Philosophical horse shit. On May 1, 5:11 pm, "M. Johnson" <micha...@america.net> wrote: > Plain > we will enforce our immigration lawsWhat Do You Mean “We”?bySheldon > Richman, April 19, 2006 > To say the least, there is tension between the ideas that we live in a free > society and that government may determine whom we may sell to, rent to, and > hire. This is the real heart of the immigration debate. Who should decide > such things, free individuals or the state? > This question is obscured by the democratic myth. People often say, “We as a > nation have the right to decide who comes here and who doesn’t. So we must > get control of our borders.” The problem with this is that “we as a nation” > don’t do anything. Individuals act, sometimes in concert with other > individuals, but collectives do nothing. When we say “the nation does such > and such,” we mean a group of politicians calling themselves “the government” > and claiming to act for the nation do such and such. It’s true that in a > society such as ours people vote for officeholders. But the connection > between punching out a chad in a polling station and politicians’ making > immigration policy is, shall we say, roundabout. It is so roundabout that it > makes no sense at all to say that punching out a chad is the same as > determining immigration policy. That’s a fairy tale. It’s time we became men > and women and put away childish things. > Note that to the extent that “we” exercise the “collective freedom” of > determining who can and can’t come here, real flesh-and-blood individuals > lose that freedom. The Washington Post reports that immigration authorities > are cracking down on employers who hire immigrants who have not complied with > the bureaucratic demands made of them. The Post states, “Serious criminal > charges once typically reserved for drug traffickers and organized-crime > figures are increasingly being used to target businesses that employ illegal > immigrants, a strategy highlighted last week when three Maryland > restaurateurs pleaded guilty to federal offenses and agreed to forfeit more > than $1 million in cash and property. The little-publicized approach, which > can include charging such employers with money laundering [!] and seizing > their assets, amounts to a strategic shift in the enforcement of immigration > law in the workplace.” You can get 10 years for harboring illegals, 20 for > money laundering. > The assistant secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, put it > plainly: “If you’re blatantly violating our worksite enforcement laws, we’ll > go after your Mercedes and your mansion and your millions. We’ll go after > everything we can, and we’ll charge you criminally.” > “Ourworksite enforcement laws”? So much for free enterprise. Funny how the > alleged party of the free market can be at the head of the mob demanding > draconian sanctions against people who hire the “wrong” people. It’s not hard > to divine the true priorities of that party. > In all the blather about immigration, no one has stepped up to explain why, > in what Mencken called the land of the theoretically free, individuals are > not free to hire and sell and rent to whomever they wish. If I want to rent > an apartment to and employ a Mexican, that’s no one’s business but my own, > regardless of whether he’s cleared some arbitrary bureaucratic hurdles. The > politicians should butt out, which in an earlier time was the essence of > Americanism. I don’t think the government school curriculum features that > very prominently. > The usual reply to my “it’s no one else’s business” argument is that > immigrants create harmful spillover effects. They use the schools, hospital > emergency rooms, and so on. But notice that in that list of strained > facilities, you never find Wal-Mart, Kmart, and Sears. Why is it that private > businesses have no trouble handling increasing numbers of customers? Only > welfare-state facilities can’t take it. Maybe there’s a message here. And > maybe immigrants are being scapegoated for the government’s > failings.http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604f.asp > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
