Since the immigration rallies have been in the news of late, this will be freakishly relevant.
I guess one of the issues that distinguishes real libertarians from a la carte libertarians (a/k/a libertarian poseurs) is their stand on immigration. It's what separates the people who attend the church from the ones who drink the Kool Aid.
I was going to title this post "Tom Tancredo is a scumbag". Partly because he is, in fact, a fascist scumbag, but also because if you know that I think Tom Tancredo is a scumbag (which he is) then you would know where I stand on immigration.
If you ever want to see me get worked up until the vein in my forehead starts throbbing, ask me about warantless wiretaps, the seventeenth amendment or immigration reform.
First of all, let's get something out of the way. Building a wall between the US and Mexico wouldn't have prevented the 9/11 attacks. The terrorists didn't sneak in through the border. They didn't have to, we gave them visas. Secondly, no one is talking about building a wall between the US and Canada. So is the real reason for a wall that you want to stop terrorists, or the darkies?
The rhetoric and name calling on the hill has gotten really bad. These fear-mongering rednecks on the government's payroll should be ashamed of themselves. The rhetoric got so bad that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), got up and told them a story about his mother, who was an illegal alien and how he watched federal agents take her away when he was a child. This moved several republicans because when they referred to illegal aliens as criminals and lowlives, they obviously weren't referring to the Senator's mother...she is white, after all.
But it's easier to demonize people who look and speak differently even if they are law-abiding, pay taxes , and contribute to your economy.
One of my favorite economists* Steven Landsburg a few years ago had this to say:
"the Senator appears to subscribe to some bizarre notion that we should care more about total strangers who happen to reside in the United States than about total strangers who happen to reside elsewhere, and that if we can force those strangers to stay on one side of an imaginary line then we need have no concern for their welfare. I cannot imagine any reasonable moral principle that would justify such anotion.
If Senator Feinstein were, say, a principled libertarian, then she'd favor allowing people to live where they choose. If she were a principled egalitarian, her concern for the relatively fortunate Mexicans who have made it across the border would be dwarfed by her concern for their impoverished former neighbors still stranded on the other side. Only by having no principles at all can she simultaneously demand that we offer more to the fortunate few and less to the unfortunate many."With the war in Iraq faltering, the economy petering out, and republican loyalists everywhere under indictment, it looks like the neo fascists were looking for a feel good distraction (like gay marriage or Terry Schiavo) to rally the mob around. I'm glad that this is backfiring on them.
As a kid growing up, my dad had pictures (plural!) of Reagan in the living room, and the quickest way to get kicked out of our house was to make a disparaging remark about Reagan or stare at my sister's tits. Most of my family are republicans, so that's why I am completely disgusted by the behavior and rhetoric of Tom Tancredo and fascist scumbags like him. You make me ashamed that I ever voted republican. Don't worry, I won't make that same mistake in the next election.
*Yes, I have favorite economists, because I AM that much of a geek. Check out my faves on the sidebar of this blog.