Make it difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns, only the criminals will have guns. Make legal immigration prohibitively difficult and costly, immigration becomes a criminal enterprise more often than not. Conservatives understand the former, but in years of online discussion I can never seem to make them understand the latter.

The fact is, we aren't honest. We don't want people coming here for the most part. That's why we make it costly (in the thousands of dollars) and hideously complex to migrate here permanently. We assume the barriers will keep the riff raff off the lawn.

In reality, we are just creating a black market supply for a demand. No different than trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by... passing laws. Criminals don't obey laws, they don't respect borders, and they don't have a problem getting through walls. Go ask Israel.

So, obviously laws don't stop criminals from breaking... laws. That's what they do. They're criminals. We can debate until we are blue in the face in Congress, but in the end all we are going to come up with is a new law for the lawless to break. If we were concerned with promoting good, law abiding people to come here, we'd do our best to help them, but that's not what we want at all.

We just want to build a wall out of legalisms and red tape and then pretend that somehow it will keep bad people out and let only the best people in. The expectation that a law will prevent a criminal from doing things is irrational to the point of insanity.

Baker,

Let's assume I'm for every other provision of the AMNESTY (ahem, AMY!) bill (I'm NOT). This bill is stupid. Giving amnesty to gang members should not be a part of ANY plan dealing with illegals. Gang members routinely participate in felonious acts and, as you yourself have rightly pointed out, are terrorists. So why are we even CONSIDERING granting them legal status?

My point was (and is) that we have no business pretending to fight terrorism halfway around the world when we won't even fight it in our own cities. Most law enforcement practice a doctrine of "containment" and avoid the neighbourhoods where these actions are routine. And it is a double travesty to know that we are giving a free pass to any Mexican gang members as long as they renounce their violent ways. Hell, we shouldn't have executed Tookie Williams if we're going to give the heirs of his legacy citizenship for being the same kind of animal he was.

I feel your pain.

On another subject...has your view of the war on drugs changed over the years?

I'm not being snide, I am genuinely curious.

I'd find it difficult to believe that there aren't provisions in the bill that don't require the same requirement as regular immigration; namely that if you've committed a crime while you were here you aren't eligible. Unless you want to declare these gangs terrorist groups (good luck), and can then prove membership in them (again, good luck), I think we're dealing with each person on their own individual merits.



Drugs in general, no. In the case of immigration and guns, the goal is responsible use by lawful people. In terms of drugs outside health care, we don't want anyone using them. The analogy there would be that to outlaw drugs just denies them to the lawful, which is the goal, right? In terms of futility alone people could say why outlaw murder when people are going to do it anyway... not the same as guns and immigration.

My opinion on pot is wavering, though. I understand the 'gateway drug' thing, and I don't believe it is at all healthy for you, etc., the way some people propose. You have to balance the cost vs. benefit of fighting it, though, I think.

We spend billions, and incarcerate untold numbers of people trying to prevent people from using it. Those are resources that could bolster our control of more harmful drugs, protect people more from known violent criminals, etc. Given that there are a lot of cops out trying to nail people for weed when kids are being abused and murdered every day by repeat offenders, I think fighting pot is probably doing more harm than regulating and taxing it in terms of the overall effect on society.

This from the following site, Baker:WWW Link. Here are comments from that link:

First, let's make one thing clear. It is undeniable that the bill allows gang members to receive the Z visa amnesty. Section 602(g)(2) clearly states that a gang member may note his gang membership and attach a "renunciation of gang affiliation" to his Z visa application.

Now, yes, technically if they're convicted of a crime, they can be denied citizenship. Are you really naive enough to believe that conviction rates are high for gang members? They keep their inner city neighborhoods terrorized with fear, so they don't report.

I'm shaking my head at you, Baker. First, we can't stereotype middle eastern Muslims as terrorists (you raise a good point on that argument, I will concede). Now we can't stereotype inner city gangsters as terrorists. You would have us believe that the rural redneck is the most dangerous threat to the safety and security of Americans, when the VAST MAJORITY of the 15K murders per year that you cite as an example of our mixed up priorities, are INNER CITY DEATHS, and a substantial number of those are direct victims of gang violence.

You're sounding more and more like the Ward Churchills of the world every day, Baker.

Gang presence is as large in prison as it is outside of prison often. Tons and tons of gang members go to jail, Gid, I'm surprised that you'd feel conviction rates for them are low as compared to anyone else. What do you have to show that?



I've written on the Latino gangs in America more than you, and if you've read what I have written you know that I've stated openly they are guilty of crimes up to and including ethnic cleansing. Don't be Rightwinger and call everyone that differs with you a sympathizer. I'm really surprised you'd call me Ward Churchill; you've stooped lower than I would have expected.

You are someone who, at least I think, believes in the rule of law. How does the Libertarian party feel about the terrorism aspects of the Patriot Act being used in the drug war? Yet... you suggest using terrorist laws used to weed out people who've not been convicted as a crime as undesirable?

If anyone should be shaking their heads it is me. Until Latino gangs are listed as terror groups, I am not aware of gang membership being a crime. Using "terrorist" status on people not convicted of a terrorist act seems odd behavior for a Libertarian.

Ward Churchill blamed the victims for a terrorist act. Please show me where I have done that. If you can't, then maybe turn that self-righteous mirror on yourself and see how far you've fallen. When someone suggests that maybe you are going against your own political philosophy, and you in tern brand them "Ward Churchill", well, maybe you aren't even due the respect of a response.

I'm sorry, Baker. The inner city gangs are really just social clubs. I see them all the time helping little old ladies across the street, painting old buildings and making their community a better place. They're what make inner city communities highly desirable pieces of real estate.

It's that evil redneck in the Ford pickup truck we REALLY have to fear! They're killing people by the THOUSANDS!

You can't have it both ways, Baker. First you insist that Muslims aren't responsible for the majority of the world's terror because we don't count inner city violence as terror when it really is. NOW you insist that inner city violence isn't really terror.

And yes, Baker...when I joined the Libertarian Party, a lobotomy was performed and I was rendered incapable of independent thought. I am only allowed to spout the party line. Thank you SO much for correcting me!

Gids response is what I am talking about when I say that America is in trouble, at least some segments of it. This irrational, brewing anger towards anything and everything that they perceive as a threat, and frankly anyone who differs with them, runs counter to how our society was intended to function. A whole lot of people are swaddling themselves in a flag that doesn't truly represent their beliefs, in my opinion.

Yeah, Baker. I'M the threat to America!

Well, you called me a closet Fred Phelps a LONG time ago, Baker! Don't go name calling if you can't take it handed back to you!

So the rule of law doesn't matter, screw the constitution, and get people you perceive to be a threat any way you can. The "gangs" are a homogeneous unit, and if gang member x commits a crime, you can slap anyone in the gang with the charge. Wow, this is an interesting flavor of Libertarianism you've got going.



And you are a rotton liar. Show me where I said that. Like I said, I've written that they are guilty of everything up to and including ethnic cleansing.

What I said was, until you declare them a terrorist group officially, and make membership a crime, you don't have a foot to stand on in terms of the law. You, obviously, have no care for the constitution or the law. Maybe its time to find another party.

How about just fuck off and find another place to hang, Baker. I'm really tired of your bullshit!

Done with JU. It's become a couch for this kind of insane bullshit and people who are so ready to explode they can't read what is written before they do. Hopefully Gid someday you will reread my responses and see that I wasn't even disagreeing with you, only stating that what you are suggesting isn't possible with the law the way it is.

I won't be around, though, because frankly this kind of insipidness isn't worth my time. Done. Taking your advice Gid, I won't be checking back in. Both you and Brad have suggested I fuck off now, and two strikes is enough for me.

It's become a couch for this kind of insane bullshit and people who are so ready to explode they can't read what is written before they do.

Pot meet kettle.