Comments Elsewhere

Me (2004-11-18): “The issue is whether or not it’s morally acceptable to shoot innocent people for crossing borders in order to do a job. If it’s is, then good God, why? If it isn’t, then you are better off living with whatever consequences come, your vision for America notwithstanding.”

gc (2004-11-18): ‘I should also note that this border crossing is hardly the “innocent” activity you imagine. Here’s a mirror of the recent TIME magazine article, “Who Left the Door Open?”.

[news account of immigrants trespassing, using property as latrines, cutting fences]

Hmmmm…doesn’t sound so “innocent” any more, does it? Would you like thousands of people per day walking over your lawn, defecating on your property, killing your animals, and cutting your fences?’

Me (2004-11-18): “But that, of course, is not the issue. As you well know, there are already laws against trespassing, destruction of property, grand larceny, etc. As you also well know, immigration restrictions are enforced against would-be immigrants whether or not they commit any of these crimes, because the purpose of immigration restrictions is to limit the volume of immigration. Simply demanding that the police enforce laws against littering, trespassing, theft, destruction of property, grand larceny, etc., would be enough for you if your only concern were with the fact that some immigrants happen to violate property rights in the course of making their way into the United States.

“You would also, of course, recognize and account for the fact that most of these crimes are committed precisely because the immigrants have to dodge armed men who are willing to kill them if necessary in order to stop them from living and working in the United States. If you eliminate those restrictions, you will also eliminate most of the reasons to sneak through, hide, consort with criminals, etc.

“If you want to have an intelligent discussion, I strongly suggest you stick to the point rather than introducing red herrings that have nothing to do with the enforcement of immigration law.”

Me (2004-11-26): “Do you think that if the government refuses to shoot someone for peacefully entering the country and working (for a private employer, not the government) for pay, that’s a hand-out akin to a parent providing dinner for a kid? If so, why?”

gc (2004-11-26): “First of all, that entry is NOT peaceful:

[blah blah blah same news account]

“So let’s omit the misleading adjective in the future, shall we? 3 million illegals per year come to more than 10000 per day, a veritable human wave of felony immigration violators, drug smugglers, and trespassers.”

gc, again, this is a red herring. Your proposal is to get men with guns and clubs and have them use violence against immigrants to keep them out whether or not they are trespassing and whether or not they have damaged anyone’s property. The reason I talk about peaceful immigrants is because the issue here is not trespassing law, it’s immigration law. I have no objections to using proportional force to prevent people from trespassing or vandalizing property. I do have objections to attacking people who are doing nothing other than traveling to get a job. Since that is where you and I disagree, that is what we are arguing over.

You don’t care whether the immigrants are damaging property or not—you will endorse attacking whether they are trespassing or going only where they have been invited. If your concern were only immigrants who were trespassing on private property, we wouldn’t be arguing. Please stop introducing red herrings and stay on the topic.