Redstate

This is from almost a year ago--at (spit) Raw Story (spit).

LINK

[excerpt]

Two familiar faces will soon be dogging Senator John McCain on the campaign trail, as activist Vietnam Veterans Jerry Kiley and Ted Sampley resume a campaign they have conducted for years against the Arizona Republican and former prisoner of war.

Jerry Kiley filed papers last week to establish the nonpartisan group Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain. "When people truly get to know him, there's no possibility they'll consider him for president of the United States," says Kiley, who served in the Army and completed the Internal Revenue Service paperwork to establish the "527" group.

RAW STORY spoke last week with Kiley, as well as Ted Sampley, a North Carolina-based publisher who has been harshly criticizing McCain for more than 10 years. Sampley teamed up with Kiley in 2004 to found a similar group that targeted Senator John Kerry as he ran for president. They see McCain as an apologist for Vietnam's Communist government who sold out fellow POWs and servicemen missing in action from America's lengthy war in Southeast Asia.

[end excerpt]

that was hilarious

and we keep sending him to solitary confinement, but he just keeps coming back. Gotta respect that.

But they're not part of his campaign, AFAIK.

Despite the differences between Duncan Hunter and McCain, I *know* Duncan Hunter would never approve of this.

People are mad that under McCain's proposal, a person who didn't play by the rules in coming here is better off than the person who played by the rules, and is still waiting to receive their visa.

This is what gets legal immigrants hacked off at McCain---the proposal favors the law breaker over the person who plays by the rules.

As the summer debate was covered internationally, how many law abiding people felt like fools for complying with our laws and refrained from not entering into the U.S. illegally.

Saying "its not amnesty" is not a argument that anyone finds persuasive. Keep making it, and McCain will sink---it makes him look petty.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

HTML Help for Red Staters

and in arguing that it isn't, McCain comes across as petty.

Words mean things. The Bush/McCain/Kennedy plan does not qualify as amnesty, because well... it's awfully lenient on illegals but it doesn't entirely give them amnesty.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Selling someone a green card at a cut-rate price that people around the world would crawl through broken glass to get a shot at is not punishment. Finally paying the taxes they were supposed to pay years ago is not punishment. There's no punishment in the bill.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Pun intended.

BMK gives 'em a complete pass on that. It's called amnesty.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

also for identity theft, forgery (almost a necessity), fraud, and tax evasion. While I find these semantics arguments fruitless, there is no question this bill would have reduced the Republican Party to a left-wing criminal coddling mess. And it bore McCain's signature to his eternal shame and discredit, and he has yet to apologize for it.

Jack Kemp has endorsed McCain for President.

Ah, well. At least I can still admire Kemp for his economics.

It is perfectly accurate, but that word is not and was never the basis of opposition to his plans. You could call McCain-Kennedy "Free Cake" and it would still suck.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I wish it were so, but some of McCain's opponents are completely obsessed with the word Amnesty. Shamnesty, Mcamnesty, blah blah blah.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The use of the word is accurate so people use it. It also helps that the pro-Amnesty guys just tie themselves in knots trying to defuse the word. It's the actual bill that was so offensive. There's a lot of other things that bill could be called, but amnesty is one of the few you can use on RedState.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

As Leon outlined before, there has been fines and punishments set out for illegals under McCain's plans that have been called amnesty.

Look, I hated, just HATED, every one of the Bush/McCain/Kennedy bills. But some people here (and I don't mean you zuiko) are coming here and acting like screaming lunatics over it. They're bringing down the level of discourse at the site, and I can't stand it.

HTML Help for Red Staters

If they want to stay here and become legal resident aliens with work permits. Something is not a fine unless the alternative is going to jail. That's what eventually happens if you refuse to pay your tickets or court-ordered fines. If they don't pay this "fine," it won't even show up on their credit report. Their wages won't even be garnished. Even the IRS does that... and those aren't "fines" they are collecting, either. All that happens if you don't pay this fine is you MAY get deported at some point in the future, which will put you back where you started before you ever broke the law (well not quite, you still get to keep all that extra cash you made working illegally in the US).

This is exactly why I made my original comment about leaving that paragraph out. This debate has (predictably) taken over this blog entry, the word is not material to the lousiness of the bill, and nobody is every going to agree on it anyway... it has already been re-re-rehashed on this site.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

what is the value of what is taken and what is the value of the fine?

If someone commits murder and they paid a $1 to get out, isn't that effectively "overlooking" the offense.

If someone steals a tv set and a car, and is only required to return the car, they keep the TV (worth $300), and pay a fine of $5---isnt' that "overlooking" the offense.

It is amnesty, with a purposeful political attempt to cover it up by charging a de minimis fine that would in all likelyhood never be paid.

That green card they buy would be worth easily 5, maybe even 6 figures on the open market, depending on how many of them we made available. There are people who pay $10,000 just to get smuggled into this country illegally in a cargo container where they stand a good chance of dying, just so they can work in some horrible sweatshop as indentured servants. What would they be willing to pay for a legitimate visa?

When I see these visas being sold to people for a thousand bucks, it isn't hard to come to the conclusion that we aren't talking about a punishment here.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

value = market value of the illegally obtained benefit - cost of the fine

If the fine does not cover all of the benefits received from an illegal act, then the person retaining the ill gotten gains has retained some value of those gains that has essentially been forgiven after payment of the "fine"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amnesty

If someone is let out of jail early, it would constitute "amnesty" under most of these definitions. The fact that the individual pays a fine does not mean it is not amnesty.

McCain-Kennedy was an act of forgiveness. There was a process for doing so. You could even say that it was conditional amnesty, but it was still amnesty.

Especially when they are coming from the same folks who think GWB walks on water.

Because there are so many immigration hawks that think GWB walks on water...
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Words mean things, and it doesn't matter how many abuse the word by misapplying it. This is a similar argument I've had with leftists when they call the GOP the Fascist Party. We can't credibly argue against the Left when we apply one standard for ourselves and a different standard for our political opponents. That is the higher principle.

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2

But I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

When President Ford put together his program for Vietnam-era draft dodgers and deserters, would you consider that an amnesty? Ford certainly did, that's what he called it when he promised it, and that's what he called it when he implemented it. It required, among other things, 2 years of community service. This is certainly a punishment.

It's fairly simple. If you were to describe the provisions of McCain-Kennedy to 100 random people, approximately 99 of them would say it was an amnesty, and number 100 would say "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" and we'd wonder how Clinton ended up in the survey group.

Ford gave amnesty to draft dodgers because he gave them a full pardon, which is what amnesty is. Clinton was busted for distorted the word "is" so that he could redefine it in a way gets him out of perjury. Same with conservatives redefining "amnesty" in the immigration bill debate.

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2

.

McCain's time as a POW doesn't necessarily mean he'd make the best President, but when charged with accusations of collaboration and treason, it certainly should bolster the case that he was not caving in under pressure and helping the enemy.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

I was referring to the smearing of his time in Vietnam.

I'm pretty well known around here for not choosing Mac as my candidate.

Fred
Mitt
Rudy
John
Mike
Any Democrat
HWSNBN

I just wanted to make the point--the point wasn't really directed to you.

Your example is wrong. They didn't take anything, they merely aren't suppose to be here.

A better example would be a parking violation. If you park in a handicap spot, and they don't tow your car, but give you a fine instead, are you granted "Amnesty"? No.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

You illegally park in a handicap spot and give you a ticket you can trade in (with a $200 payment) for a brand new Corvette. But if you don't want the brand new Corvette, you don't have to pay the $200.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Exactly.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

but the alleged "fine" is actually BELOW market rates.

In other words, law breakers get to avail themselves to a special deal that the law abiding persons do not.

Systematic bettering of people who don't follow the rules at the expense of those who do.

Now you're just being silly. There is no free market for immigration, it's tightly controlled by the government without regard to what the market demand would be, because the market demand would be much, much higher.

Our immigration policy is a form of protectionism, it's certainly got nothing to do with free markets. There might be good reasons for having a sort of protectionism, but don't sit around and pretend that there is any sort of market forces in our current legal immigration system, because that's been done away with a long time ago.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

All he's saying is that we are giving away green cards to law breakers for less than they would be worth on the open market... NOT that we should start listing green cards on ebay and selling them to whoever wants them.

I believe we need to carefully screen prospective immigrants and only let in those who we want to be here, but that does not argue for accepting whoever already came into the country illegally. In fact, it argues against it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

No, again, there is no market. It's worth more on the "market" as it stands, but that's because there is no real market, it's monopolistic and protectionist. So the price of it has nothing to do with what it would fetch on the "open market" because there is no such thing.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

The people who serve that market are called smugglers and coyotes. The providers of illegal immigration provide an excellent basis for estimating the value of legal immigration.

Anyway, it does have plenty of intrinsic value. The fact that there isn't a market for it doesn't eliminate that value... it just makes it harder to estimate.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

We don't want it to be cheaper and easier to be illegally smuggled in than to pursue earned legalization. Isn't that the point? We want to incentivize people away from illegal immigration, which means that the fines and processes should be stiff and real, but shouldn't make it impossible for people to pursue a legal pathway.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

Giving away or selling "earned legalization" to people who already came here illegally will provide a boost to the the smuggling business, as people try to get here to take advantage of this amnesty or get in on the next one. It certainly won't hurt the smuggling business any.

You could make an argument that increasing legal immigration will have that impact on the smuggling business, but we aren't going to be expanding legal immigration to the point where it significantly reduces or eliminates the demand for illegal immigration. Increased enforcement is the only way I can see us having a significant impact on that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Where is the evidence that the illegal immigrants coming to the United States in 2008 are doing so because they remember the amnesty 22 years ago, in 1986? I say again, the draw is economic, essentially free-market in nature, not devious. I've worked with a lot of illegal immigrants, back when I was a Janitor and a fast food services employee. Most of them didn't know a thing about the 1986 amnesty, and didn't expect to ever be legalized. They just knew that they couldn't survive in Mexico any longer, and that the only way they could feed their families was to come north by whatever means they could.

I absolutely think that we need to increase pathways for legal immigration, through a guest worker programme that includes earned legalization. The smuggling business thrives because there is no legal alternative. If we provide a legal alternative, that decreases the incentive for people to pursue an expensive and dangerous process.

And if a legalized immigration process is set up, it makes sense not to exclude those who are already here, since their pre-existing jobs, housing, familial connections, and english language skills make them more valuable than those who would replace them upon deportation.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

those who followed the law, behind those who broke the law by coming here.

As the son of immigrants---this is infuriating.

If the alternative is deporting 12 million people with roots and connections in our community, economy, and language, and replacing them with 12 million people who don't, well, I don't see how your solution is better. More reactionary and one-sided, sure, but not practical or beneficial by any means.

If it was a question of "cutting in line" that would be one thing. But when there functionally is no line for low-skilled Mexican labor, then that is something totally different.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

Many illegal immigrants, at least many of those from Mexico, been following this debate just as we have. Everything we do on this topic is big news in Mexico. It gets reported on Mexican TV and radio and in their newspapers. So at least some of them know there's talk about legalization.

Just that talk in support of legalization from the President and certain other big-wigs provides additional incentive to come here now rather than later. The fact that we have passed amnesties in the past provides plenty of incentive as well, as it reinforces the idea that we may do it again. Why wouldn't this impact their decision? There is a very real chance that if they come here now they will be able to get a work visa at some point in the near future, and that work visa is worth much more than its weight in gold.

Sure the draw is economic. We are in agreement on that. That's also why people want to get in on the amnesty... for economic reasons. It's all economic. I don't see how any reasonable amount of legal unskilled immigration is going to have an impact on this. We can't feed the entire world. If we let a million or two million unskilled laborers in, there will still be many others who didn't make the cut clamoring to get in and willing the break the law to do it.

I'm not opposed to increased legal immigration. I think everyone who wishes to come here needs to be carefully screened. I think most of it should be of the skilled variety, not the unskilled variety. Unskilled laborers are, often, a net drain on the economy as they consume more in social services than they provide in economic output. Unskilled laborers are, in many cases, a crutch used to avoid capital investment. That's exactly how they are used in agriculture.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"we aren't going to be expanding legal immigration to the point where it significantly reduces or eliminates the demand for illegal immigration."

Why is that? That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable step, even a necessary one.

If we legalized drugs, but still controlled them, for example, it would certainly cut down on the amount sold illegally, even if it wouldn't eliminate the underground market entirely.

I don't think immigration is the same problem, for one thing, it's not in and of it's self a bad thing, while drugs basically are. But I do think that having a more reasonable amount of legal immigration, driven by the market, with appropriate controls, is a big part of ending illegal immigration.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Even if we let a million unskilled immigrants into the US every year, demand will exceed the supply. Our standard of living and our wages will still be much higher than those in places like Southern Mexico. There are billions of people in the world who could find a better life by coming here. If we just opened the door or picked a number high enough to effectively open the door to anyone who wanted to come in, it would solve the problem. As far as I know, nobody is proposing letting in that many unskilled immigrants.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And there's a legal pathway today. And this will incentivize people away from that path entirely.

Why should they go through that when they can just be on the grey market for a few years paying no taxes, and then get legalized on the amnesty of 2020?

There is functionally no way for low-skilled laborers to make it to the United States.

As for the supposed "advantages" of being on the gray market... that's just completely counter-factual. I've never known an illegal immigrant who was glad about their legal status, or enjoyed being on the gray market. It means lower wages, and less social status. It means living in fear of government. Most of them do pay taxes without receiving social services.

I've never known anybody who was here illegally who wouldn't have preferred to be here legally if they had the chance.

And anyway, it's been 22 years since 1986. Nobody makes plans for 22 years out, and even if they did that's 1/3rd of their life spent on the gray market; that's not a good alternative.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

The process for legal immigration to the US is really really cumbersome. It requires a lot of time and patience, and yet millions of people have subjected themselves to the process and patiently "wait their turn." Some are rejected outright, but for many, it comes down to literally winning one of the slots alocated for that country.

Illegal immigrants step ahead of the people playing by the rules. I don't blame them for it (our process is bad, and this country is great), however, we should NOT reward people who take cuts in line.

As a policy, we are spitting in the faces of the people who follow our rules.

When the supply is artificially limited to be so much lower than the economic demand, the government's interference is problematic. We don't have enough slots allocated for countries like Mexico, whose labor we need.

I understand the desire not to reward illegal immigrants, but in rejecting that possibility without presenting a more viable outcome, we end up having real problems. We have a really crappy, broken situation. There is no easy fix. But kicking out people who have economic and social roots in America, who have worked to hold down jobs and build families and learn our language, is worse than the alternative.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

So lets make the legal immigration system better, and lets NOT give illegals who are here an advantage over those who followed the rules.

We don't need to deport anyone---attrition would effectively deal with this problem, and get the proper point across

I would be mostly ok with exactly that. A way tailored for low-skilled laborers to make it to the US legally. In carefully limited numbers. With limitations on benefits and term.

That, however, was not McCain-Kennedy.

On the broad pictures, I think it is. We need to provide a legal means to meet our economic demand, while allowing current illegal immigrants to earn legalization through learning english, paying fines/back taxes, and being processed within the system.

I think I favor larger quotas than you, as I want market-driven results, not "carefully limited numbers." But I think that the broad picture here is the same, even if the details are different.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

where you set a fine/cost anywhere from $0 to a de minimus fee in relation to what people do pay to get here illegally

It's not open borders, per se. I don't want the government to be uninvolved in the process. It's important that we are able to track who is and is not in the country, and are able to weed out the bad elements. It's vitally important that we don't have whole chunks of people who evade the system. That's a threat to national security, to be sure.

But the number of immigrants who go through this legal process should be determined according to free market principles, not kept functionally at 0 for political benefits.

All other things being equal, legal processes are better than illegal human smuggling, both for America and for the immigrants. I don't know what the cost of a Coyote is currently, but a fine/visa entry fee should not be significantly higher than that. We want to allow people to work through a legal system in order to avoid creating an economic incentive that pushes them back onto the black market.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

you need to have a non-trivial "fine" for people who break the rules. As we have discussed, the McCain-Kennedy "fine" is trivial in relation to the benefit received from the illegal activity.

Illegal immigration is anarchy in the sense that we don't know who is here, and the costs of such immigration fall disproportionately on certain regions and industries

The problem of illegal immigration anarchy -- and there is a real problem -- is precisely what you identify. We don't know who is here, and as a consequence we don't have much (or any) control once they are here.

The fine needs to be non-trivial in the sense that we need to discourage illegality and provide a sense of paying for past wrongs. However, if that fine is substantially greater than the cost of illegal immigration, it defeats that purpose. In trying to disincentivize illegal immigration, we may functionally make it cheaper to immigrate illegally, and so shoot ourselves in the foot.

I'm not sure what the exact dollar amount should be, but I want to make sure that it is easier to come here legally than to come here illegally.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

So why aren't you proposing a greencard auction then, instead of handing out green cards to lawbreakers in return for a paltry fine? Your fines are not punishment. They're window dressing.

if someone steals your TV and Radio, and they get to keep the radio, they are benefiting in the aggregate from the illegal act

Again, the analogy is wrong. They aren't taking anything from anybody.

The only thing they are "taking" is someone's "right" to not compete with them. But that again is protectionism, you can make the same argument with free trade. And it's equally wrong there too.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

You are still rewarding lawbreaking.

Yah, that happens from time to time. We don't have any perfect options.

If they have been in trouble with the law for other serious things, I think they should be deported instantly and barred from applying for legal citizenship, probably forever. But if it's some guy who came over here, took a job, supported his family, and kept his nose clean, sorry, I don't think we need to punish that severely.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

receive by being on U.S. soil.

Emergency room treatment
Local and state services
Job opportunities

and most importantly, they are taking this ahead of people who follow the rules.

Why are people so anxious to reward law breakers and the expense of people who follow the rules?

I do not look at this from an economic perspective---I look at if from the perspective of a would be immigrant who follows the rules and waits in line

We don't have a line for low-skilled labor. We have enormous demand, and artificially restrict supply. We need to allow the market to govern supply and demand, with the government regulating enough to ensure that bad eggs are kept out.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

Your repeated charge that they are not stealing wont hold water!
They are stealing from hospitals taking services that others have to pay for. They are stealing jobs by taking jobs at lower wages that citizens will/can work for. They are stealing from the government(thats you & me) every time they take food stamps, SSI, or any of the many government benefits to which they have no right
My original bank robber analogy is EXACTLY correct

No, you are too busy listening to demagogues to think this through.

The VAST majority of illegals don't use any sort of government welfare, usually out of fear that they will get caught. Yes, some do, but that's an argument against the welfare state, not against immigration on a whole. Besides, if they were legalized in an orderly, realistic manor, they'd have to pay more taxes (although many do already, and for services they don't collect on,) which would basically eliminate the problem anyway.

And your "stealing jobs" argument is classic liberal protectionism, and absolutely nothing more. Do you think a car door cares if it's made in Mexico or Texas? No. Any argument you can make against immigrants "stealing jobs" you can make against free trade doing the same thing. And it's crap for the same reasons that the anti-free trade arguments are crap. If you don't know what those are, I suggest you read Adam Smith.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Back in 1986, everyone called the kind of arrangment that you and John McCain support an AMNESTY.

John McCain's plan is that I pay my $100 for illegally parking in the handicap spot and in return I get to park in the handicap spot for the rest of my life.

Maybe so, but when we have too few parking spaces to go around, I'm not sure I'm 100% against that.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Give the parking space to someone who didn't already break the law by parking in it illegally? This policy would certainly increase the number of people who are parking in handicap spots illegally in the future. They know there's a good chance they'll be rewarded for it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

If they are otherwise good, upstanding citizens, and have held down a job and done good for themselves and their family?

Frankly, no.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

If we need the low-skilled immigrant labor -- and the economic argument against illegal immigration tends to be a weak one, rooted more in Democratic protectionism than Republican free-market forces -- then we'd just have to replace the current crop of illegal immigrants with a new crop of legal ones in order to meet our economic needs

The draw for illegal immigration is economic, not the promise of "amnesty". It's been more than 20 years since 1986. I've not known a single illegal immigrant who expected or counted on amnesty. They come because they need the work and we need the labor. They come illegally because there isn't a legal way for them to come due to our big-government strangling of free labor markets. If we want to decrease illegal immigration, we need to provide realistic, market-responsive quotas for legal immigration that gives people an alternative.

And if we're going to provide realistic, market-responsive low-skilled immigration quotas, we should absolutely prefer those who are here to those who are not. The current crop of illegal immigrants have roots in American community. Many of them have US citizen children. They own properties and pay rents, they hold down steady jobs, and they have increasing levels of English fluency, which would increase more if learning English was a precondition to earned legalization. (Of the illegal immigrants I've personally known, in San Diego, CA and in Dallas, TX, most work to learn english, and their children overwhelmingly do. Statistically, 88% of 2nd-generation hispanic immigrants are fully fluent in english; 44% of them don't even speak their parents' native tongue.)

What advantage is there in deporting them and replacing them with people who will need to look for housing and jobs, and who have far less fluency in English?

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

...and crash goes the GOP.

First, if you ever violate speed limits then I don't want to hear about the absolute need to defend the "rule of law," especially when those laws are arbitrary, man-made, big-government interference into the free market. It's easy to scream about the "rule of law" when you're not the one breaking those laws, but most Americans break laws all the time that nobody cares about. And frankly, I think that if most Americans were in a position where they could not feed their families in the US while the Canadian economy had major economic opportunities, but there was no way to legally immigrate to Canada, they would do the exact same thing. Sometimes desperate economic need, and the responsibilities to one's family, does trump the rule of arbitrary and deeply misguided law.

Second, illegal immigration is not anarchy. It's not ideal, for a number of reasons, but the primary fault there lies in not providing a legal means for people to feed their families or fill the jobs that we demand. We should remove government strangulation of the free market, and recognize that the absence of federal control is not anarchy.

Third, it's about the consumers, not the corporations. Illegal immigrant labor provides much-needed labor in the American economy, which benefits everybody. Surely Republicans should recognize the benefits of the free market, and the power of macro-economic growth?

Fourth, when did "corporate welfare" become a dirty word in Republican circles? Has Huckabee really won? Do we now think that big government solutions to protect the poor Americans from the evil corporations is a conservative principle?

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

So just lay out this case honestly before the GOP primary voters and general election voters and ask them if they want our laws enforced or to help business interests trim a few cents off prices with their subsidies. If you win by a frank and candid explanation, fine.

Thanks for ignoring my actual arguments. You're right; that straw man is a lot easier to beat.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

No strawman necessary. Again, take the case you laid out to the electorate.

Sometimes desperate economic need, and the responsibilities to one's family, does trump the rule of arbitrary and deeply misguided law.

So let's legalize theft in some instances since those laws can be arbitrary and deeply misguided. After all, why should unharvested grain be the property of the landowner?

Second, illegal immigration is not anarchy.

No, but non-enforcement of our laws and borders are.

Fourth, when did "corporate welfare" become a dirty word in Republican circles? Has Huckabee really won?

Ever since Republicans began to embrace free markets and free trade, from what I recall.

So let's legalize theft in some instances since those laws can be arbitrary and deeply misguided. After all, why should unharvested grain be the property of the landowner?

If a family is starving to death, and a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his children, that should be treated differently a man who steals consumer electronics to buy a new car.

Is it illegal? Yes. Should he have to make restitution and pay a fine? Yes. The point is not to legalize it, but to change our response to illegality so that it is less severely punished given the circumstances and motivation. The extenuating conditions should meliorate our response, and cause us to treat that theft differently than others. I'm sure you would do the same, in that situation.

Additionally, that doesn't respond to my point, which is that non-existent immigration quotas are an arbitrary and artificial legal construct without real moral basis in natural law. That doesn't mean that they are bad, necessarily, but they are laws like "do not exceed 65 mph" rather than laws like "do not steal." And, I say again, if you ever exceed the speed limit or fail to come to a full and complete stop at a STOP sign, then I don't want to hear about some absolute moral obligation to uphold the rule of law in all instance. I bet that going 72 instead of 65 doesn't keep our children from going hungry, so we have far less excuse for "VIOLATING THE RULE OF LAW!!!" than they do.

No, but non-enforcement of our laws and borders are.

We should provide a market-based legal pathway for immigration so that immigrants can be screened and processed through legal means. We should change our laws to reflect the reality of our economic needs.

But if you don't think that the non-enforcement of our traffic laws is equally anarchic, than I say again that immigration hawks need to stop pretending that we have an absolute moral obligation to uphold the rule of law at all times. We punish an infinitesimal percentage of violations of traffic law every year, and nobody complains.

Ever since Republicans began to embrace free markets and free trade, from what I recall.

Free markets and free trade are grossly violated by the strict, functionally non-existent immigration quotas. If you believe in free markets and free trade, let the labor market be responsive to domestic economic supply and demand.

And the party of Reagan should recognize that "corporate welfare" drives the economic growth that benefits all.

There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet

"Open Markets" = "Corporate Welfare"?

You're in the wrong party.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

You, sir, are in the wrong party. Go with the pro-criminal element over in the Democratic Party. They agree with you completely, and that partially explains their weird attraction to McCain. Even the guy above you agrees this is corporate welfare but he argues that represents a Republican value endorsed by Reagan. I think he might want to consult what that great president had to say about the corporate bail-outs of his time...as have most conservative Republicans over the years.

You're good at throwing around insults, but that didn't answer the question.

Can you please explain to me how free markets are corporate welfare?

Simple question. If you don't answer it, you can't, because it's not complicated.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

and other public safety costs. It is cost-shifting. Simple enough, but you know it. You are spinning to hide the fact your position gives cover for identity theft, fraud, forgery, tax evasion and other felonies.

Again, McMabius was quite honest about this when he conceded it is corporate welfare. He sees that as a benefit. I don't.

A. That's not always true, many times, they pay for NONE of those things, because a lot of illegals exist outside the system.

B. THEY PAY FOR THOSE FOR NON-IMMIGRANTS AS WELL.

By your idiotic definition, ANY program that gives any money to anyone is "corporate welfare," as long as the people receiving it have jobs.

You might be right to attack the welfare state, but that's an entirely separate issue and has nothing to do with corporate welfare. You're debating a phantom issue.

You are also under the mistaken impression that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Some don't that's true, but a lot, if not most do, and they don't collect the benefits, such as SS taxes. Granted, it's often under fake SS#'s but they still pay them.

And McCain has never, ever said that it's corporate welfare. I dare you to prove me wrong. He may have said that they are good for the overall economy, or that they are good for corporations and that they wouldn't be able to get by without them, both of which is true, but he has never said it was corporate welfare.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

You forgot anchor babies who can and will get mostly unproductive members of their family (grandparents, aunts, uncles) to become citizens, drug dealers who aggravate our drug problem (although I think that if we just legalized most drugs, we wouldn't have such a large problem), and a rise in unskilled labor when that is that least that is what we need least in the United States.

Besides that, amnesty simply tells foreigners that the US doesn't care for the rule of law. That sets a bad precedent and determines that future immigrants will show the same respect for the rule of law that we do when we set our immigration policy.

They come because they need the work and we need the labor. They come illegally because there isn't a legal way for them to come due to our big-government strangling of free labor markets.

: thumbs up :

Nice to see someone else understands this incredibly simple truth based on conservative values.

I get so incredibly tired of being told I'm not a conservative because I favor a more free labor market.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

You want more immigrants, and you're willing to reward lawbreaking to get them. Now the truth comes out.

HTML Help for Red Staters

conservatism, it just goes to show how flimsy the attacks on McCain really are. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

left.

You never heard Reagan talking about tax cuts for the rich.

The favorite past time of Huckabots everywhere, and apparently a few McCainiacs too.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

Reagan would have learned from his mistakes.

Reagan would have learned from his mistakes.

But still misleading because of the vagueness and the general impression it gives off. Words like "fetus" in the political context are triggers to people who have strong opinions about abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2

Rush was reporting about a story where Perot contacted someone at Newsweek (I believe) to ramble off some anti-McCain rhetoric.

It will be up on his website ( www.rushlimbaugh.com ) later....The current day's transcripts are usually up by 5:00 CT.

From what I heard, Perot is trying to sully McCain's military record, not Rush.

Texas Proud and Texas Loud

I will look. If Rush is publicizing this trash, then in my opinion he is trying to sully McCain.

The very diary you are responding to is publicizing this trash, but Charles certainly isn't "trying to sully McCain." It is perfectly valid to bring this up if the purpose of doing so is to condemn it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I didn't catch much of it, but it appears that Ross Perot was questioning McCains dedication to finding all of the POWs from Veitnam during Bush I presidency. Apparently Perot thought that there were some POWs in Russia being held captive.

McCain didn't want to look into the matter and wanted to drop the entire issue. That apparently didn't sit well with Ross Perot. Frankly, without more information, I don't know what to make of the whole store.

I saw an article about it from Time magazine somewhere.

Has been a hobby horse of Perot's for a very long time. In a nutshell, there have been random, unconfirmed reports of US military personel being held in Vietnam or former USSR long after the war was over, and some (Ted Sampley comes to mind) people have made their living off of peddling this nonsense.

It is a fact that is far too politically difficult for officialdom to credit; and far too burdomsome for those unaffected to concern themselves.

As a uniformed military officer I learned enough, years ago, to have absolutly no doubts about MIAs.

As an author, I researched the subject to death after retirement and was so moved by what I learned, I had to fictionalize it in a novel I published in 2003.

Nonsense!? So, that is how you credit roughly 2000 wasted, tortured, stolen lives that have simply been erased.

Friend, I'll tell you your application of the word 'nonsense' to the MIA situation is on a level with damning McCain as a traitor - or lower.

And, I could care less how you feel about it.

Special Forces Vietnam Veteran.

De Opresso Liber

I thought John Rambo rescued the last few POW's that were held after Vietnam? Did he leave some behind?

John S. McCain III.

That's why they had to make another movie!

And I don't see McCain doing it to himself, either. Sounds like just a few unconnected wackjobs to me.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

McCain has been fighting Ted Sampley/Perot et. al. on this issue for *years* IIRC, Sampley even got hit with an assult charge for an altercation with McCain's aid/speechwriter Mark Salter, and did a bit of prison time for it.

John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child?

John McCain broke under torture and is an active agent for Communist Vietnam?

I think hard hitting contrasts/attacks are and have always been a part of politics, and I wouldn't want to see them go away. I wouldn't call it "whining" at all, that stuff was ugly and totally beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.

But it is fairly obvious that there is a degree of bootstrapping going on here to elicit sympathy. That I can't stomach.

The Library of Congress has all of the votes on file. If you know what year you can find the legislation there.

THOMAS

Slam means bad & wrong...

Forgive me, however Huckabee does not have much in his record to support attacks against another regarding illegal immigration...