Raving, Howling Moonbat!

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Tue May 29 16:51:25 MDT 2007

>Immigration Policy Reveals What We Are
>Richman, May 25, 2007
>The new compromise immigration bill is drawing 
>lots of flak, not least from conservatives who 
>object to granting amnesty to millions of 
>so-called illegal aliens in the country. (I 
>prefer to think of them as independent 
>migrants.) Here I have to agree with the 
>conservatives. The illegals shouldn't be granted 
>amnesty. Amnesty connotes forgiveness for doing 
>something wrong ­ and they have done nothing 
>wrong. Indeed, the government should be asking forgiveness from them.
>But they broke the law to get into the country. 
>Did they? They weren't under the jurisdiction of 
>the U.S. government until after they entered the 
>country. It’s amusing that conservatives think 
>illegals are covered by the law but not by the 
>Constitution. Talk about having it both ways. 
>The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not 
>distinguish between citizens and noncitizens. 
>Besides, there is no obligation to obey an immoral law.
>But they came into our country without 
>permission, conservative talker Tucker Carlson 
>and his ilk say incessantly. Without whose 
>permission? The whole population of the United 
>States? The federal government? Why the 
>assumption that either of those aggregates can 
>have the right to give or withhold permission 
>for someone to relocate here? This is a country, 
>not a country club, and rights are natural not 
>national. If someone wants to come here and can 
>do so without trespassing on private property, 
>that’s his right and his own business.
>Which bring us to something that conservatives 
>need to explain. Why do they applaud “tough 
>sanctions” against employers who hire illegals? 
>Aren't they advocates of free enterprise?
>(Not that pseudo-libertarian Neal Boortz! -Doc)
>It turns out they are as enthusiastic for social 
>engineering as any state socialist. They are 
>willing to curtail economic freedom when it 
>clashes with their cherished goal of planning 
>the composition of the U.S. population. With 
>friends like these, free enterprise hardly needs 
>enemies. Their demand for tamper-proof 
>identification doesn’t flatter them either.
>If conservatives don’t like the guest-worker 
>aspect of the immigration bill, I'm with them. 
>But my reasons are different. How degrading such 
>a program is. Mr. and Ms. Immigrant, we don’t 
>want you to move here as a free person to live 
>and work as you wish. But we are happy to bring 
>you here for a few years to do some heavy 
>lifting, after which we will send you back. Dash that.
>The nativists can’t quite make up their minds 
>whether their chief fear about immigrants is 
>jobs and wages or welfare. No need to lose sleep 
>over either. Immigrants are consumers as well as 
>workers, so they help expand the market and 
>summon more production into existence. The fear 
>about wages is misplaced, since the small effect 
>is quickly offset by the demand immigrants add 
>to the market and the increased investment they make possible.
>As for welfare, conservatives really ought to be 
>ashamed of themselves. Even if immigrants wanted 
>to live off the taxpayers (they don’t seem to), 
>why would conservatives try to save the welfare 
>state from such strains? There is no better way 
>to convince the American people to dump the 
>welfare state than to show them it is financially unsustainable.
>(Preach it, brother! -Doc)
>As for the stresses on schools and hospitals, 
>it’s been said once but apparently needs to be 
>said again: only government services abhor an 
>increase in the number of customers. Private 
>retailers don’t lobby against letting more consumers into the country.
>Border security is an issue for demagogues. 
>Timothy McVeigh crossed state borders to commit 
>terrorism in Oklahoma City, but you didn't hear 
>the “secure the border” mob call for internal 
>passports and walls along state lines. Leave 
>crime to the normal law-enforcement institutions.
>Immigration is an emblematic issue. What kind of 
>country are we if we refuse to recognize such a 
>basic right as the right to move?
>Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future 
>of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered 
>Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and 
>editor of 
>  Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free 
>Association” at 
>Send him <mailto:sheldon at sheldonrichman.com>email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20070529/5667489a/attachment.html 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list