Aug 24, 2007

First Let's Kill All the Lawyers

On my way to the Austin Ron Paul meetup, I was listening to Etarro Live, a WTPRN (We The People Radio Network) show which happens to be broadcast on a low powered FM station here in Austin.

The guest was David Marlett, Founder and Executive Director of The subject was illegal immigration. David Marlett's solution was to crack down on companies who hire illegal aliens. This is just nuts. Marlett is a lawyer. I was compelled to call in and ask if Mr. Marlett understood that this crappola is a direct violation of the constitution which forbids laws "impairing the obligation of contracts" and how he could justify trashing the rights of American citizens to solve the problem of illegal immigration.

His response was to throw out scare mongering arguments about child labor and to assert that any federal law was legitimate. (If you don't limit contracts, people will contract with your kids to gain the advantages of slave labor!) You can listen here. I called in the second hour at about 39:30 into the second hour. Just "fast forward" to the end of the second stream (each is an hour).

When I pointed out that the Lawyer was openly advocating that the right to travel freely and retain one's privacy be abolished, the host finally had to shut the conversation down. We can't talk about how these "solutions" encroach upon our rights.

This lawyer is using the same sort of flag-humping arguments used by the neocons to promote war. His intended audience apparently consists of union members and other parts of the electorate who are frightened that their jobs are being lost.

The thing that chaps my hide about these sorts of arguments is that the real truth is not even being discussed. The only reason that "illegal" immigration is a problem is that we as a Nation don't want to give up our welfare programs. We don't want others to have it because it's expensive and wasteful, but it's perfectly ok to send out gun-toting thugs to extract it from fellow citizens so that we can take advantage of it ourselves.

It's hypocrisy. The system that demands I give up my privacy, rights and claims it proper to control the products of my labor, asserts this is for my own protection. It's not protection, it is slavery. The scapegoating of "illegal immigrants" is petty jealousy. They don't chose to travel in ways that make them targets of government and so all of the other sheep who willingly hand over their papers if asked by some authority would like to remove from their sight, people who jealously guard their freedoms.

Ron Paul is right on the immigration issue. You have to remove the incentives that cause a drain on the citizen taxpayers. It isn't fair to require citizens here to essentially care for citizens in or from another country. And Birthright citizenship regardless of parent's loyalties and nationalities, is absurd. That was not the intent.

The 14th amendment was a very poor remedy to the Dred Scot decision. All Congress had to do was to re-iterate that human-ness, not citizenship is what determines a persons rights, and it wouldn't have been required. Taney ruled that it was citizenship that was the important issue and Dred Scot was not a citizen because he was a slave. In other words, the words people and persons did not really mean people and persons. Thus rights are a function of geography. What a farce.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether I won the argument. It was fairly polite though passionate on all sides.

No comments: