Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What If Mexicans Were Crack? - Some similar arguments.
National Review Online ^ | May 17, 2006 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 05/17/2006 8:37:54 AM PDT by neverdem






What If Mexicans Were Crack?
Some similar arguments.

By Jonah Goldberg

President Bush hoped to tone down and sober up the immigration fight Monday night. But it amounted to a soft “shush” at WrestleMania. 

The most interesting part of this political and ideological cage match is that few of the usual labels have much utility. President Bush and Senator Kennedy agree on a lot. Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, can sound like conservative Republicans in their demands to close the border. Weekly Standard editor and Fox News sage Bill Kristol declares himself a “liberal” on immigration and “soft” on illegal immigration. Both the Weekly Standard and the editors of the Wall Street Journal consider National Review to be part of the mob of “yahoos” trying, in Kristol’s words, to drive the GOP “off a cliff.”  

So this seems like a propitious time to ask: What if illegal immigrants were crack?   

It’s not such a crazy comparison, by the way. There’s a reason why the drug war and illegal immigration have similar scripts, even though the actors reading the lines change. 

The overwhelming majority of drugs entering this country cross the U.S.-Mexican border. Indeed, in the 1990s, to the extent that the debate over building a wall along the border got any traction, it stemmed from the war on drugs, not a war on illegal immigration. The steel fence constructed between San Diego and Tijuana—which works quite well, by the way—was built to stop drug traffickers, not gardeners. 

Meanwhile, labels like “Left” and “Right,” “liberal” and “conservative” don’t get you very far when debating the drug war either. For example, National Review is foursquare against the drug war (though I dissent from my colleagues on this front). Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard has been a staunch supporter of the drug war, even taking hawkish positions on medical marijuana.  

In 1996, NR’s editors wrote:  

[I]t is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. 

Similar arguments—from La Raza to Jack Kemp, Ted Kennedy to Ben Stein—fill the air today, with charges that immigration officials are a new “Gestapo.” 

“How many border guards would it take to make the U.S.-Mexican border impenetrable?” asked the Washington Post this week. “The answer ... is: It depends. It depends on how much money people are willing to spend and how many trappings of a police state they’re willing to accept.”  

There are other similarities. For many, “comprehensive reform” really means decriminalizing and de-stigmatizing illegal immigration just as “reform” of our drug laws translates to the same thing for drug use. Charges of racism echo each other in both debates as well. Somehow, it’s the fault of those favoring border security that most illegal immigrants are Mexicans and the fault of drug warriors that minorities are disproportionately in the drug trade.  

But for me the most interesting similarity is the issue of futility and will. Drug-war doves claim that you can’t win the drug war because you can’t defeat the laws of supply and demand. As long as there is demand for drugs, there will be a supply, and no acceptable amount of militarization of the drug war will change that. This argument gets flipped on its head when it comes to immigration. Suddenly, militarization is essential to the top priority of cutting off supply. 

But the fact is, in all likelihood your average illegal immigrant, desperate to start a new life for himself and provide for his family, will be no less determined to sell his labor than a drug dealer would be to sell his goods.  

Some drug legalization advocates hang their position on a lot of moral preening about the absolute right of the individual to do what he wants. But many of the same people will then argue that it is—and should be—an outrageous crime to hire an illegal immigrant. Well, conservative economic dogma considers the right to form contracts with whomever you wish to be sacrosanct. It is “the socialist society” according to the philosopher Robert Nozick, “which would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults.” 

My point here is not to say one position is more right than the other. Drugs and immigration are, ultimately, very different things, and it’s the differences that explain why the analogy isn’t perfect. Citizenship, sovereignty, rule of law: These things are rendered meaningless if the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is meaningless. 

But the key similarity is important. Most opponents of the drug war came to their position because they consider the effort worthy in principle, but ultimately futile in the face of a more determined “enemy,” and a bit silly since the gains of winning aren’t that important to them. The burgeoning war against illegal immigration has already been preemptively surrendered by many for roughly the same reasons. What that says about America probably depends on what you think about illegal immigrants or drugs.

  —©2006 Tribune Media Services, Inc.


National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzhjOTMyOGQwYmJhZDNhNWE4NWFmYjZiNGJiODc4MDE=


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aliens; bush; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last
The Hispanic Challenge (To America) A MUST READ Samuel Huntington (Long But Good)

The Mexicans are unlike previous immigrants. This Huntington article definitely needs to be read by everyone at least once! It should be linked on pertinent immigration threads. Citizenship, sovereignty, rule of law: These things are rendered meaningless if the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is meaningless.

1 posted on 05/17/2006 8:37:57 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

What a great thread. Now we can get the drug warriors AND the border warriors together in the same thread.


2 posted on 05/17/2006 8:41:44 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

KARNAK THE MAGNIFICENT... The envelope please?

Yes, your mighty and omnipotent one...

Oil Rich Dictatorships, Islamic Terrorism, Illegal Immigration!

Tears open the envelope...












Name three things that have been neglected for 25 years and are now clearly a threat to our nation.


3 posted on 05/17/2006 8:44:29 AM PDT by Paloma_55 (Still MAD as HELL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All
Immigration was a topic of concern even to our founding fathers.
Read what Alexander Hamilton had to say about unlimited immigration:






"The opinion advanced in [Jefferson’s] Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners.

They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism?…"

"In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other."




[From Hamilton, “The Examination,” nos. 7-9 (1802), Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-), 25:491-501.]

4 posted on 05/17/2006 8:44:39 AM PDT by FBD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“How many border guards would it take to make the U.S.-Mexican border impenetrable?”

It is not hard to imagine what kind of border the US needs.

Make the border an exact copy of the one between North and South Korea. Minus all the unnecessary tanks and artillary, it would be cheap because minefields need very little upkeep.

We can't make it "militarized"? Who says? Considering the Mexican governments hostile attitude of dictating our policy I say a militarized border is called for. And shame on Mexico for forcing us to have to do it.

We did it in Korea and it has worked for decades. We should have done it in Vietnam, we need to do it in Iraq. Americans should be the worlds experts in putting up military borders. You keep the scum out, you are solving many problems right there. Then we can sit back and watch them eat each other and have no doubt of exactly why we put up "militarized borders".
5 posted on 05/17/2006 8:52:49 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (ETERNAL SHAME on the Treasonous and Immoral Democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Great column.

The will to enforce the laws is not there because many people are comfortable with the situation where law-breaking is rampant.


6 posted on 05/17/2006 8:54:15 AM PDT by WOSG (Do your duty, be a patriot, support our Troops - VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: FBD
Read what Alexander Hamilton had to say about unlimited immigration:

Remind me where Hamilton was from again?

(Hint: the dumping ground of every criminal and sodomite in the UK)

8 posted on 05/17/2006 9:05:46 AM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

ping


9 posted on 05/17/2006 9:06:34 AM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If we used the money and resources we are spending in other countries, such as Columbia, to fight the drug war and secured our borders, we would significantly reduce both drugs and illegal immigrants entering our country.


10 posted on 05/17/2006 9:10:03 AM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
What If Mexicans Were Crack?

They would get smoked.

11 posted on 05/17/2006 9:12:29 AM PDT by humblegunner (If you're gonna die, die with your boots on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Most opponents of the drug war came to their position because they consider the effort worthy in principle, but ultimately futile in the face of a more determined “enemy,” and a bit silly since the gains of winning aren’t that important to them.

Some of us don't even consider the effort worthy in priniciple. The principle I believe we should be working under is that drug addiction should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one. And that we shouldn't be prosecuting people for using drugs as long as they aren't breaking any other laws (DUI, theft, etc.). As for the "gains of winning," the war on drugs, I guess we'll never know since as was mentioned, this effort has shown itself to be ultimately futile. Cocaine is siginifcantly cheaper (both in adjusted and real dollars) than it was in the '80s and it is now of higher purity. Virtually every high school student and prisoner in this country can obtain marijuana if they wanted to - in fact, for most underage users, it's easier to obtain weed than it is alcohol. We are wasting valuable resources prosecuting victimless crimes such as this. Alcohol has ruined many more lives than marijuana has, yet which drug is legal and which drug is illegal?
12 posted on 05/17/2006 9:22:06 AM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Good answer!


13 posted on 05/17/2006 9:22:25 AM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
>"Remind me where Hamilton was from again?
(Hint: the dumping ground of every criminal and sodomite in the UK)"<


-Where Hamilton was from is irrelevant. His message was spot on. Hamilton was a patriot to THIS country, and he was willing to get his neck stretched by signing onto the Declaration of Independence.

Hamilton's comments about foreigners who would:
"...bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived..."<

-His comments are prescient when you see illegal protesters with Che Guevara posters and T-Shirts, waving Mexican flags, and carrying signs advocating Socialism and Marxism.

Only a person who isn't paying attention would come to any conclusion other then that these people have NO loyalty or affinity for the US Constitution or it's sovereignty.

Judge for yourself:


http://www.pephost.org/images/content/photos/large_43195.jpg


http://www.pephost.org/images/content/photos/large_43160.jpg>





14 posted on 05/17/2006 10:15:28 AM PDT by FBD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

To ALL

We have lost the Senate.

Write or call your Representative in the House!

They must hold, or life as we know it in the US will change forever.

Quit bitching and start calling or writing.

We MAY be able to stop this.


15 posted on 05/17/2006 10:37:23 AM PDT by EEDUDE (A penny saved is......a penny Congress overlooked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EEDUDE
We have lost the Senate.

Tell me something I don't know.

Roll Call Vote (Isakson Amdt. No. 3961 - too many RINOs)

Write or call your Representative in the House!

Eliot Engel (D-NY)? I don't think it can do any good. I try to help in other ways.

16 posted on 05/17/2006 11:08:28 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Weekly Standard editor and Fox News sage Bill Kristol declares himself a “liberal” on immigration and “soft” on illegal immigration. Both the Weekly Standard and the editors of the Wall Street Journal consider National Review to be part of the mob of “yahoos” trying, in Kristol’s words, to drive the GOP “off a cliff.”

That's because Bill Kristol is no conservative, he is a neo-conservative/New World Order Globalist. Having open borders is one of his top issues. It's the way elites acquire more and more wealth.

17 posted on 05/17/2006 11:13:23 AM PDT by Robertsll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

"It is not hard to imagine what kind of border the US needs.

Make the border an exact copy of the one between North and South Korea. Minus all the unnecessary tanks and artillary, it would be cheap because minefields need very little upkeep."

So Mexico is to be considered as hostile as North Korea?
It's been pointed out that, at least in Texas, much of the land is private, right to the border. You'll need to invoke a lot of eminent domain to make minefields happen.
This is impractical, dangerous, and unnecessary.

Interior enforcement and a path to deportation is the only
As long as illegal immigrants are 'safe' once they get through the border, there will be a demand to cross.
Interior enforcement is more effective than a DMZ.


18 posted on 05/17/2006 11:28:31 AM PDT by WOSG (Do your duty, be a patriot, support our Troops - VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DamonSt

They get their names on things such as bridges; an effective memorial to the "greatness" of that member of the House of Lords. No one wants to put their name on a minefield.

It's as simple as that with Senators. They ultimately go for the side that benefits them the most, whether it be in cash, political stature, etc. The 17th amendment was one of the worst things to happen to the U.S., the perfect example of mob rule gone awry.


19 posted on 05/17/2006 11:42:08 AM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

what if the senate quit smoking crack?


20 posted on 05/17/2006 11:46:11 AM PDT by Rakkasan1 (lead ,follow or get out of the majority.start with our borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson