please, fence me in

Minuteman Leader Pushes Border Fence
If the government doesn't build security fencing along the Mexico border, Minuteman border watch leader Chris Simcox says he and his supporters will.
Simcox, whose civilian watch group opposes illegal immigration, said Wednesday he was sending an ultimatum to President Bush to deploy military reserves to the Arizona border by May 25 or his supporters will break ground for their own building project.
"We're going to show the federal government how easy it is to build these security fences, how inexpensively they can be built when built by private people and free enterprise," Simcox said.
Congress has been debating immigration reform for several months. One bill, approved by the U.S. House in December, calls for nearly 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The fence proposal has angered Mexicans, with President
Vicente Fox calling it "shameful."

Gaaaaaawd bleeeess Ameeeeeericaaaaaaaaaa!
My only reservation at this point in the story is this: On whose private or public property is the fence going to be built? Is eminent domain going to be invoked by cooperative local authorities in order to build such a privately-funded fence? But then...

Simcox said a half-dozen landowners along the Arizona-Mexico border have said they will allow fencing to be placed on their borderlands, and others in California, Texas and New Mexico have agreed to do so as well.
Surveyors and contractors have offered to help with the design and survey work, and Simcox said some have said they will provide heavy equipment for his Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. to build fencing.

Well, there you go. Forge ahead, Mr Simcox. And when you're done, run for Congress or Senate, please.

oversimplified public debate

All this talk about the illegal immigration problem has gotten me thinking. And I think the debate is currently rather short sighted. All you hear about is about "supporters" or "opponents" of either "immigration" or "illegal immigration", and the way the two latter terms are used in the media make them completely interchangeable. But of course, they are not. And the sides of this are even more complicated than pro/anti as well.
There are actually several questions in the illegal immigration problem, and each person in the debate can answer any number of ways on each question. This means that there are not only pro and anti sides, but many distinct sides, each having a combination of pro and anti positions on each of the questions. Wow, this is getting confusing. Let's simplify it.

The first question to ask in the immigration debate is: How strong do you want border security to be? Some people want there to be a guarded wall along the entire US/Mexican and US/Canadian borders. Some want no wall, but a military presence to guard the border. Some want to keep the border relatively secure and relatively porous as it currently exists. And some do not recognize a border at all and think people should be able to move about at will.
That's roughly 4 sides on the single question of border security in the immigration debate. You see how quickly this issue gets impossible to debate with any degree of simplicity.

After border security, one has to consider the question: What do we do with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the US? Some people want them immediately arrested and prosecuted in the US justice system. Some want them immediately deported back to their home countries. Some want them to be able to work toward legal residency. Some want them to be able to work toward naturalized citizenship. And some think they should be immediately granted equal citizenship with native-born Americans.
Surprisingly enough, the answers to this question do not always correlate with the relative progression of answers to the first question. I have heard people support the position of using a military presence on the borders, but simultaneously allowing current illegal immigrants to work toward citizenship. So not only is there a progression of opinions on each question, but each individual does not necessarily hold the same level of opinion for each question. *head*spins* I know...

One of the final, but most important questions to ask is: How thorough and stringent should the legal immigration process be?
Some people think we should cut off all immigration immediately (though I've never heard this opinion expressed). Some people think we should cut off immigration from certain nations or regions. Some think we should simply lower the amount of immigrants allowed in legally each year. Some think we should raise the limit. Some think there should be no limit. Some think there should be no process at all, and anyone should be free to move and reside and work anywhere they chose without having to register with the government to do so.
Surprisingly enough, I have heard a great many people express the interesting combination of opinions that we should build a wall on the borders, deport all illegal immigrants, but greatly increase the number of immigrants that are allowed in legally. Their contention is that this policy would heighten security while encouraging respect for the law and keep a fresh flow of blood pumping into our melting pot. Sounds reasonable to me.

These are only a few of the issues involved in the Great Immigration Debate of 2006 (read: 1776-), but you can already see how complicated the issue is, and I haven't even touched on drug smuggling, human trafficking, paramilitary violence, or labor market effects. This issue can't just be boiled down to "THEY T'K 'R J'BS!!" or "This is OUR continent!" Give me a break. So the next time you hear some pundit or reporter trying to split the entire world into "pro-immigrant" and "anti-immigrant" forces, give them a hearty FUCK YOU and tell them to try to actually think through something before spewing forth a nauseatingly pithy and irrelevant soundbite.

sin city

Having just returned from a several-day vacation in Las Vegas, may I just say that sin is fun. Gambling, public nudity, sex, alcohol, all fabulously good pasttimes. About the only sinful thing in which my wife and I didn't indulge was a little consciousness altering, and that's only because getting catalysts for such activity there and back on an airplane is a little complicated.

reconquista continues

In case you are as yet unconvinced that one of the underlying motivations of the illegal alien protests is the taking back of the former Mexican territories, may I present this:



The criminals marching for their rights at a high school in California defiled the symbol of this country by subjigating it to the banner of a foreign nation on our own soil. And it gets worse and worse and worse.

political backlash 101

A few points about the recent "immigrant" protest marches in Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, et al:

• The participants are not calling for equal rights for immigrants, but amnesty for illegal aliens. Two entirely different issues.
  
• Any discussion you see about opposition to "immigration" or "immigrants" is a blatant lie. I have never heard anyone say that they are opposed to immigration. What some people are opposed to is lawlessness and flagrant violation of current immigration policy. Follow the law on the way in the door, and we welcome you with open arms. Break the law as your first act in this country, and you deserve nothing but the inside of a jail cell.
  
• As you can see in the top-right corner of this photo, some of those masquerading under the banner of "immigrant rights" are actually engaging in a "reconquista" of the southwestern United States. Believe it or not, it's a fact.
  
• Why are those allegedly rallying in support of equal rights for immigrants carrying so many flags of their native countries? If they want equal rights here, maybe they should be carrying American flags. Granted some are, but there are at least as many with Mexican flags. If they're so fond of their home country, I hear it's quite easy to get across the border. It's not a one way type of thing either.
  
• Why is it that half a million illegal aliens can gather openly in downtown Los Angeles without fear of arrest and deportation? Kinda like the town hall meeting in Houston last year in which illegal aliens shouted down city officials who were trying to allay their fears about alleged (though unfortunately not actual) INS sweeps. These people are growing more brazen by the day, and our elected officials and bureaucratic overloards are coddling them as if they were natural born citizens of this country. It's completely unacceptable.
  
• As my title suggests, these protests are going to do little to bring about the amnesty that they seek. Quite the contrary, every talk radio show I caught today was on this top to bottom. This is going to create a backlash that will blindside the protesters like nothing they've seen. It's just like what happened with the marriage rights debate in 2004. Because of all the people staging protests and flagrantly violating the law by granting null and void marriage contracts, they pissed the rest of the country off and helped pass 11 state constitutional amendments and laws ridigly defining marriage. While I support their cause (marriage, not alien amnesty), their tactics were counter-productive in the long run. These amnesty protests will probably help get more Republicans elected in November and make the proposed immigration reform in Congress even more strict (as it should be).
  
• Although I can't credit it as my own, I had to pass along an amusing phrase I heard on the radio today. Someone called in and identified himself as an "undocumented border patrol agent" since he had participated in the Minuteman project. *claps* Genius...and patriot.
  

thou shalt not pursue happiness

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

That sentence should send chills down the spine of any clear-headed freedom-loving person. It is most commonly used as part of an illogical defense of invasive and oppressive security or safety measures implemented by either tyrannical or maternal governments (redundant, I know). We all know that my personal political philosophy is a unique balance between freedom and security, but when it comes to sacrificing basic civil liberties like free transit and association, I draw the line quite clearly in the sand.

Take for instance the recent crusade by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission that has resulted in the arrest of more than 2200 people for drinking in...get this...bars. Gosh, I feel so much safer now that my nanny state government is protecting me from all those people enjoying themselves. These people were not fighting in the streets or driving with blood alcohol above the legal limit, they were just acting like drunk people do. And who is to say that they weren't going to call a cab on their way back home, or have a sober friend drive them?
If the Imperial State Government is going to start arresting people who "may be a danger to themselves or others", how about going down to the local Planned Parenthood clinic and sterilizing all the single women looking for information on the morning after pill or abortions? That would certainly eliminate lots of potential "dangers to others".

full circle

Some commentators on the Right like to point out that others on the Left are so radical that they are (consciously or not) siding with terrorists against Western and American ideals. Well, I would like to point out a converse and infrequently discussed collusion between those on the Right and those who plot the destruction of Western civilization.
Andrew Sullivan pointed out a story about how some Christianists who rail against gay marriage have added a new facet to their argument - that terrorists don't like gay marriage, so if we do, we are attracting the wrath of terrorists.
To some of you, this might seem like a logical argument. To the rest of us, it is the most illogical argument possible. We do not live one way or another at the whim of those who wish us harm. We live how we choose. However, this appeasement argument has become more common among conservatives, not only on the gay marriage issue, but on media saturation as well. They complain about Hollywood and decadent movies and culture partly because it makes the terrorists hate us.
Well, my hypocritical friends, so do freedom of the press, freedom of religion, two-piece bathing suits (oh, sorry, those are evil too), and hickory smoked bacon, but we're not giving those up, are we? Only those issues on which you agree with Islamists we should give up.
I have a different idea. How about everytime a wackjob in a C4 vest points out something about us that he doesn't like, we do more of it? That would seem to be a more idealisticly sound and intellectually consistent proposition. We're not inviting more terrorist anger; they hate us already and forever simply because we exist. Responding to the reverse of their demands (as with things like Shock & Awe) is only going to make them more vocal and more visible. We want the psychos to stand up and tell us that they don't like what we do and that we should be destroyed because of it, so then we know where they are and can send Predators after them. Not that we have the balls to do that though...