Please correct this on the post -- and Barry, I would suggest that, in the future, if you or others wish to speak at major rallies or events concerning immigrants' rights, it might serve you well to actually volunteer or work in the community BEFORE the event occurs. The other speakers were all long-time activists in the immigrant rights community, you were not.

#1: Translation of:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-Page.htm?InfoNo=005072

I'd really like to know how the pro-liberty message plays en espanol.

#2: I live in Kentucky now, and saw Mr. Warden's flag-burning video on CNN.com, as did many of my co-workers, who largely reacted with disgust. As I was watching it for the first time, I was like, "hey, I know that guy!" from libertarian circles in Tucson.

He's no libertarian though... I'd call him a minarchist racist-facist, based on a couple of very heated conversations I've had with the *ahem* individual.

These "Border Protection" people only perpetuate the meddling of the state in affairs which don't REALLY concern them. They are largely from outside of Arizona, so the only thing they are protecting is the collectivized state. Those who arm themselves and seek to privately detain "illegals" should be prepared for those individuals to defend themselves in parity.

Just as I would.

I'm very happy that you guys up in Phoenix made an effort to reach-out to the community, unlike certain elements in Tucson (ie. Roy Warden burning two Mexican flags in front of the Mexican Consulate), showing so-called "americans" the better way to build bridges.

Dave Gallagher assumes we are putting the immigration cart before the welfare horse. This argument is one that some, especially those who want to cater to the xenophobic Right, use with certain regularity. Th welfare state supposedly distorts the situation so that we can't allow people to immigrate to the US because..., because... Well actually they don't spell it out.

There is welfare and there is immigration and we are simply supposed to draw conclusions. But we are not provided with the evidence. At least Mr. Gallagher provided zero evidence in his essay. He merely says: "The fact remains however that many illegals consume an enormous amount of public resources."

I bet that proportionate to their numbers illegals consume less than native born Americans or legal aliens. Frederick Bastiat gave a lesson I thought most libertarians understood. There is the seen and the unseen. Now let us assume Gallagher's premise that illegals consume "an enormous amount of public resources". That is what is seen or at least what Mr. Gallagher wants to see.

What is unseen is the amount of money they pay toward those programs. A survey from the US Labor Department recently showed that immigrants have a lower rate of unemployment than native born citizens. If they have lower unemployment that means they have higher labor participation rates. That means they disproportionately pay taxes into the system.

Illegals are less likely to collect welfare than native born Americans because they are illegal. Many simply avoid welfare entirely because it can be used to track them down. They are worried about INS brownshirts knocking on their door. On the other hand they find it very difficult to avoid paying taxes. They pay taxes on the food they buy, the gasoline they use, the salaries they earn. But their illegal status makes it harder for them to collect the so-called benefits which they help fund. But Mr. Gallagher only looks at one side of the equation. He prefers to concentrate only on what they collect and pretend that they pay nothing in toward those costs.

Now let us investigate what appears to be his principle. Welfare is bad. Welfare makes Americans worse off. It makes us so much worse off that we ought to restrict the rights of would be immigrants so they can't add anything to the burden of welfare.

But there is another group that falls into this category which Mr. Gallagher is ignoring. In fact this insidious group of individuals have traits that are not at all good. Every single one of them is an economic burden and remains so for years. Not a one finds a job upon arrival. Many consume welfare benefits, they flood the hospitals and the schools spend billions on them. Everywhere we look they are consuming billions and billions in taxes in one form or another.

Next to the elderly they are probably the second largest burden on our health system. They are a major component of welfare beneficiaries and they consume the lion's share of our all funding of education. They are babies. And for years after their birth all they do is take, take, take.

Since immigrants are more likely to be employed than native born Americans we can assume that they, unlike babies, pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits. So if the welfare state somehow justifies preventing immigration to the US then the same logic ought to be mean that our anti-immigrant "libertarians" should be demanding that we stop women from having more children. Surely if there is a case for restricting the liberty to immigrate, due to the welfare state, there is an even stronger case to restrict the liberty to have children.

Of course there is a simpler solution. Instead of lobbying to stop immigrants why not lobby to welcome them with one proviso: Anyone who immigrates is not allowed to collect welfare benefits for so many years after their arrival.

Instead of blaming immigrants for the welfare mess Mr. Gallagher would better spend his time going after his fellow legal citizens. They are more likely to be unemployed and thus more likely to consume welfare.

I only have one side point to make. Mr. Gallagher expressed an odd sentiment for an alleged anarchist: "wrap yourself in the American flag and leave the Mexican flag at home." I'm not fond of anyone wrapping them self in any flag. It's so gauche. Now Mr. Gallagher spoke of his Irish heritage. I grew up in Chicago where the Irish ran the city. They had a tendency to march with Irish flags. The shamrock is not an American symbol and you can hardly find an Irish pub without one of them on display. They even dyed the Chicago River green every year.

I find myself rarely offended by someone with a Mexican flag. After all Mexico hasn't invaded other nations under that flag. It isn't a Mexican flag flying over off shore concentration camps. It isn't a Mexican flag flying outside while detainees are being tortured. These days I find the Mexican flag far less offensive but the mere idea of anyone wrapping them self in the American flag ---- well that's a different matter entirely. My suggestion is don't fly any flag. March as individuals.

Curiously there were several other articles on the front page that implied or stated a connection between illegal immigration and increased welfare / public service consumption.

A short commentary on my part was not intended to be an all inclusive financial analysis of services received by illegal aliens. Nor would it serve any real purpose as I suspect the numbers would be disputed anyway. Rather this was a critique of what I consider a lack of priority recognition by the LP and some libertarians.

Interestingly you state "I bet that proportionate to their numbers illegals consume less than native born Americans or legal aliens." Proportionality could be debated, but is not relevant to the discussion. You admit as much when you offer your own solution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Of course there is a simpler solution. Instead of lobbying to stop immigrants why not lobby to welcome them with one proviso: Anyone who immigrates is not allowed to collect welfare benefits for so many years after their arrival."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not lobbying to stop immigration rather I am lobbying to address the transfer of wealth from producers to non-producers before re-opening the entire country lock stock and barrel to an impoverished southern neighbor. Nothing in my writing opposes your suggestion. In fact you, by offering such a solution, have put the "Welfare Horse" at least side by side with the "Open Borders Cart".

That is the kind of discussion that should be taking place among libertarians.

As for wrapping oneself in a flag, I thought I made it clear that I am not particularly fond of the practice, but if the immigrants making demands of their hosts *must* express a sense of nationalism it seems rather kindergarten that they might opt for the flag of the country they claim to want to seek citizenship. This was offered as simple unsolicited public relations advice.

Regards,
Dave Gallagher

A short commentary on my part was not intended to be an all inclusive financial analysis of services received by illegal aliens. Nor would it serve any real purpose as I suspect the numbers would be disputed anyway. Rather this was a critique of what I consider a lack of priority recognition by the LP and some libertarians.

Interestingly you state "I bet that proportionate to their numbers illegals consume less than native born Americans or legal aliens." Proportionality could be debated, but is not relevant to the discussion. You admit as much when you offer your own solution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Of course there is a simpler solution. Instead of lobbying to stop immigrants why not lobby to welcome them with one proviso: Anyone who immigrates is not allowed to collect welfare benefits for so many years after their arrival."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not lobbying to stop immigration rather I am lobbying to address the transfer of wealth from producers to non-producers before re-opening the entire country lock stock and barrel to an impoverished southern neighbor. Nothing in my writing opposes your suggestion. In fact you, by offering such a solution, have put the "Welfare Horse" at least side by side with the "Open Borders Cart".

That is the kind of discussion that should be taking place among libertarians.

As for wrapping oneself in a flag, I thought I made it clear that I am not particularly fond of the practice, but if the immigrants making demands of their hosts *must* express a sense of nationalism it seems rather kindergarten that they might opt for the flag of the country they claim to want to seek citizenship. This was offered as simple unsolicited public relations advice.

Premium Highlights (Paid)

Thu, Mar 16, 2006 - Listen to what you didn't hear this morning on Rachel's show when she interviewed Stephen Rea hot off the set from V for Vendetta. Here is the full 13 min interview and check out what was left on the cutting room floor.

Click here to listen!*

Author of this critique confuses terrorism with guerrilla actions. Terrorism is violence upon a population (usually by their own government), whereas guerrilla actions are directed solely against government targets and government's supporters.

Sadly, guerrilla movements over time often expand into terrorism as anyone not connected with the guerrilla movement comes to be perceived as the enemy or supporters of the enemy.

In this movie, only government agents or their paid stooges and buildings (empty) are targeted.

I own a transportation company and was always glad to risk my potential tip (gratuity) by playing him on my radio.

Knowing that at some time, a damn Republican would board. I could tell them from the Dems, for they were always pissy and frustrated and angry and in DENIAL of the reality Goyette was bestowing upon us all.

Charles, YOU were my voice crying in the wilderness.

I WANT MY VOICE BACK

Joe Herzog. Faithful fan.

I would not have given it 5 stars however, 4.5 is more reasonable IMHO. See this movie while you can.

Nudity, simulated sex, language and violence.

Just curious...

Yeah, I know... context is everything. In the context of your 'article', back in the good 'ol days we called them 'injuns'... even back then we 'Americans' had gotten sloppy with our language...

But still, they are people too. In the five years I lived in AZ I met many-score an upstanding "native" for each individual who held true to any stereotypical image of what an 'injun' should be.

And previous to '01 I'd never met a 'native American', or whatever you want to call our aboriginal settlers here.

I personally think they have good reason to be pissed-off at us whettos.

Just wait until the NWO makes Americans the Indians, at that point you might have some apathy?

I would add, where Alito also errs is in his belief that these are American Rights. They are human Rights. They are the rights of all humans throughout the world. The Constitution (DOI and BOR actually) is one of the rare governments that overtly states a certain few of these Rights in its founding documents.

From the Chicago Sun Times today:

"On Thursday, Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner announced he had ordered DNA retesting to see if Roger Keith Coleman was innocent of the crime for which he was executed in 1992."

One thing's for sure,...she'll never work in that town again.