mexico. Just check the local press releases in the E/R and the T/S! If the amount seized is large, or good sized, the dealer is almost always a Mexican. Check the DEA website. Check the Sacramento Bee, the Fresno Bee, even the SF Chronicle, Dateline, 20-20, 60 minutes. It's not just my assumption or my opinion.

With a little research you will find that 99% of all Heroin west of the Missippi comes from Mexico, the State of Sinoloa to be more precise. Most of the meth now comes from Mexico, most from Michoacan, Jalisco, or Baja. The Mexican National cartels were making much of it in the big "super labs" in the Sacramento valley but now make it in Mexico and smuggle it in. You know those tunnels that run from Mexico to the US that are being found every few months! Cocaine, the same thing. Made in Columbia transported to Mexico by the Mexican Cartels and then onto the US. The Columbians learned it's easier, and less risky, to let the Mexican Cartels smuggle the dope into the US. The Columbian Cartels sell it to the Mexican Cartels at a reduced rate but take fewer risks. It's smart business for them. The Mexican CArtels get a better deal on the cocaine and have the smuggling routes into the US. Sometimes being carried on the backs of illegal aliens.

And it is not uncommon for a Mexican National to be working as a bus boy or dishwasher at a local dining establishment and selling meth and or cocaine on the side. And you would be amazed at how many minimum wage workers at the bulb farms sell meth and heroin on the side! They speak spanish, they have an edge. The real edge is that very very few of the Mexican Nationals use meth or heroin. My argument makes perfect sense as it is based on documented facts.

Your internet can be used for much more than blogging.

 
At 4:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

mresquan, are you really that simple? Decriminalizing drugs? Do you think that if meth had been "decriminalized" that Burgess kid would have used less? If drugs were decriminalized more people would start using drugs, users would use more and everyone else would pay the price tag; the violence that goes with meth and cocaine use, driving around under the influence would increase. The cost in ER addmissions, overdoses, social services, work place accidents, work place productivity. "Simple" is too nice, you're fucking stupid.

 
At 4:59 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Oh yes,and the war on drugs has been so succesful.Millions and millions of dollars gone to total waste.And yes,I'm probably just as stupid as you are.

 
At 7:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not possible, as I am not stupid. But I pegged you right mark, or mresquan, as you can't come back with anything intelligent. I'd be satisfied with something original, can you do that?

And what do you know about the war on drugs? A catch phrase you heard about? And total waste ? Sounds like maybe mresquan.

 
At 7:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prior to 1914 heroin, cocain, opium and all the rest could be purchased cheap at the corner drug store and there was no "drug problem". The same with booze. Along comes drug and booze prohibition and suddenly the crooks are in hog heaven. The big profiteers in any "prohibition" are the crooks and that includes the government. Wake up boys and girls. It's a scam. The government creates the problem, declares "war" on it and then charges us to fight it. Who owns your body; you or the government?

 
At 9:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, the goofy ex LASD dude from exile in Georgia. Any more conspiracy theories ? Have another drink....

 
At 12:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unpronouneable and Unspellable wrote: "Prior to 1914 heroin, cocain, opium and all the rest could be purchased cheap at the corner drug store and there was no "drug problem"."

My Reply: Oh, Yes there WAS a drug problem. People just pretended these destructive drugs were not messing people up. But they were.

 
At 12:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unpronouneable = Unpronounceable.

Sorry about the sticky keys.

 
At 5:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Problem with illegals is that they stand on street corners and panhandle. THIS IS MY CORNER! MY CORNER DAMMIT! STAY THE HELL OFF MY CORNE!!!!!!

 
At 7:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

drug abuse does damage to humans, RE: plazoid et al.

 
At 7:49 AM, Blogger Fred said...

4:35 wrote, "If drugs were decriminalized more people would start using drugs, users would use more and everyone else would pay the price tag.../snipped/."

With that line of reasoning maybe we should prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages?

 
At 8:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Precisely, Fred. If alcohol were illegal, fewer people would drink alcohol. That was true during prohibition. Fact. I agree Fred, let's reduce drug dependency and DUI deaths by recriminalizing alcohol. Society is better off with alcohol being illegal, and my measure for "better off" is human life. I'm ready.

 
At 9:02 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Then here's the political party for you, 8:15: http://www.prohibition.org/

Maybe you should switch over to them and try to get them up and running again?

 
At 9:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow man, let's make coffee illegal too!

 
At 10:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How bout sleeping if you don't live in a house or apartment. How about defecating in places other than toilets. How about sleeping naked with your dog inside a sleeping bag.

 
At 10:50 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Let's make fast food restaurants and high choleserol diets illegal too.

 
At 1:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Plazoid puke, I think it's illegal to sleep naked with you dog in a sleeping bag! You should be ashamed of yourself!

 
At 1:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm OK with the plazoid sleeping naked in a sleeping bag with mresquan.

 
At 1:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

plazoid said...
How bout sleeping if you don't live in a house or apartment. How about defecating in places other than toilets. How about sleeping naked with your dog inside a sleeping bag.

Thinking about this stuff makes my stomach churn.

I think it it keeps up, I'll go blogging in some other location.

 
At 2:54 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Mresquan wrote, "Let's make fast food restaurants and high choleserol diets illegal too.".

Don't worry, esquan. They're working on it.

 
At 11:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't all the homeless pukes pick up their own Sh*t? If dog owners can do it for their dogs, why can't the noble Homeless do it for themselves?

 
At 1:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should the homeless be troubled with social taboos of the civillized society when we the homeless have chosen to break free from the shackles of civilized society? Now if you'll excuse me I've some rich 16 yr old girls to demand change from.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home