From: Michael Haresty (e-mail him)
Re: Peter Gemma's Column: Goldwater vs. Goldwater vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Only [expletive deleteds] defend Arpaio.
Ever since his horrible political career began in 1994, every disciplinarian move Arpaio has taken, including banning coffee to forcing prisoners to wear pink undershirts to harassing opponents to chain gangs, is anathema to decent libertarians.
II don't like the New York Times at all but the one good thing it has done is constantly expose this lowlife, tyrannical monster. [The Ballad of Joe Arpaio, by Lawrence Downes, New York Times, March 15, 2009]
I'm tired of mindless, phony conservatives like Gemma whose arguments consist of assertions that anyone who dissents from the Taliban-like views on law and order is soft on crime.
Arpaio is a great example that electing public safety officials and possibly judges too is an error. We live in a Republic, not a mob rule Democracy.
The sheriff's job is not to enforce the immigration laws, be they right or wrong. If we had no welfare state, there would be nothing wrong with the totally free movement of capital and labor, as originally envisioned by Adam Smith.
The Goldwater Institute is right to take on this out-of-control, tyrannical Maricopa County Sheriff.
We live in the East Bay, a place far more dangerous place than Phoenix and have been crime victims at the hands of [extremely politically incorrect expression deleted] lowlifes.
Go [expletive deleted] yourself.
Peter Gemma replies:
"Libertarians who think that unrestricted immigration is an unmixed good should remind themselves that included in the baggage many immigrants bring with them is a tradition of statism, and that for every one who thinks like Tibor Machan there are a dozen who think like John Kenneth Galbraith or George Soros. Perhaps we should ask ourselves if unrestricted immigration to a democratic country is likely to increase human freedom or decrease it."
Haresty further claims that: "Arpaio's job is not to enforce the immigration laws, be they right or wrong."
I'm Libertarian-leaning in my worldview, but I'd don't agree with freedom of choice among law officials to enforce or ignore their job.
As a citizen coping with Washington's heavy-handed government, I don't think I could get away with ignoring Homeland Security officers—with their nifty uniforms—at the airport, as much as I'd like to.
Haresty contradicts himself when he writes that he doesn't want any more laws except those that might be necessary to restrain "out of control punks like Arpaio." That kind of Libertarianism—let's cut the size and power of government dramatically unless someone like me decides to create new ones targeting certain people—is not consistent.
Peter Brimelow adds: I say "sigh" to this. All libertarians know that Randolph Bourne said that war is the health of the state. I've argued that immigration is the Viagra of the state, in that it has reinvigorated governments after the collapse of socialism. The fact is that forty years of irresponsible immigration policy is creating a situation where there are no good, or at any rate nice, options. But it's sadly difficult to get libertarian intellectuals away from their painfully-acquired kit of concepts. They remind me of the student Marxists who were the curse of my college years in England—although they're preferable, of course.
Incidentally, VDARE.COM deletes expletives and what are commonly called "racial slurs" because they upset the censorware used by corporations and libraries. We have quite enough trouble with these filters as it is.
From: Erv Dusak (e-mail him)
Re: Paul Nachman's Blog: Let's Thank Sheriff Arpaio
I followed achman's advice and wrote a brief note of thanks to Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
I should have heeded Nachman's suggestion to send a post card so that Arpaio would not feel compelled to reply.
Here's what Sheriff Joe wrote:
"Your kind note of support on the way my staff and I operate the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is greatly appreciated. It means a lot to me to know many citizens stand with me in my efforts to enforce the laws and protect law-abiding citizens.
"Thank you for your encouragement and taking the time to write."
If you haven't thanked Arpaio, just follow the instructions Nachman outlined in his blog.
Dusak is retired from a lifelong career in law enforcement.
From: Midge Jones (e-mail him)
Re: Brenda Walker's Blog: Latino Lawmaker Says Obama Should Give Obamacare To Illegal Aliens
The disingenuous Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez ignored
the larger point that illegals do get free health care in America when they cannot afford to pay, and that this gift overburdens hospitals as well as welfare programs with the costs ultimately passed on to tax payers.
Just because illegals might not be formally part of the government run insurance program does not mean the practice of providing mandatory, unpaid care to them will cease.
It will not. Somebody has to pay. When the state and federal governments cannot assume the burden by adequately reimbursing hospitals and clinics, the care centers will close their doors as some have already done.
Take a good look at California's fiscal crisis, brought on in large part by its collapsed health care system. California's failures could represent the trajectory of the other 49 states if they too embrace a large illegal population and fail to enforce immigration laws.
When states ignore illegal immigration, the burden for social services shifts to the citizens. Gradually, the illegal aliens become quasi-legitimate.
Inevitably, the vicious cycle begins: more aliens come, more have no insurance and through ballooning taxes citizens bear the brunt of the costs.
This folly will not disappear on its own; it will only grow.
America cannot have open borders and a society that embraces aliens without destroying our social structure.
Jones' previous letter about Vice President Joe Biden and his ties to the credit card industry is here.