Enrique experienced far more problems getting through Mexico than he did once in the United States. What do the Mexicans think of Central American immigrants?

Chiapas is fed up with Central American immigrants, says Hugo Angeles Cruz, a professor and migration expert at El Colegio de la Frontera Sur in Tapachula. They are poorer than Mexicans, and they are seen as backward and ignorant. People think they bring disease, prostitution and crime and take away jobs. Some cannot be trusted. People in Chiapas talk of being robbed by migrants with guns and knives. They tell of an older woman who welcomed an immigrant into her home and was beaten to death with an iron pipe.

Boys like Enrique are called “stinking undocumented.” They are cursed, taunted. Dogs are set upon them. Barefoot children throw rocks at them. Some use slingshots. “Go to work.” “Get out! Get out!”

[link]

Some migrants say Mexicans exploit illegals for a fraction of the going wage, which is 50 pesos, or about $5, a day.

Except for children throwing rocks and slingshots, does this all sound familiar?

Residents of the state of Veracruz are kind to illegal immigrants from Central America, but those by the border aren’t very accommodating.

He cannot beg 100 pesos. People in Nuevo Laredo won’t give. Mexicans along the border, he notices, are quick to proclaim their right to immigrate to the United States. “Jesus was an immigrant,” he hears them say. But most won’t give Central Americans food, money or jobs.

Some libertarians may view Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant or a criminal (even a litmus test for whether or not someone is libertarian!), but I can’t agree. Maybe it’s because I’m from Illinois. At the same time, libertarians might get excited over the ideas of Darwin, and what that might mean for liberty.

I’ll probably save more Lincoln-related libertarian arguments for another day, but I’m shocked when I hear some people talking about Lincoln and drinking this “Lincoln was a tyrant” Kool-Aid. Let’s say that George W. Bush becomes governor of Texas again. The Texas government then decides that it wants to, say, attack Iran. The federal government says they can’t. Texas then announces that it is seceding from the United States effective immediately. Is Bush a hero for states’ rights or libertarian causes, or is he the tyrant?

I believe that the Southern states should have been able to secede if they had wanted to, but only if the matter was put to their citizens by referendum and won by a vast majority. That was not done in the South– and needless to say, they didn’t give the slaves a vote on the matter, either. Some might say that as elected representatives, the Southern legislatures had the right to do what they pleased in representing the people. Again, the slaves hadn’t gotten a vote on those representatives, had they? They seceded as soon as Lincoln became President, not for some liberty-related principle, but because they wanted to continue the system of slavery. That’s nothing for a libertarian to exalt, in any manner, but I see it done continually.

Sure, Lincoln expanded government powers to an unprecedented degree– but almost every President has done that, so why single out Lincoln (compared to, say, Teddy Roosevelt) when Lincoln was obviously well-meaning, freed the slaves, and was assassinated in office (so he certainly was punished for any mistakes he might have committed while in office)? Why disparage Lincoln while exalting those who would have kept slavery in existence, something that is the antithesis of libertarianism and freedom in general?

I don’t believe that the federal government has the right to interfere in state matters unless perhaps when rights under the Bill of Rights are being severely breached. Others may disagree. Who is going to enforce freedom of speech, or the press, or the other rights? Did the slaves have any of these rights? At that time, there wasn’t really a court system to deal with these matters, even for non-slaves. Do I think the DEA should be raiding terminally ill cancer patients, or anyone for that matter in no-knock drug raids? Of course not. Do I think that the federal government should be coming in when an essential freedom such as whether one is kept as a slave or allowed to be free is being breached? Perhaps. As one example of how far the federal government has come from defending these rights, take a look at Heller v. DC last year, when the federal government came down on the side of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, which was clearly a violation of the Second Amendment.

Lincoln can’t be responsible for what people did after him; he, like all the presidents of the 1800s, would be astonished at the powers the federal government has now claimed for itself. There was no income tax in Lincoln’s day, few federal agencies, and of course, the president just went to the theatre with one security guard, imagine that.

Now, the problem with this is that it can be a slippery slope. Once the federal government got rid of slavery, then it wanted to get rid of other things. Now it wants to get rid of drugs (and even drugs in other countries!), interferes in neighborhood disputes (ex. a local group went to the Department of Housing and Urban Development when it thought the city should provide water services to its neighborhood), gets involved in every aspect of business and almost every aspect of personal life, and I could go on. It has exceeded things that are black and white such as, should people be owned by other people, and has greatly expanded its power beyond almost any comprehension.

I don’t think that Lincoln started that. He may have begun the framework, sure, but he had help– those expanded government powers could have been stopped by the Southerners who insisted on keeping slaves. I’ve even heard otherwise intelligent people refer to Lincoln as a murderer. Sure, maybe there could have been an alternative to the Civil War. Those most in charge of that were the leaders of the South, who seceded as soon as Lincoln came to office.

Anyway, let’s move on to the less controversial subject of Charles Darwin! (“The Great Disturber”??) First of all, local schools should be allowed to teach what they want. Involving entire states in what should be local education leads to problems like those seen in Kansas, Pennsylvania and Texas, where evolution is put on a level with, let’s say, time travel rather than with gravity. Teaching intelligent design in school, by the way, is the same as the governor of a state sending public school kids home with flyers about a kids’ health program (as Rod Blagojevich did in Illinois), teaching that taxes are good because they build roads (as I recently encountered when teaching a public-school approved curriculum to a student I tutor), etc. As Radley Balko once said,

“Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.”

Some Darwin quotes for Darwin Day.

One of today’s speakers said she also spoke to a protest march in DC on the first anniversary of “Shock and Awe,” and she would speak every year until it ends. The problem with this attitude is that you have to protest every day until you get something changed. You can’t just have a once-a-year event and expect that to make any type of difference at all.

Many of the speakers got it wrong, as well. One guy– who was actually one of the best speakers overall– asked if anyone in the audience was 18. Since it was a college campus, there were quite a few there who were. He said that we had been at war with Iraq for these people’s entire lifetime, from the Persian Gulf War to our many years of sanctions (under Clinton, although of course he didn’t mention that) to the current quagmire, in which we expected them to be happy to be liberated after we had sanctioned them. This version of events completely ignores the fact that they were ruled during that time by a mass murderer who delighted in terrorizing his constituents, and most Iraqis were actually very happy when we liberated them from Saddam Hussein’s regime– if not at first, within a few weeks– and then they wanted us to leave right away.

When someone acts like the Iraqis were just living idyllic lives in their desert paradise until we came along and ruined it for them, it gives less credence to anything else they might say. The Iraqis were glad to have us come and throw Saddam out; they just didn’t like what happened next, when their country (and its heritage) was looted under our watch, their army was disbanded and insurgents allowed to flourish, oil lines were repaired before their electricity and water supplies, al Qaeda franchises sprang up, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed, and the country divided itself along sectarian lines. While they were glad we came in the first place, they now want us to leave. They are now optimistic about the future, just as they were four years ago, but at the same time they don’t give us any credit for improving things.

That means that we’re either completely ineffective or that the Iraqis don’t appreciate or notice what we do for them; in either case, it means it’s time to let them rebuild their own country just as our own Founders once had to do. The French helped us, but they didn’t rebuild our country for us. That’s a much more powerful argument than simply claiming that America has been Iraq’s one and only oppressor for many years. It’s too bad that speakers at an event against something as obviously misguided as the Iraq War can’t make better arguments than this. One girl even claimed that one million Iraqi civilians had been killed, which is far above even the high estimates that I’ve heard. When people say outlandish things like that, it works against their cause, not for it.

“We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” — George W. Bush, March 19, 2003

Bush said when the war began that he wanted to send the various branches of the military over there so that we wouldn’t have to fight “it” with our police here. The actual result is that our police and firefighters have been sent there, while crime becomes more of an issue over here. It’s something no one has touched on, but which I think is one of the most convincing arguments against the war. It’s causing safety problems in America. National Guard troops which would be guarding the border are sent overseas, which leaves the border wide open for any terrorist group that wants to walk right on over– or hire a poor Mexican to do it for them. The military competes directly with police departments for recruitment of men between the ages of 20 and 30– but the military can offer spectacular bonuses and seems to be winning that particular battle. This leaves some police departments so desperate for new officers that they want to employ non-citizens. Local police departments have a six- to 12-month wait for the ammunition they want, because soldiers in Iraq get first dibs.

“In the meantime,” I told Larry, “local crime goes up, local costs go up, and local police vacancies stay high.”

“All of which goes to show that the late, great Tip O’Neill had it almost right,” said Larry, paraphrasing the former speaker of the House. “All war is local.”

“Our investigation staff operates with not nearly enough personnel, and I’m discouraged by all issues regarding methamphetamine trafficking. These issues have not declined due to [our] lack of officers.” — Fargo, North Dakota police chief Keith Ternes

I don’t know about you, but personally I’m more worried about someone robbing or killing me as I walk down the street than I am about a terrorist attack, of which the chances are approximately nil in the scheme of things. Yet, we take away our police officers to send them to Iraq? I’m more likely to be struck by lightning and about a billion times more likely to be killed in a car crash, even if al Qaeda had the ability to even try to come over here and attack us. Even if you believe in this war for “security” reasons, you should not also be willing to sacrifice actual security in this country for security for a country half a world away.

Apparently the fever tick is a really bad thing that we don’t want in our country. We don’t want it so much that taxpayers still pay $4 million a year for the fever tick eradication program on the Texas border. The state of Texas writes: “Overall, the expenditure represents a good bargain; a l990 USDA commissioned cost-benefit study showed that, for every dollar spent on the program, producers save $121.”

However, is that a good deal for taxpayers? If a program like that is so cost-effective for producers, wouldn’t they pony up the bill to have their own fleet of “tick riders” if the government didn’t do it for them? It amazes me that people are against corporations, but they tolerate millions in corporate welfare going to huge industries like that for Texas cattle.

Of course, in the end it turns out that this federal program was just as pointless as almost every other one… Mexican cattle long ago became naturally immune to the fever tick, and it simply doesn’t affect them. The Mexican government spent $0, and now have a better result than we do.

As will happen when the government hands out money, the beef industry wants more manna from the taxpayers: “The Fever Tick Force and the Texas and Southwest Cattle Raisers Association asked Congress this summer to spend more than $30 million over four years, plus a $2.5 million grant to the USDA Agricultural Research Service to find and develop new chemical agents to combat the ticks.”

Tags: Tick riders, Tick riders Mexican border, tick riders Texas, fever ticks

I called in to a radio show this week and spoke with Jim Gilchrist, who started the Minutemen along with Chris Simcox and has so oddly endorsed Mike Huckabee for president.

I’m new to calling in to radio shows, and I’ve learned something new every time. This time, I learned that when you are on the waves with someone who basically amounts to a slick politician like Gilchrist, don’t pause if you don’t want their answer yet– because these types of people will simply not let you get a word in edgewise. They will also spew statistics at you that are wrong and you know they’re wrong, but it’s difficult to defend back with the real statistics if you have not prepared ahead of time, like Gilchrist obviously has.

Gilchrist’s big arguments for Huckabee are: 1.) He was allegedly the only governor to say that illegal immigrants couldn’t get driver’s licenses by signing a bill saying so, and 2.) He came to Gilchrist and asked to consult with him. I countered with the fact that Huckabee has said– even two days before his Secure America plan was released– that we had to give public money to illegal immigrants to attend community college in a plan praised by many Democrats (keep in mind that these illegal immigrants are prohibited from holding a job in America, which is what community college is training for) and two years earlier had said that deporting illegal immigrants was unrealistic.

Gilchrist replied that Huckabee was the first governor to take a stand against driver’s licenses from illegal aliens. I wasn’t familiar with this argument, so I didn’t have a direct reply for it– although it’s actually not even true and Huckabee did not support the bill!

Gilchrist seems to be amazed that Huckabee came to him first (forgetting that Huckabee obviously needs credibility on this issue!) and that seems to be the main reason Huckabee is the best candidate. “I represent 250 million people [against illegal immigration] and he comes to me– that’s representative government at its finest!” Sorry, but Gilchrist is not elected by those people who are against illegal immigration (and many have rebelled against him), so that’s not a good argument, either.

Gilchrist is on the campaign trail with Huckabee as we speak. He seems to be promoting himself as much as he’s promoting Huckabee.

The next time he’s on a radio show, I’ll be prepared… and now you are too!

Tags: Jim Gilchrist Huckabee endorsement, Jim Gilchrist Minutemen, Jim Gilchrist illegal immigration, Jim Gilchrist Huckabee, Jim Gilchrist

The filer, an immigration attorney named Eugene Flynn, explains:

“I agree with Ron Paul about 80% of the time. The problem is the other 20% is the most important to me, that is, immigration… Ron Paul offers no way to allow those illegally in the U.S. to get right with the law. Instead he wants to spend more and more money to create bigger bureaucracies to secure our borders to protect us from needed workers… We need a guest worker program NOW! One way to help get it is to defeat the (immigration) restrictionists such as Ron Paul.”

Hmm, that concern over a legal path to immigration wouldn’t have anything to do with Flynn being an immigration attorney who presumably advises said immigrants on these legal paths?

My thoughts:

• This is further proof to those who say that Ron Paul is a Republican, not a libertarian. This could help him in that vein as far as the GOP goes.
• Eugene Flynn may just be counting on Ron Paul getting the GOP nomination and not even running for Congress again, but for the whole enchilada– leaving the race wide open. Apparently, a Democrat hasn’t even bothered to file for the general election yet, Ron Paul’s seat is so safe.
• What does the Cato Institute have to say?

As for my position on the issue, it’s glaringly obvious that the only reason this is Flynn’s #1 issue is because he’s an immigration attorney. He doesn’t even live in RP’s district– he lives in Dallas. Sure, an eventual guest worker program would be nice when our economy is better, but for now, we do need a fence and we do need to get rid of subsidies and handouts for illegal immigrants, which encourage them to come here (one big component of this is birthright citizenship, which I believe should be abolished for those not legally here in the first place). Once we do that and see a return to sound money and free market economics, our economy will be booming and everyone will be begging to institute a guest worker program for all our new businesses, or perhaps we can just allow people to come freely and not subsidize them. But, it’s going to be difficult to get the Democrats to let go of their precious subsidies for what is becoming their most important voting base. So, it will be difficult and that’s what everyone needs to focus on right now.

Tags:Ron Paul 14th Congressional district, Ron Paul libertarian, Ron Paul Eugene Flynn, Libertarian candidate files Ron Paul congressional district

What Toobin didn’t know or didn’t say (demonstrating incompetence either way) is that a bill offered in Congress to prevent funding of the NAFTA superhighway got more than 40 co-sponsors before dying in committee. And, even if it doesn’t exist, why not pass that bill? Who wants a 10-lane highway going from Mexico to Canada? But no, the bill wasn’t passed, and that’s what makes me suspicious about the whole thing. Who in Congress wouldn’t want to vote on a bill prohibiting a huge superhighway connecting Mexico and Canada built by eminent domain on hardworking Americans, even if it is just a fantasy? Pass the bill prohibiting it, the fantasy ends, and everyone is happy.

Tags: Jeffrey Toobin, Jeffrey Toobin North American Union, Ron Paul, North American Union, NAU, Ron Paul NAU, SPP, Vincente Fox