Thursday, April 29, 2010

A Bit More On Immigration And Arizona

Robbo writes:
Jaysus, FLG.

Which fellahs on the Right, apart from the most wingnut Libertarians, equates liberty with "anything goes"?

Law & Order has to be a gimme.

I'm not arguing that anything goes, nor am I arguing that people interested in Liberty are either. The issue here is that the treatment is worse than the disease. I say treatment and not the usual cure, because this isn't a cure.

The root cause is economic in nature. Consequently, if you want to tackle the problem, then you either have to tackle the demand, in which case you go after people who hired illegal immigrants, or you regulate the supply, which means allowing temporary workers and enacting comprehensive immigration reform. Trying to tackle it through expanding police powers will lead us down the same ugly and ineffective path that the War on Drugs has.

To that end, I think Hilarious Bookbinder is probably correct when he writes:
FLG, I think your mistake on this one is thinking that a generic conservative cares more about liberty than 'law and order,' which apparently means letting police officers do whatever the hell they want. My guess is that authority, control and order are all more important than liberty.

So, I guess my question now, if we assume there is a trade off between Liberty and Law & Order and that conservatives are more L&O, then can generic conservatives rightfully cloak themselves in the rhetoric of Liberty?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

"if you want to tackle the problem, then you either have to tackle the demand, in which case you go after people who hired illegal immigrants,"

Hiring or employing illegal immigrants is a Federal felony....and once again we are back on the merrygoround of the Feds not enforcing the very fine, and well thought out as well as completely legal immigration laws on the books designed to stem illegal immigration and so the States are now being forced to try and tackle it themselves.


"or you regulate the supply, which means allowing temporary workers and enacting comprehensive immigration reform."


Fine. No one here is talking about Mass Deportations. Now if you want to talk about "organic deportations" let's chinwag. Organic deportation means creating a atmosphere where illegals willingly return home or never come in the first place because conditions are not so favorable for them anymore. Then, if they want to return, do it legally. Some ways to bring about organic deportations:

1. Close the entire border with a fence. Where the fence is now, traffic has gone down. Where there is no fence, traffic is up.
Do conservatives have the winning 2. Start fining employers of illegal aliens. This will not only slow down illegal immigration there are about 16 million unemployed Americans who might be more willing to do the kinds of jobs illegals have done in the past. Hey, a win-win.

If we just did these two things now, the numbers of illegals would go down. Then we are free to argue about all the rest as comprehensive immigration is developed and passed and never to be enacted upon...


Mrs. P

Anonymous said...

I bugled that one up. I need to read before hitting post sorry.

Mrs. P

George Pal said...

... if we assume there is a trade off between Liberty and Law & Order and that conservatives are more L&O, then can generic conservatives rightfully cloak themselves in the rhetoric of Liberty?

Of course they can.

X has the right to enter an abortion clinic without being jostled, harassed or made to feel in danger. Y, the pro-life
placard carrier, has the right to protest the clinic’s means and ends and dissuade the client by distant persuasion. The freedom to exercise the right of each depends on L&O.

Where there is L&O there is freedom; to speak freely, move safely, et al; where there isn’t – better bring a gun.

Hilarius Bookbinder said...

I think George Pal is confusing law and order with the rule of law; ironic, because law and order usually involves giving disproportionate power to individuals (police, etc), where the rule of law tries to prevent any individual from having power that can be abused.

George Pal said...

That’s a fine academic distinction - the difference between Law and Order and Rule of Law. But I suspect ‘law and order’ was interchangeable with ‘rule of law’ up to about the same time as ‘conservative’ and ‘the right’ took a hit and became ‘code words’. If I’m wrong I bow to the scholars and proceed on their distinction.

What has the ‘rule of law’ to recommend it, without a force behind it?

‘Law and order’ may certainly break down when those with the power to enforce it use it disproportionately - see Rodney King.

‘Rule of law’ may certainly break down in the absence of the power to enforce it, i.e. ‘law and order’ – see Rodney King aftermath - Reginald Denny.

I can’t see how the two terms can be made distinct, but if they are, and one rates far and above the other, then I’m forced into a Scylla and Charybdis decision, neither of which comforts me as protecting my freedoms.

Withywindle said...

Noting there are different sorts of conservatives -- some emphasize law and order more than others. Rudy Giuliani is a fair cry from Ron Paul, and saying one is more generic than the other is (IMHO) misguided. But keep in mind that illegal immigrations bears upon issues of sovereignty, and defense of the nation against foreign colonization. The liberty of citizens vis-a-vis the state is not the only liberty at play here; and it is somewhat disingenuous to demand a narrow (epistemically closed!) loyalty to the one sort of liberty with no consideration of the larger issues and liberties at state. And, indeed, of national survival.

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.