I’ve always found that most problems and arguments can easily be avoided if the participants would first define their terms—just to make sure the parties are even talking about the same things. For there to be meaningful dialog it is important to try to carefully consider that our choice of words often leads to needless confusion and frustration. I’ll do my best to make very plain exactly what I intend.
After having read all-to-many typical candidate position papers only to find I was still a little confused as to where they actually stood on an issue, I became convinced that there had to be a better way. Hopefully, I’ll be demonstrating a more effective format to clearly state a position, why, and if it falls within the legitimate purview of government notice.
I think the extraordinary coverage that has been afforded issues dealing with our Southern Border is a good thing. It was also expected.
I personally supported my friend, Russell Pearce when the entire Republican Party deserted him in pushing Prop 200. I made it very clear that while I could not support the bill, I did support the man. From my perspective, if prop 200 passed, it could not possibly hope to accomplish it’s objectives—but it ‘would’ force the substantive issues into public discussion and debate where at some point I hoped we could get past the hype, and get to the root of the problems. Here we are.
Motivated by poll numbers many Republicans would eventually join Russell, but the issues were not defined and have not been fully understood. Now that the race for Arizona Governor has the attention of the nation, its time for my campaign to define the issues and offer a Libertarian candidate’s solution.
Because so many issues are intertwined, it is impossible to try to address them all in one fell swoop—unless, of course we want to leave it at, “Freedom’s the answer, what’s the question?” I want the reader to know that what you’re reading has been edited to one quarter its original length. I intend to devote minimum, but sufficient time to discuss some basic perceptions about a many-faceted public concern, and then resort to a Q and A format.
One of the fascinating things about all this is that both the illegal, undocumented residents, and the indigenous ‘documented’ population distort the arguments to such a degree that it is difficult to determine what the facts are and/or who is telling the truth about what.
That’s because politicians always try to divide us up into groups, pit us against each other, and then offer to mediate—and there ARE politicians on both sides, each working hard to spin events and effects to their favor. Each has an agenda that benefits and enriches them at the expense of the other, and you. It’s become a political war of words that leaves the ‘illegals’ out of consideration altogether.
“Everybody” talking about it claims to speak for ‘everybody’ else, so the individual reader should form their own opinion or thoughts, instead of just jumping on the bandwagon with what is politically-popular at the time.
As a subscriber to the Libertarian philosophy of absolute equality amongst all individuals and to strictly adhering to legitimate authority under the national charter, the reader should be aware that, my positions have taken both into account. In applying for this position of public servitude, I do affirm that I will protect and defend the Constitutions for the United States of America and for the Republic of Arizona—not ignore them as seems to be all the rage. I will make certain however, to resist all impulses to stretch the clearly enumerated powers granted the office of Governor.
I will argue that if we, as a nation, continue to ignore the Constitutional limits (the rules) of power, we will only have more reason to lament how much we’ve come to fall from Freedom, where all natural individual Rights are respected, into socialist fascism, where the profit statements of favored corporations are what determine the privileges afforded to the citizenry.
I will respect the natural rights of all individuals as well as their right to freely associate with whomever they choose, and to be treated (by government) exactly as all other human beings. What is certain is that when this crisis has passed and the politicians have gone (as stated by President John Quincy Adams) “looking for (more) monsters to destroy”, none of the current ‘sides’ will be totally happy.
The shrillest claims of the ‘legally’documented’ folks (‘mericans) who seem to only want to cause other people harm or inconvenience, are summed up best as,
-drive down local wages by diluting the workforce.
-take “American” jobs.
-bring 3rd World disease.
-exacerbate criminal activity.
-create traffic hazards because they don’t know our traffic laws.
-increase accidents without insurance coverage.
-raise all medical costs by not paying for emergency treatment/on going healthcare.
-raise the costs of public emergency services by not paying for their use.
-drain government welfare educational resources, and demand ‘their’ culture be taught.
-traffic in drugs made ‘illegal’ by politicians to protect corporate drug monopolies.
-smuggle their friends in.
-trample and trespass on private property the owners are prohibited from protecting.
-drain social welfare/permanent subsistence ‘charity’ services.
-take money from our economy and send it to South America.
-have ‘anchor babies’.
-threaten national security.
That pretty much covers the gambit.
On the other hand, the illegals themselves seem to believe the socialist rhetoric of the Democrat/Republican political party, as one might reasonably expect, and have a few complaints of their own. From their perspective, they really are ‘entitled’ to all of the social services available to every ‘person’ here (see 13th and 14th Amendments). Now where would they get that idea? From Republicans and Democrats who seek only to buy their votes with taxpayer money. Their status has been entirely ignored by political opportunists for so long, for some non-American Nationals, that social welfare entitlements have become a part of a multi-generational culture (29% of 'illegals'). Their complaints and demands run something like this:
-We want bi-lingual education for our children in the government welfare school system.
-We want to be treated as full Citizens.
-We want free health and medical care.
-We want higher welfare benefits.
-We want free entertainment.
-We want to be able to support our families in South America with money earned here.
-We want American drivers licenses so that we can get car insurance.
-We want preferential housing benefits.
-We want preferential access to U.S. Government higher education loans/scholarships.
-We want preferential access to U.S. Government business start up loans/scholarships.
-We want free use of emergency medical and police services.
-We want free legal services.
-We want anything else we can get from U.S. tax dollars.
-We want access to jobs and opportunity.
-and, we want to vote on how much we can get as well as ‘who’ gets elected.
I’d like to think that pretty much covers it and I believe it does. Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t draw attention to the fact that this entire list could just as easily be attributed to virtually any member of either camp. That fact is the source of all of the challenges we face in regard to the Southern border.
After several trips to, and across the border, too many meetings, too many statistical analysis, too many arguments and too many e-mails, I think I’ve been exposed to the clearest picture of what exactly is behind all the consternation.
In a nutshell, it becomes completely clear and obvious that there IS a solution to all of the border issues—but not without a cost.
Anthony Robbins simplified what drives human beings to take action: They are either running ‘from’ pain (hard circumstances) or running ‘to’ reward. The people who are coming here, are running from corrupt government systems (like ours) that have sucked the retail cash out of their economies and discouraged the creation of new jobs and private enterprise.
So, it becomes important for any thinking person not to vilify the impoverished people who are simply looking for a better way of life. Maybe we should even give ‘special recognition’ for their determination and conviction that led many of them to actually risk their lives just to come here. How many born here are willing to die for an idea and a promise of individual freedom? These people are caught in a trap and the bottom line is clear—they like most of us, are simply looking to feed their families or, they are looking for a concept that is now more legend than fact—individual freedom. Most, if not all the people coming here for these reasons would gladly come over legally—there’s just no clearly defined, or ‘legal’ path to take that would solve their immediate need to eat.
If there is blame to be placed, it is squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. President, the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Judicial system and Vicente Fox’ Mexican government. (This discussion deliberately excludes the issues surrounding the individuals working for the DEA, INS, Border Patrol and law enforcement who accept bribes to turn their heads, or even participate in illegal activities) If these entities really wanted to end the crisis, they would, if they can, find the written law(s) that makes eligibility for, and participation in any socialist ‘entitlement’ programs mandatory—and repeal it/them. That way, only people who are willing to participate in the fraudulent graduated income tax scheme will even have the ‘membership card’ to get in for services. A benefit of this is the protection of the anonymity of those private Citizens who just want to be left alone, eliminating the unconstitutional calls for a national ID.
An irony in all this is that the very same people who openly and publicly decried and thwarted Bill Cinton’s attempts to impose a national ID card on us, are the ones now slobbering all over themselves to get one! As if an easily forged card, or corruptible database is going to make any difference—except to politicians.
The real question before the rabid throngs who seem to want only to ‘punish’ those bad Mexicans who came here and are willing to work, is: Are you willing to pull your own weight in order to fix the system, or do you just want to keep the money stolen from other Americans and services for yourself? We’ll see who’s feigning patriotism for their own selfish gains.
To finish off the perceived ‘problems’, we absolutely HAVE to get government out of our personal negotiations and agreements. We HAVE to eliminate any and all forms of wage, trade and price controls.
There should be no doubt that what has brought ‘illegals’ to this country are the circumstances that have changed dramatically in recent times. I am completely amazed that not even one candidate has mentioned the single largest contributing factor in creating a rush to head for the border—going North. It’s NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).
NAFTA, in all of its 500 pounds of wasted paper, was ‘supposed’ to make ‘free trade’ easier and make opportunities spring up everywhere…blah, blah, blah. How come the NAFTA opponents aren’t saying, “We told you it would have drastic unintended consequences”? It should have been obvious that the sheer volume of language in the agreement insured on-going government involvement in our business affairs. All that was even needed was a paragraph or two saying we’ll trade freely with your country as long as individual businesses want to. Wouldn’t that be simpler? Very little, if any government oversight (administration costs) needed. It turns out that Ross Perot WAS RIGHT!
NAFTA eliminated many Mexican subsidies and pricing guarantees and brought them into the free market. As a Libertarian, I understand that here in America we take it for granted that less efficient businesses are constantly being replaced by more efficient ones. Illegal migrant demands to support wage and pricing controls are ironic because those very same things are what can only result in the destruction of economies, and that is what they are running from. As a free market advocate, I would think that we only want people who are productive to participate in our economy. People who demonstrate the kind of commitment and follow through it takes to risk their lives to get here to compete in the marketplace, are exactly the kind of people that brought America into being.
The ‘unintended consequences’ I refer to involve American agricultural interests dumping in South American markets because our agricultural industry can sell farm produce (and still make a profit) for less than a small South American farmer can grow the same crop. Pre-NAFTA, the Mexican government had in place subsidies and guarantees regarding the retail pricing of farm produce. Ultimately, somewhere around 2 million South American farm workers were starved to desperation because they couldn’t compete. Some in Mexico saw this coming and referred to NAFTA as Mexico’s ‘death warrant’ for exactly this reason. Those millions of starving people headed for the cities, flooding the jobs market and driving down local wages. The overflow headed for America.
Seeing yet another cheap labor market, American corporations quickly closed their U.S. facilities and re-opened them in areas where they could pay an absolute minimum amount for low skilled workers—they’ve already exploited Pakistan, India and China. Such are the consequences of over-regulating and over-taxing American businesses on our own shores.
Questions and Answers
Are these public demonstrations a good thing?
My general inclination is to think they are a good demonstration of people who feel passionately and are willing to actually get up and do something for what they believe in. Wouldn’t it be great if the American public would show this kind of enthusiasm when it comes to protecting the rights, freedoms and liberties of the next generation?
I was actually going to speak for individual rights to the massive gathering at the State Capitol until, for purely political reasons, one of our legislators, (Kyrstin Sinema) decided to keep it a purely Democrat political event and use her position to prevent me from doing so.
The organizers were smart to pass the word that marchers should leave the Mexican flag at home. Bringing them to previous demonstrations served to only complicate the issues and build resentment amongst Americans based on the visual exposure from the media. As far as public sentiment goes, the pictures presented to the viewing public could be interpreted as an international confrontation, not an “American” thing, and result in a serious and destructive backlash. It’s going to depend entirely on what happens from here on in. They took a big gamble on the boycott attempt, and from my perspective, they ‘lost’. It made it clear to me that their movement wasn’t strong enough to affect the markets, so I believe politicians will be less fearful of their influence on elections.
The whole point of our distributing tens of thousands of cards to educate people on the exclusively-Libertarian concept of self-ownership during the demonstration was to encourage them to compete in the marketplace as individuals rather than making demands for government to ‘protect’ them as a special group.
Should we build a Southern Wall?
No. When the media, along with politicians started making a major issue of our Southern border, portraying a veritable human flood, my first thought was not averse to simply throwing up a wall, if the objective is to stop people from dying in our desert. The term; “second thought” is well known for being more clear on the facts and more sure of our perceptions. My second thought went back to our family’s roots in Germany and to the deep feeling of shame and embarrassment I felt when I gazed upon the Berlin wall for the first time. It wasn’t a “wall”, it was a monstrosity. It was a monument to cruelty and to stupidity. And it, too, was built at the whim of politicians—not the people. Some will try to wheedle around the comparison by saying, “but that was a wall to keep people in, we want to keep people out”; these folks overlook the obvious fact that ‘intentions’ don’t change inanimate objects. ALL walls do both—that’s why we call them walls.
I could only hope to convey how very hideous that wall was. Wall promoters had better consider the consequences of such an act. Arizona would lose its moniker as “The Grand Canyon State” and become “The Southern Walled State”, complete with images of poor, hungry, crying people outside at the base of the wall being completely ignored by a rich powerful nation that bills itself as compassionate. That might seem a bit inconsistent.
If negative images and fomenting ill-will aren’t enough reason to dissuade those who promote this idea, maybe a little logic can help.
Honest human beings who value their families take care of their families—no matter what they must do, as long as they don’t harm others in the process. Desperate circumstances call for desperate measures. That’s how I feel about it, too. Presented with the choice of having my family live in perpetual poverty, because there is no ‘opportunity’, (thanks to my government over-regulating and over taxing small businesses), or taking my willingness to be productive to a country that says people here are free to create their own opportunities, there would no hesitation as to my choice. Assuming most responsible people feel the same way, can anyone really believe that when all that stands between their family’s prosperity and poverty, is a wall—even an hundred feet high—it won’t be long before it’s breached?
The people coming here, illegally, at great personal expense and peril, are coming for a reason, there’s something they want here. In most cases, clearly they have come simply for the opportunity to provide a better life for their families. The Republican and Democrat politicians lured them into government-provided subsidies, healthcare and free education. Our streets are paved with gold in comparison to their home country. What else could have been expected to happen when our own Constitution makes it clear that Citizenship is not a requirement for ‘entitlements’?
A cursory view would quickly reveal that people in dire circumstances adopt Jim Rohn’s, “ant philosophy”. He asks, “Have you ever put your hand in the path of an ant that had somewhere to be?” The ‘ant philosophy’ is how the ant responds to your impediment. They have someplace to be and they are determined to get there, and they will, unless you kill them or they change their mind. They’ll go over your hand, under your hand, around or through your hand—but they will get through. So will people. At that point your wall is less than worthless, it’s a continuing liability and expense.
Of course there are the borders with California and Texas to consider along with the North Gulf Coast, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the biggest of all; the frontier de Canada. When they find out we’ve got a nice, safe walled-in country down here, there’ll be no stopping Harry Browne’s, ‘rampaging Canadians’ from illegal entry.
When it gets right down to it, some folks will form their opinion based solely on the projected costs of such a venture. Would it cost more to build, man and maintain a wall than it is costing right now? Definitely. Expansive government proponents win…and you lose (one way or the other, you pay for it), again.
I read the proposed companion appropriations bill said to provide payment for the wall, and was sorely disappointed. Essentially, the bill imposes an 8% tax on all funds wired or electronically transferred into Arizona. Did anyone ask where the legislature thinks it gets, or got the legitimate authority to tax as much as they want from whomever they want whenever they want? There is no such authority to be had, and this amounts to a clear violation of the Equal Protections Clause in the Constitution. Then there’s the obvious fact, that anyone having money electronically sent to them, will simply open accounts in any of the surrounding states to avoid the penalty. I will. Why should I, [or you] be singled out to pay when we have absolutely nothing to do with any illegalities occurring on the border? Then where’s the money to man the wall going to come from?
It should be noted that if we were facing a military force, an actual wall might be appropriate to protect our defense personnel—but that is not the case. Who I worry about, are the people dying in our deserts. To that extent, and to enhance our international border security, despite an overwhelming public perception that ‘something physical must be done’, I support an electronic/virtual/manned border with a patrol road delineating the actual border.
I will confess that I almost gave in to supporting the least obnoxious physical barrier design that I’ve seen. It was also the least expensive at $167.00 USD/ft. That’s roughly $1 million of your tax dollars (unless it is funded from a specific and appropriate source) per mile. Roughly a quarter what it costs to build a mile of freeway, not counting bridges, extra abutments and the inevitable cost overruns. It’d be a government job, so we’d have to plan on it costing at least three times what is proposed. With hundreds of miles of border to consider, that adds up to a lot of taxpayer money.
I liked that the barrier idea was passive, unmanned, easily patrolled, didn’t carry an enormous maintenance cost and by adding various electronic and satellite sensors, it could be made virtually impossible to escape intrusion detection.
Writing this particular part of this position paper was the most difficult because I personally don’t believe a physical barrier or a wall will stop the flow of illegal entry into this country. It might stop people from crossing in a specific place, but it will not stop them from getting in. The only possible way to stop the migration is to take the steps necessary to stop luring people into coming here with social entitlements. The best solution is to advocate policies that would promote prosperity in their home country.
This is a highly-charged political issue that really comes down to a mere choice to try to use government to fix government-created problems. If this is the public’s choice, it should be determined by popular vote, not zealots, but there are some legal and physical issues that would have to be overcome.
To be effective a virtual barrier must utilize a sensor system to alert ‘ready forces’ that can be on site of the approach at any part of the border within a few minutes because walls can’t stop people—only people can stop people from trespassing.
To be a good Governor, I would have to argue for a simple, passable road delineating the actual border, enhanced by sensory electronics and satellite reconnaissance—a virtual wall. Every inch of our border is already monitored by satellite, so you just have to wonder why that information is not being shared or utilized between government agencies. A simple road would have the advantage of giving people who find themselves in peril a place to wait for help.
Another option that has the benefit of not permanently scarring the landscape should also be considered. For instance, a series of towers within sight of each other could easily serve the same purpose with the same degree of effectiveness in stopping, discouraging or preventing illegal entry—at a much lesser cost than any barrier. Something to consider is that when the need no longer existed, they could easily be removed.
The terrain along the border actually makes even a single continuous road, (let alone a wall or barrier), a physical impossibility and leaves the many remote areas completely unattended—just like they always have been. Unless we want to engage in something akin to FDR’s public work projects—we might want to think this all the way through before committing to any physical building projects. Other impediments include considering “who’s” land would or could you build on, and would we really want a wall dividing National Park land interfering with wildlife and ecological preservation efforts?
The Minuteman organization is currently attempting to build its own barrier—but only on private land abutting the federally-owned border itself, leaving the vast majority of the border still unattended and inviting to illegal entry. Like a chain, a border barrier can only be as strong or as effective as it weakest link. I do support private efforts of land owners, on private land to protect themselves from trespass in any manner they choose.
As Governor, I will assign the immediate task of stopping all entry into Arizona except by way of designated points of entry to the DPS. I would hope to ask a volunteer force of the unorganized militia (such as the Minutemen Organization) to supplement the reach of their public servants in the DPS as needs might arise. Instead of waiting until Washington agrees to pay for border security, I will seek private contributions and/or allow incentive legislation to cover the costs.
Do you support a National ID requirement?
Absolutely not. A “Your papers, please” country is one that has ceased to be free. At that point the only value of people is what they contribute to the almighty state/federal administration.
It is clearly backwards thinking to cast a net over everybody, just to get a few bad guys. Freedom starts with a right to anonymity as you go about your peaceful business. Absent any evil doing on your part, no demand for proof of identity (or you go to jail) is just, or authorized as a power of government. Government doesn’t need to know anything about you beyond the constitutional requirement for a census—unless you are suspected of actually being a criminal, supported by probable cause.
According to our national charter, the government actually works for us— it doesn’t and couldn’t have any authority to require all persons to have a national ID.
Just the guaranteed forgeries and the loss or sale of your confidential and personal information by unscrupulous government employees should be enough to toss this baby out with the bath water—it’s Rosemary’s Baby!
Might it not make more sense to give corporate employers a positive incentive to hire Americans? Instead of going to the enormous public expense of compiling a database with an almost unfathomable amount of information and documentation on you, and legally “cracking down” on employers, I suggest a novel, but effective approach—let’s get as much government out of the way as possible.
“Cracking down” on employers sounds good to the average person, but they are not thinking of the costs, both to themselves [you’re the one who has to foot the bill for all the thousands of government lawyers] and to the employer in fighting all the phony charges that will undoubtedly be forwarded by competitors. If the litigation either starves the employer, or they are put out of business by the litigation, all that’s happened is you have put the ‘legal’ people working there out of a job. Didn’t somebody say the ‘illegals’ are taking American jobs? Well a sure way to stop that would be to get rid of all the employers—and all the jobs with them, but it probably shouldn’t be considered our first option.
Another good reason to oppose any kind of a National ID is that whatever information the government gets about you, no matter how personal or sensitive—it will find it’s way into the wrong hands. As we’ve seen for some time—government itself (through employees who are routinely bought off) is already the catalyst for the fastest-growing crime today –identity theft. A week doesn’t go by that millions of people’s sensitive, private data isn’t given away, lost or sold to the highest bidder from a government database. Bill Clinton left the nuclear football behind. Valerie Plame’s identity was exposed. Do you really think your information is more important than that to them?
The most disturbing part of even assembling a national ID database is the potential for it to become the prize target for terrorists who have become adept at breaching cyber security and who will sell it to unfriendly nations. Our own government just authorized the sharing of your private information between accountants. Such a system would have to be connected to updating inputs from other computers to be functional so there’s no doubt about its vulnerability. What would it be like to have 100 million Americans waking up to credit card billing problems on the same day?
This is the major reason I regret even having my name associated with Prop 200, but I was reassured the provisions wouldn’t be extended to law-abiding Citizens. I should have listened to my better sense and experience, and reminded myself that if a politician can get away with something that harms the public good, when the public has been manipulated into thinking its good for them—they will. The assets forfeiture laws (R.I.C.O.) were presented to the public in the same (supposedly) limited way. In that case, the laws were only to get the Mafia—now they’re routinely used against average citizens for just about everything from people with messy yards to parking tickets.
I would suggest that a better alternative might be to leave the option to show some state or federal ID (passports, driver’s licenses, etc) up to the individual worker. If the potential employee doesn’t have, or won’t produce ID in order for the corporate employer to hire him/her, the corporate employer would be required to pay an additional 15% into an ‘undocumented workers fund’ that would specifically and exclusively be used to offset or eliminate emergency, police, administrative and other costs incurred because of “illegals”.
It might seem odd that a Libertarian might even suggest such a thing to some, but my intentions are limited to corporate employers—not individuals. Corporations really amount to being simply a state-granted, artificial limitation on the tort liabilities of its owners, (the ‘corporate veil’). Since we seem to be stuck with corporations, I see nothing wrong with charging a ‘user fee’ for this service since they do impose a cost on government. Obviously, I cannot agree with Court rulings that a corporation is an ‘individual’ equal to a real person in rights.
Similarly, it doesn’t seem to me that if a person doesn’t want to become an American, but just wants to use our marketplace, an access fee to cover those costs is not unreasonable.
If labor is going to cost an extra 15%, and there are corporate tax filing requirements/regulation—which employee would you, as an (corporate) employer likely choose to fill the first jobs?
Do you support Amnesty?
My understanding of the word ‘amnesty’ is that it only applies to military applications where lower level personnel are absolved of responsibilities for their actions taken under orders. That just doesn’t seem to fit with the issues surrounding the border, but just to be sure, shouldn’t we call the question one of ‘forgiveness’, or ‘absolution’ for actions taken of one’s own free will and volition with full knowledge that they were violating American laws?
I may not agree with the mish-mosh of law and regulations, and I believe that all Americans have a responsibility to defy those laws they (reasonably) believe to be outside the purview of government jurisdiction or violate their individual unalienable Rights, but I do not believe that responsibility, nor the standing to raise such issues extends to ‘non-participating’ non-owners, of this government.
Only individuals who fancy themselves as the direct descendents of Solomon—but obviously lack any trace of his wisdom, would even attempt to propose that their view was the ‘only’ answer. If any politician or body of politicians makes such a pronouncement as law, those who don’t agree with that choice will always harbor resentment and take out their frustrations on the beneficiaries—just like the last time. Since the question is one of sentiment it can only be decided by majority vote of the People. As Governor, I will ask, honor and implement the will of the People as to the question of forgiveness/absolution for people who are here in violation of the law. And I will not, beyond this campaign statement, advocate for or against either choice.
That having been said, I will confess that my personal tendencies are against ‘absolving’ disrespect for our American law in large part because the people in question have neither owned up to their deeds, nor asked for absolution.
Other concerns extend to some of the popular reasons, but in particular, I find it hard to justify absolution to someone who cheats the system to the detriment of other people just like them who continue to endure a lengthy, rigorous and often frustrating process to gain legal entry and/or Citizenship. Because of our social, educational and moral decline, we should all be aware that American Citizenship isn’t the prize it once was.
Some say that ‘absolution’ should be granted based on ‘how long’ a person has managed to evade detection, suggesting a sort of ‘squatters right’ might apply. I do not agree. To my way of thinking, the longer they’ve been here amongst us, using our markets without wanting to ‘come clean’—is just more time they have spent in contempt of our law. For people who have not come here with “clean hands”, to make demands on our government is just over-the-top in unmitigated gall.
America is not the only choice in a search for employment opportunity, just the most convenient. One expert pointed out that for the money many of the ‘illegal’ people paid to come here, they could just as easily have gone to a welcome jobs market in China, where 100 million jobs reportedly go unfilled without having to risk their lives in a desert.
How Can ‘We’ round ‘Them’ up?
With estimated figures reaching skyward of twenty million ‘illegal’ people living within the territorial jurisdiction of the American government you just have to shake your head and sigh when someone suggests that ‘we’ round em’ all up and throw em’ in jail where they ‘belong’.
These people seem to rationalize that it is somehow smart to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, provide health and medical care for the very same people they perceive as coming here to get exactly those same things. It just doesn’t sit straight with me.
If any politician suggests we round all brown people up (unless they are suspected of criminal acts separate and aside from ‘just being here’) in a nationwide dragnet they are simply trying to expand government, and YOUR tax burden, spinning a yarn that we might even be able to tolerate a trillion dollar expense, (real start up costs), to buy us a plan that they admit ‘can’t possibly ‘get them all’. Politicians want to expand their duties simply to make you think they are more important to your safety or interests.
I would suggest that a better alternative to gun-toting thugs with government badges kicking in the wrong doors all over America would be creating an environment where the truly parasitic people who live off of money taken from other people, forcibly, would want to pack up and leave of their own accord.
If we take the pot of honey out of the front yard, maybe those pesky bears from across the street won’t keep coming over and dipping into it.
Another benefit of fixing government, the root cause of all of the border challenges we face, is that we won’t have to build a wall on our Southern border, or the Northern border. Problem solved, permanently. Maybe some of the jobs that left America will come back.
Do you think it should be a felony for people to ‘sneak’ into America?
No. All I hear is a chorus of, “I’ll give you another law, just to enforce the other law” from every one of the other candidates. Isn’t that sad?
Incentives for people here illegally to leave of their own accord would be far less expensive than the inevitable litigation and incarceration. If they left by themselves, we would not have to confront the heart-wrenching pictures of families physically and forcibly torn from their American-born children. I will support my conscience and sense of humanity.
What about Immigration Issues?
The term, ‘Immigration’, when properly applied, refers to those people seeking to ‘become a Citizen’ of (in this case) America. The rules pertaining to the steps and requirements of becoming an American are supposed to be the original province of the United States Congress, as provided for in the U.S.Constitution.
The problems we currently grapple with are the result of the U.S. Congress’ abdication of its responsibility to set forth a comprehensive, and clear policy as to ‘who’ and under ‘what circumstances’ a non-American may enter upon American soil. It further falls to Congress to provide effective enforcement of the policy they define. The consequences of Congress’ inaction and its ‘let it slide’ attitude in both of these duties have become all too obvious especially in national Border States like Arizona.
When Congress has proven itself to be incompetent and inept, as it has, and the duty is left undone, it falls to the People of Arizona to resort to self-help in defining and implementing an Arizona-specific border/immigration policy.
As Governor, I will allow Congress 60 days to produce a sensible and viable policy from the date of my inauguration. In anticipation of Congress’ lack of meaningful or non-comprehensive action, on the 61st day I will request the Arizona Legislature pick up the responsibility and allow it 60 days to follow through. If our legislature should fail in this regard, I will then take executive privilege to implement my own plan on behalf of the People of Arizona, in whom the ultimate power and authority resides. In order to remain neutral in this matter, I will refrain from revealing the details of my own proposal unless or until the time comes to put it into action. Any proposal that does not include ‘fixing’ the problems created by mandatory participation in socialist entitlement programs cannot hope to finally settle the problems we face.
In dealing with those people who thumbed their noses at American law and came here illegally, not to become an American Citizen, but merely to use our markets and socialist programs, we need to look past the unimaginable costs and legal obstacles of locating and deporting them, toward a plan that will make them want to leave. A Nazi-esque attempt to ‘round up’ the ‘illegal people’ simply imposes a far greater cost on each American. It would only satisfy the socialist desire to grow new bigger government even though it involves heart-breaking and cruel forced family separations and can’t possibly hope to get all of them. A better plan includes an incentive for them to leave of their own free will.
So what can we do? We can make American Citizenship a ‘prized’ possession like it used to be with obvious benefits and privileges. I believe that as long as a person is subject to the laws of, and under the jurisdiction of another nation, they should not reasonably have any access to entitlements or services paid for (albeit by coercion) by American workers. They should personally be held responsible for any costs imposed upon Americans.
The 13th and 14th Amendments clarify that ‘persons’ does not extend to any requirement for citizenship and under the constitution every human being must treated equally under the law. Our individual rights are not subject to citizenship—of any country. This is what permits ‘illegals’ to impose on our socialist entitlement programs. To link citizenship and individual human rights would leave every one of us susceptible to having our citizenship revoked, our individual rights stripped by an abusive government, and then rendered to a foreign country where we could be subjected to torture.
I have no problem with people who just want to come here to ‘use’ our markets, up to the point where their use imposes a ‘cost’ on other participants. Imposing a 15% (to be paid by the corporate employer) excise on what they earn here, for market access might be just such an idea. The aggregate of these funds would best be directed to a specific account to offset emergency and police services and bolster security on our borders. At the same time, the non-citizen who seeks entitlement eligibility, just like an American Citizen, should have the voluntary opportunity to ‘pay in’ (by way of an additional percentage or amount of their earnings—or even a flat yearly fee, paid in advance) to such socialist ‘insurance’ programs.
Our specific government has absolutely no business in the education or entitlement business, nor is there any Constitutional provision for administering such things. As a half-step or compromise, I might be persuaded to allow for such things, as long as participation is completely voluntary (membership only) and there is no forced supplementation or contribution by those choosing not to participate.
Should we make it illegal to hire non-citizens and prosecute offending employers?
No. Simply put, we can’t. The Right of an individual to associate or contract with whomever they want is an absolute Right that cannot, even by tinkering with our Constitution, be abrogated—period.
In as much as corporations are artificial entities created by the state they can be required to pay an excise on their foreign labor as mentioned previously. Of course, there have to be penalties for corporations that do not pay in—I would suggest a Biblical solution of seven times the amount originally not paid, plus all associated legal and litigation costs of the state to prosecute them. This can apply only to corporate or other artificial entities—not to individual human beings contracting with other individuals to do a job.
The benefits and legality of such a plan are obvious on its face, but the not-so-obvious incentive to become an actual American Citizen should not be underestimated.
What about ‘National Security’ on our border?
While I do firmly believe in ‘open borders’, the free flow of labor, goods and individuals—that is not to say American border security officials don’t have a mandate to turn away those individuals who credibly pose a threat to any American. Identification is an absolute must for any non-national wishing to enter this country.
It wasn’t so long ago that no thought what-so-ever needed to be given to the idea of any agent of destruction coming into our country. Even if the current federal administration actually created the ‘terrorists’ wanting to harm us by meddling in their sovereign affairs, and I believe it has, it is still the primary task of government to defend against them.
There is no amount of security that could even begin to hope to thwart the destructive acts of a motivated, funded and determined individual bent on wrecking havoc on our shores.
In the best of all worlds, our federal government would stop angering the rest of the world with sophomoric attempts to bully them into submission. We need to remove any incentive for anyone to harm a powerful, but peaceful people.
Our individual Right to self-defense is the best national security we could ever be afforded. By taking the right steps, the current administration could again engender a willing populace that keeps its eyes and ears open for any indication of foul play and the means to deter, diminish and destroy the threat. Coupled with an honest non-imperialistic government, we might just be able to re-live America’s greatness.
What are your thoughts on English-only instruction?
I think that a single national official language is the one thing that binds us as a nation. Politicians, in the most pejorative sense imaginable, continue to try to divide us up into groups (here, by language), pit us against each other, and then offer to referee. For their own political purposes neither the Democrat nor the Republican candidate for Governor want to actually permanently ‘fix’ the problem—lest their importance be diminished. If the Governor had acted on this in her four-year tenure, these issues would already be behind us.
The question of an official language is a no-brainer. There is absolutely no reason this nation of supposedly free people can or should even attempt to try to accommodate any or all of the 140-odd languages originally spoken by its people. Except for using the international traffic symbols, there can be no justification for increasing official publishing costs, or providing for free translation of official communications, from our American language.
The national language we do share is certainly not English, at best it is a bastardized English made up of any number of words originally from other languages. A prerequisite for Citizenship should absolutely include at least a basic command of our language.
It is the responsibility of the individual coming here to visit, work or live to be able to communicate in the language of the host country—no matter how large their numbers, just like it is ours when we visit other countries.
Do you support a guest worker program?
Yes, and no, depending on the definition of what exactly a guest worker program is. Right now, the politicians are driving jobs out of this country by regulating businesses so heavily and placing overwhelming burdens on employers.
I support the notion that any individual lawfully in this country has the absolute right to earn a living for themselves and their families and to contract their services to whomever they choose at whatever compensation they are willing to accept. That is the essence of the marketplace with or without the approval of any majority.
It is well-beyond me how seemingly normal people actually have bought into the term “guest worker”. It is a figment created by politicians to keep people divided and distinct. It has no meaning.
No, I do not support such a ‘program’ because such matters are well beyond the purview of government and legitimate regulation. Getting government out of the issue altogether settles it completely. I cannot support any governmental control of employment. People who are here legally, based on the criteria Congress should already have in place, cannot be subjected to or restricted in their choice of employment.
Do you support giving illegals an Arizona driver’s license?
No. The inherent contradiction in doing so should be a simple and obvious concept. So what do we do? Revert to the international drivers license and allow insurance companies to once again provide insurance coverage.
The reasons given ‘for’ a driver’s license are actually pretty good—I raise the question of ‘what’ driver’s license they should possess.
Proponents say, rightly, that these people need a drivers license to get insurance—to protect ‘legal’ drivers, and afford an avenue for prosecution should they cause harm to others on our streets. Unfortunately, since driver’s licenses have become de facto national IDs—giving one to someone who either has no legal standing to be here or is not a Citizen opens the door to vote and welfare fraud.
The simple fact is that these people are not ‘Arizona’ drivers, residents or citizens. To award them an Arizona drivers license is absurd.
Of course, I would recommend that an individual concerned about being in an accident with an uninsured driver simply opt for insuring themselves under an uninsured motorist policy. Problem solved to the extent that it can be.
How can we stop the illegals from taking our jobs?
Have we really lost all of our competitive spirit? Has anyone realized that competition is what drives people to better their circumstances and for the markets to make better products? Re-training ourselves to do bigger and better things is the more appropriate alternative.
People forwarding the notion that “illegals” are stealing their jobs are amazingly shortsighted. For starters, such a concept pre-supposes that there are only so many jobs in a dynamic ever-changing marketplace and that removing someone else from a job opens it up to them.
I think imposing a 15% corporate excise on non-national earnings for people who don’t want to or can’t prove their citizenship is a smarter start.
Should a corporate employer choose to hire non-American nationals (they wouldn’t actually be ‘illegal’ at that point-see immigration above), they must pay an additional 15% of their foreign labor costs or be liable for a flat figure seven times what they didn’t remit to the fund.
At the root of the real problem are wage control laws. Such laws clearly violate the 1st and 10th Amendment guarantees of freedom of association and the individual right to contract with whomever an individual chooses at whatever compensation those individuals (un-coerced or mandated) agree upon.
As a right to work state, Arizona allows the minimum wage to be determined based on merit. Given the choice, it should be assumed that corporate employers would opt to hire the best worker. Individuals need to make themselves the best workers.
When I first heard someone say that ‘they’ were stealing ‘our’ jobs and depressing ‘our’ wages—I actually laughed, thinking the speaker was making an obvious joke. But no, he was actually arguing for government ‘protection’—for them!
The mentality of those who want government to slope the labor market in their favor suffer from the Buggy-whip Manufacturer’s Union mentality, rather than work to re-train their members to meet the demands of an ever-changing dynamic marketplace, the story goes they tried to use government to stop the introduction of the automobile into American society. Of course the membership went broke while the union leaders became millionaires.
The simple truth, is that the people who want to lessen their competition by eliminating it are asking government to make up for their own inadequacies. Rather than make their skills better than the competition for labor jobs, they want government to keep their wages up and force employers to provide benefits and perks. Unfortunately for them, the market moves in spite of government interference.
Just ask one of these insecure individuals what they would want government to do if Americans came from another part of the U.S.A. (say, New Orleans) and flooded the market with low cost desperate labor. I’d predict they’d want even their fellow Americans to be disadvantaged—just to protect their own job! These people are a prime example of what happens when an entire populace is dumbed-down by a lack of personal pride because they took ‘advantage’ of a miserably failed government welfare education. And it points to the suppressed entrepreneurial and innovative spirit that once made America great. I’d like to see us back at the top instead of accepting last place.
Sometimes it just breaks my heart when I see just how materially rich (for another few minutes anyway), yet morally bankrupt we are, not only as a sovereign state, but as a once proud nation of individuals willing to rush off into the unknown marketplace filled with an independent, imaginative, innovative and positive entrepreneurial spirit and energy to create an enterprise of their own. We got lazy and arrogant.
Part of what brought us here was a total lack of vision on the part of the politicians who got elected. I do firmly believe that if we can agree to scrape off the built up residue from our state’s Constitution, Arizona’s best days can still lie ahead.
Maybe the founders of this country were right in excluding all but property owners from the privilege of voting—they feared the transient vote precisely because they’d vote themselves other people’s money and because transients were so easy to manipulate. After all, property owners were the only individuals who even could be affected by a government in a free republic instituted solely to protect the property and Rights of every individual. Maybe voting should never have become known as a ‘right’ instead of a privilege. Its no wonder the turnout is so low when the privilege is so cheap.
I believe our state has joined the rest in disregarding our responsibility to protect the Rights and liberties of the next generation—we’ve shirked the hard work it is to stay a free people.
If we stand back and look at the whole situation, it becomes clear that the individuals who acted on their impulse to make a better life for themselves and their families in America are not the enemy. The enemy is government, both our own and Mexico’s. As so eloquently put by, President Reagan, “Government is not the solution to the problem--government IS the problem”.
The Mexican government is riddled with corruption to the benefit of a few individuals, and ours is riddled with corruption to the benefit of a bloated administration and millions of corrupt individuals. This is why the Mexican people stand poised to be the next economic superpower in the Southwest. It’s a lot easier to push a few corrupt people out of power than it is to ask the people to ‘give up’ their socialist entitlement programs.
An advantage for the Mexican People is that their government is not burdened by welfare entitlement programs—they are on a far superior economic footing than we are. Their biggest hindrance is that they are not a free people….yet (it’s coming). Mexico could soon be ‘more free’ than America. When they are, if we haven’t fixed these problems, Arizona will get caught up in an economic vacuum that will have wall proponents putting up stairs on our side so we can more easily sneak over the Southern border to get a better job than what’s left here.
As Arizona’s next Governor, I look forward to working closely with Governor Bours as he continues to implement free market libertarian policies that are turning Sonora into the most powerful economic engine in the Southwest. I hope to extend to Governor Boars a true mutual trade agreement even if formalization is impermissible, so, as the future unfolds, Arizonans can freely work in Sonora enjoying the same benefits as are afforded Mexican nationals. I have great confidence in Governor Boar’s (obviously libertarian) philosophy.
The solutions I’ve proposed are purposely constructed to allow flexibility as circumstances should warrant instead of locking us into a failed plan like all the other candidate proposals.
Admittedly, my priority in all this is to stop people from dying in our desert while seeking a better way of life—the rest, to me, is a political distraction. I propose that we approach these challenges with a sharp critical eye on powers not granted to our government, that we promote strict constitutional adherence, common sense and a touch of humanity.
We all should clearly realize that theses challenges were created and are supported by government(s)—not the people caught up in many ways as political pawns in a game of dominance over individuals. We should take a lesson from history and not allow those motivated solely by racism (like the Nazis) to determine how we respond. It’s not individuals who over-burdened socialist services in America, it was politicians who award political access, favor and advantage to specific groups. I urge every Arizonan to resist what is touted in the press as politically-popular—the consequences of going along are far greater than just being politically-correct. Everyone should be able to figure out that we can’t use government, to fix government—this is our individual responsibility.
Finally, I will comment that I believe Benjamin Franklin was right when he suggested that the best way to get a bad law repealed is to strictly enforce it. Had the existing laws in regard to border issues been strictly enforced, they would have long since been exposed as the work of incompetents who were elected to public office. They created a confusing and almost indecipherable pile of law that completely ignores a fundamental law of economics—demand will always create a supply, that’s why prohibition cannot ever work in the marketplace.
--Wall? No, can’t possibly work and there’s no good to come of it.
--Electronic Virtual Barrier? Yes, to keep people from dying in the desert and to prevent illegal entry.
--National ID? No, voluntary production of ID.
--Social Programs and Entitlements? Make participation completely voluntary.
--Amnesty? A question for public vote.
--Round them up? No, let them leave.
--Felony? No, enforcement.
--Immigration Policy? I’ll leave it to Congress for a short while, then the state legislature.
--Illegal to hire ‘illegals’? No. Should give incentive to hire locally.
--National Security? Yes, this is a primary function of the national government.
--English only? No, American only—they’re not the same.
--Guest worker program? No, anyone legally entering this country can work without restriction.
--Arizona Driver’s license? No, an international license makes more sense and allows insurance.
--Stop ‘them’ from taking ‘our’ jobs? No, make yourself more valuable to the marketplace or create your own enterprise and employ someone else.
--Entitlements? No. Voluntary participation/membership.
This is my position statement. I hope it is clear and that the reader is knowledgeable enough to recognize how very different it is from any other candidate for Governor. It might serve the reader well to quickly copy all of the other candidates position statements, so they can see clearly how the rest of the candidates modify theirs when confronted with a candidate who really is, “for the People”. I’m the candidate willing to run on the issues—not forced public financing (“Clean Elections”) for my campaign.
Now, can we get on to what should always be the ‘real’ issues—protecting individual Rights and making sure the next generation is educated and competent to meet the challenges we leave behind?
As always, I remain at your service—
The “Cleaner-est Candidate for Arizona Governor!"