Jan Mickelson Show
WHO Radio, 1040 AM
Des Moines Iowa 3/11/05
Transcript and analysis by Dave Leach
(Click here for a 12MB .wav file of the 38 minute discussion. Write me for a better sound copy.)
Good morning friends. Welcome to our Friday morning get-together. What we're going to do for a while this hour, is I'm going to take a beating, I think. From a local activist who has latched onto the driver's license issue. Dave Leach has joined us here in the studio. He is perhaps known in this community as a music instructor, uh instrument sales uh fellow, from the Family - Family -
Dave: Family Music Center.
Jan: Family Music Center, but you're also an activist, uh I think uh in the Life issue. And, now, apparently on the immigration issue, and the driver's license issue.
Dave: Yes, sure am.
Jan: Well what do you want me to know this morning, Dave? Do you think, you said I'm wrong on the driver's license issue, and some of the other folks are wrong on restricting driver's licenses for people who are not in the country legally. Make your case.
Dave: Well, let's see. I, uh, the driver's license issue is a small part of the whole problem, obviously.
Dave: And, uh, so I wonder if we can agree on what the problem is. If we could register every illegal, that's part of what we want to do, isn't it? Secure our borders?
Jan: Now [if we] secure the borders, we don't have to register the illegals. I'd like to terminate the ability of those who are not invited to come into the country.
Dave: Well part of it is to, if we secure our borders, then if we begin by registering every illegal; I mean if we find out where they are, before we do that we can't do much of anything else. Okay?
Jan: All right.
Dave: OK, and then we want to reduce our USCIS caseloads.
Jan: What's that?
Dave: That's the new name for the INS.
Dave: And we want to fix social security. We want to do all that without driving down wages, taking citizen's jobs...
Dave: ...straining welfare...
Dave: And how about if we could do all of that without destroying the pillar of the American character which is summed up as "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Would that be a good plan, if we could do all that?
Jan: Uh-h-h-h you're going to have to define terms, here. uh I-I-I reject the idea that a-a person who is not invited, and that is using my property, is my neighbor.
Dave: Uh, Well I was kind of going by the Good Samaritan example of the neighbor being the person who is most hated by your countrymen.
Jan: No, I'm not talking about an enemy. I'm not tallking about cultural clashes here. I'm just talking about simple property rights. Uh, my neighbor is not entitled to use my property. He's not entired entitled to b-b-borrow my lawnmower, he's not entitled to access to my refrigerator, or use my uh anything I own without my permission, when I can, in a moment, he's, eh, he starts to eh-eh-assert that he has a right to those things, he's no longer my neighbor, but a criminal that I would like to deal with.
[Editorial comment: He means to use his individual rights to his personal property as an analogy of our nation's rights to its own property. However, we as individuals sometimes choose to share our property with others. We invite guests to dinner, we don't mind if school kids step off our sidewalk a little ways onto our grass as they are walking to school, we place pretty things in our front yards for the viewing pleasure of strangers, and sometimes we even place bus benches on our property for the convenience of the public. Some people even give their land for public use, or build parks on their land for public use. Businesses invite the public onto their premises, and offer every kind of enticement to coax them in. In the same manner, our nation's welcome of immigrants is not simplistic. Our nation's policy towards immigrants, even unauthorized, cannot be honestly compared with a thief who raids a home uninvited; a better analogy would be an apartment building where a resident has left a stick in the security door so a friend can come in without the resident having to wait at the door to know when he is coming. But I didn't try to make that point yet. I was trying first to find some point of agreement, from which we could begin discussing a solution.]
Dave: so correcting all those things is what we all want, right?
Jan: Yes. I would think so. Yes.
Dave. OK. And uh
Jan: And therefore?
Dave: Getting good relationships with our neighbors. All right.
Jan: I have good relationships with my neighbors. Uh-h-h a-and the best I-I what is it Robert Frost wrote a-a-a-a poem once that said a-a-a good walls make good neighbors. And I like that idea. (Laughs long.) The eh-eh-eh I-I think that's a-a-a nice idea. I think the neighbor's yard is his yard, and my yard is my yard, and his dog can play in his, in his own yard, and doesn't have to come over in my yard and poop in my front yard, his kid can stay in his own back yard, good neighbors, and good fences, are, are, are prerequisite to those kinds of relationships.
Dave: Well that reminds me that there's a lot of misunderstandings, uh, that are going to have to be straightened up before we can, uh, see the simplicity of a real solution. But...
Jan: But the real solution is a good fence.
[Editorial comment: A solution which nobody will accept is no solution, but fantasy. The solution I envision may be perceived by some as unrealistic, too, but the "good fence" he wants is simply too high for enough tender-hearted Americans to tolerate. Certainly his answer has no more claim to the status of a "solution" than mine. At least mine has popular support to the extent bills have been introduced in Congress to implement it. The height of the fence he wants, high enough to completely stop the flow and deport all those already here, has never been provided for by any bill in Congress! Listening to Jan, a friend asked, "How high does he WANT that fence?]
Jan: And, and, the general form of a a civility, uh, uh, and assumptions of a-a property, and the rights to use one's own property without fear of having somebody else take them or squat on them, that, those are the beginnings of civility. Borders that are enforced is the solution.
Dave: Here's another solution. Replace quotas with criteria. Instead of fixing an arbitrary low number, like, we're going to allow 10 Mexicans to be citizens this year, and all the rest that want to come either come illegally or don't come, and in even those ten we take without any regard for what they're going to contribute to our nation, uh, uh, their qualifications or anything like that, instead of doing that, how about taking the people who are most qualified? How about setting up CRITERIA...
Jan: That's the way we used to do it. And I like that idea. We only take people who we perceive as assets. Period. I like that. But we're not even addressing that. We're just trying to deal with, eh you, ehyoo this is not an immigration issue as far as I'm concerned. You, there's two separate issues. Uh-h-h-h ah-hm and, and, you're already chasing down the road here. We're talking about driver's licenses, not for people who we perceive are are assets, or people who we've invited, we're talking about issuing driver's licenses for people uh who didn't even have a driver's license from their country of origin, are here without our permission, and are subject to the use of our yo safety net whether we want them here or not.
[Editorial comment: The information I sent Jan did not limit my focus to drivers' licenses, and his opening introduction mentioned both driver's licenses and the larger immigration issue as a whole. But here, when I reach a conclusion with which he can't help agreeing, he acts as if immigration in general wasn't the subject.]
Jan: Those, are, those are the criteria I'm pondering here. Y'know if we want to talk about immigration, whether it should be quotas or not, it's a separate issue, and I agree with you, that if we're going to expand our quotas, we ought to have the same philosophy as our forbears, who said "Hey, we don't -- both left and right, both Democrats and Republicans, said hey, we ought not to import pauper labor -- PAUPER labor -- nor should we ad, admit to the country anyone who cannot read and write. They had, uh, uh these issues. Our previous generations thought this stuff through. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, here, Dave. I agree with your proposition, we should only admit people that are assets and not automatic liabilities. But we're a long way from that.
Dave: Well, the first quotas came in 1875, that I know of. Uh, they were number quotas. Uh There's a bill...
Jan: We're not experiencing any shortage of Mexicans, uh, Dave. And we eh eh quotas Mexicans are coming to this country with or without our permission for quotas. Even if we had quotasn they would uh still show up. Unless we control our borders.
Dave: As I said, the driver's license issue is a small part of a big problem. I would like to, if I may, offer just a little bit of a vision, a little bit of a glimpse of a solution. that will work...
Dave: ...to satisfy all of our problems.
Dave: The, uh, S 1387 from last year, a Senate bill which uh died, uh
Jan: Here in Iowa?
Dave: No. No, in the U.S. Senate.
Dave: Uh, proposed a Point System. Uh, it would have given points for -- well first of all it would have created a temporary labor time -- a person could come here and work temporarily, like for three years -- and, uh, and then during that time here, during that temporary time, they could earn points towards legal permanent residence.
Jan: Um hum.
Dave: And you could get points if you master English...
Dave: ...get some education. If you could work, uh, well, as measured by, uh, pay raises and promotions, if you would, uh, stay out of jail...
Dave: And, uh, another one that was in another bill...
Jan: Are we talking about the people who are already here illegally, or as people who want to come here?
Dave: Both. It would have opened it up to both.
Dave: And a criteria from another bill was staying off welfare. Now, if that were in place, and, uh, the bill as I understand it would require a little bit of tweaking to quite reach this vision, but if that were in place, if those who are here illegally knew that they could sign up, begin to earn points, and that if they could, uh, excel, they would be given legal permanent residence, without having to worry about, uh, what number they are on a quota list, they WOULD come out. They WOULD all register, voluntarily. They DON'T want to live the way they are. They want to live legally. If they all did, if they all participated, illegal jobs WOULD dry up, the USCIS case load WOULD drop, because, uh, they wouldn't have to be chasing down 10 million people any more -- they would only be left with a few thousand who are the real criminals and drug runners.
Jan: Um hmm.
Dave: And uh there wouldn't be people trying to come across the border illegally because, uh, they would be wanting to come through the lawful means provided. Which would be to wait for...
Dave: ...an employer to have a need and to advertize a job for citizens, and not have it filled. And, uh, people on the other side of the border -- if our system is fair and open, would know that there isn't any use coming over illegally, because if the job isn't advertized, there isn't a job. I'm talking about, I'm talking about really efficient bureaucracy and really wise construction of our laws, but this is a vision that I believe is possible.
Jan: Well you're starting with the assumption, uh A, that it is in the best interests of the United States to continue to import people uh from South of the Border from any place else. It's, uh, that, this is something that Americans want. And that it is also an automatic claim, just because somebody wants to come here, that it is the duty and obligation of Americans to provide a quote "safe and fair" way to do so. Uh, maybe Americans are not interested in any of those things.
[Editorial comment: Does Jan want the right, himself, to be able to move to another country if he chooses? What is this about what people MIGHT WANT, which we cannot know? What is his objection which remains after I have offered the solution to all the problems he has articulated? He articulates not one single problem which remains, not one single reason my vision might be impractical, yet he rejects it as "probably unwanted" by Americans! After all problems in a relationship are solved and one still doesn't want another around, what "reason" for such "want" can remain, but pure and simple dislike? In this case, pure and simple dislike of a whole race of people: Mexicans?
Jan: And are, a-a-and we see the population, eh, in this country as, pretty much what we'd like to see it. Uh, and, eh-eh-and-eh-eh without importing any more people.
Dave: You're expressing the concern of overcrowded land?
Jan: No, I'm expressing the concern of, we have enough people. Uh, already. We're not experiencing a population dirth here.
Dave: How is that different than expressing the concern that your land would get too crowded if we had more?
Jan: Well, the the question isn't whether it's too crowded. The question is if, do we have enough? Uh, do we have enough people in this country to sustain an, and maintain our civilization? Um, and because somebody wants to come here, that, you're implying that we uh ah uh automatically makes, creates a duty demand, or command on the rest of us, to figure out a way to accomodate them, and I don't think that's true either.
Dave: Every, since America began, uh, not one citizen has escaped being considered an illegal alien in the opinion of a number of Native Americans. And yet God was with us, as evidenced by many of His miracles along the way.
Jan: That's a non-sequitur. [Definition: a remark having no bearing on what has just been said.]
Dave: Not necessarily, not necessarily uh He was with everything that we did after we got here, but He was, He was with the establishment of this country.
Dave: And, uh, we, we need to be, not consider it irrelevant whether God may be with those who are coming to join us from the South.
Jan: I'm not sure that dont, uh, I'm not sure what you just said. Say it again.
Dave: We need to not consider it irrelevant whether God may be with those who are coming to join us now, from the South.
Jan: Well of course God is with them, just like He is with any of His people. Does it mean, uh, that, uh, uh, uh, be, a, because God is with somebody, that means (laughs) that means that, uh, they have a automatic expectation of access to our borders? Are you s, are you saying because uh I uh think what you're saying is because uh, uhm p people were mean to Native Americans, a long time ago, that means we're duty-bound to open our borders today to Mexican immigration?
[Editorial note: that is kind of like a popular theme of liberals, that we should feel guilty for our nation's past; except that the remedy of liberals is to make reparations to those whose ancestors were oppressed, not to other nationalities! But I meant only what I said. Not that we should feel guilty for our past, but the opposite: that God was with us, not just generically, but as I said, He was with our establishment as a nation. Of that knowledge, we should have no shame, but thanksgiving to God! My point was not that we should be merciful to Mexicans out of shame for our past, but out of recognition that God may be leading them here, just as He led us here a few generations before! Perhaps, had I clarified this point, he would have responded positively; however, by this time, I didn't think he had sincerely misunderstood my point. I was getting the feeling that his objections were beyond reason; they were rooted in pure emotional dislike of Hispanics. Which is why I said...]
Dave: I was really not prepared...
Jan: (broke into uproarious laughter)
Dave: ...to hear you talk about your objection to Hispanics not having any reason other than a number.
Jan: I'm not sure what you...
Dave: You want the population to remain exactly the same.
[Editorial comment: What I felt like saying, was "I was really not prepared to hear you say your objection to border solutions was not because of any problem you don't know how to solve, but because you simply don't like Hispanics."]
Jan: No I didn't say that. I'm as you're you your whole argument is, here, we're somehow uh obligated to have our, to admit people to from any place, simply because people want to come here and, and it's only fair and, uh, it's equitable that we do so, and find, uh, a safe way to do so. Maybe Americans DON'T WANT to expand our population any more than it is by immigration.
[Editorial comment: Didn't he just contradict himself? He never said he wanted the population to remain exactly the same, but maybe Americans DON'T WANT to expand our population? Do we have a discrepancy here?]
Jan: Do we have the right to say the, uh, thee we've reached the capacity that we wish...
Dave: The evidence uh that Americans uh do have open hearts to those from the South, is the ambivalence we see among our own lawmaking authorities, from the police who will not report them to the USCIS...
Jan: They're not allowed to.
Dave: ...to the legislators who do not allow them to, for, uh, a a number of reasons, to the U.S. Supreme Court which has said, that, who, which by the way unanimously said, that they, uh, merit the protection of the 14th Amendment -- they ARE "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, and they need to, uh, receive the equal protection of the laws...
Jan: You're missing, you're misunderstand the 14th Amendment. Uh, for, the, uh, just because somebody is in the country doesn't mean they are under our jurisdiction.
[Editorial comment: if immigrants are not under our jurisdiction, how is it we have jurisdiction to arrest and deport them? How does he define "jurisdiction"?]
Jan: The 14th Amendment did not mean what you just said it meant.
Dave: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously said that it did...
Dave: Do you want to hear the quote? (laughs)
Jan: The guy who WROTE it, Jacob Howard, says, the people who were in the country, uh that are not Americans, are subject to the jurisdiction, not of this country, but of we, of the country of origin. Uh, the guy who wrote it said that. I'm not particularly interrested in the guy, uh, what the Supreme Court has reinterpreted it and turned it upside down. Uh, eh, anyway Dave Leach, I've got to take a short time out. We'll come right back in a moment as Mickelson in the Morning proceeds.
[Editorial comment: Notice that my point was that the hearts of Americans are open at least somewhat to undocumented Hispanics, as proved by police not willing to report them, legislators who order police not to report them, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruling that they merit the protection of the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment meant something different 137 years ago, which it didn't, that does not refute my point that today, hearts are not entirely closed towards Hispanics. Nevertheless we are now sidetracked into a debate over whether the Supreme Court today understands the 14th Amendment as well as Jan Mickelson. Not that I usually agree with the Court -- but the side trip proved interesting. During the station break I expressed admiration that he knew about Jacob Howard. He said this is one of a few issues upon which he is so well prepared that no one can surprise him.]
Jan: My in-studio guest is Dave Leach, and he wants to propose solutions to, uh, the "run amock" immigration issue that we're dealing with here. Not just in the state of Iowa, but all over the country. And eh eh this, we, the hook for this conversation, Dave Leach, was the driver's license issue, which is dead for this session. Apparently that's not going anywhere. But you thought it was good for, first step. You think sa, a, was a useful thing. And you are about to say what?
Dave: Well, you were talking about Senator Howard, uh, and what he said about the, uh, intent of, uh, the 14th Amendment. I'm...
Dave: I'm surprised that you are up on it. I, I didn't know that that many people knew about Mr. Howard. (laughs) But, uh,
Jan: I've been hustled a lot on this issue, Dave.
Dave: I admire you for that.
Jan: I'm hustle-proof on this one.
Dave: Last night I went to sleep reading Plyler versus Doe. It's a 1982 case. But he quotes, uh, Senator Howard.
Jan: Um hm.
Dave: And I just want to give you a quote from Senator Howard. Um, he said, "the last 2 clauses of the first section of the Amendment", (by the way, this is 1968 when the 14th Amendment was, uh, passed, and uh...
Dave: (laughs) I'm sorry, 1868. The congressional debate uh was of course on the record as to what people were thinking, about what the Congressmen and Senators were thinking as they, as they enacted it.
Jan: Um hm.
Dave: So it says "The last two clauses of the first section of the Amendment disable a state from depriving, not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....
Dave: "...or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the state...
Jan: That's correct.
Dave: "...This abolishes all class legislation in the states and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to the other...
Dave: "...It will, if adopted by the states, forever disable every one of them from passing laws entrenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and (covered up by Jan's interruption)."
Jan: I agree. All that's true. Uh, and and it's magnificent language, but, and and it means people he he who are even in the country illegally, ee, are entitled to equal protection of the law.
[Editorial comment: Huh? We got off on this side trip because I had said "they ARE "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, and they need to receive the equal protection of the laws", to which he had responded, "You're missing, you're misunderstand the 14th Amendment. Uh, for, the, uh, just because somebody is in the country doesn't mean they are under our jurisdiction." So now he agrees they should have the equal protection of the law? Then what was the disagreement? However, Jan's response makes him look good to listeners with careless memories; it keeps them from knowing I won a point and he lost one, if he can say in effect, "Well of course, Dave, THAT'S not where we disagree. You're missing the point, Dave, heading off on rabbit trails." The careless listener will think, "Boy Jan sure knows how to get his guests back on the subject!" I don't accuse Jan of deliberately doing this, however. But after just having bragged to the world how "hustle proof" he is, it would have been painful for him, right after that, to concede an important point.]
Jan: That does not confer upon them, however, citizenship rights, and it does not convert their illegal status into legal status.
[Editorial comment: this debate tactic is known as a "red herring", named after the practice of confusing dogs, who are following someone's trail, by dragging fish across the trail so the dogs will rather follow the fish. No one made any suggestion that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship rights to foreigners, which would indeed be absurd! Or that the Amendment legalizes every foreigner's presence here, which would be equally absurd! In fact, the whole discussion of Senator Howard was a "red herring", taking us off the track of Americans' open hearts, so this is a double red herring, I suppose, to take us off the track of the 14th Amendment universally understood, both by its founders and by the current Supreme Court in its unanimous finding, as affording unauthorized immigrants the equal protection of our laws.]
Jan: Uh, otherwise, you could not have a federal law that makes being in the country A FELONY. If your interpretation, uhm, of Jacob Howard were correct you couldn't lock up somebody, you couldn't even have a federal law against illegals being in the country.
Dave: Um, that's not my interpretation
Jan: Well, that's what you you're IMPLYING. That you can't even enforce immigration laws because it would violate the 14th Amendment!
[Editorial comment: Jan, would you do me the favor of waiting till I SAY something, before stoning me as a heritic for IMPLYING it?]
Dave: No, I haven't come to that detail. The significance I see in the 14th Amendment is that I question whether quotas, themselves, could pass muster.
Jan: Of what?
Dave: Of the 14th Amendment.
Jan: It doesn't apply to people who we choose to allow in the country, confers no rights at all upon uh uh uh or privileges a uh uh of all people who are not citizens to the country when it comes to admission is concerned. Um, here's what Jacob Howard said: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law, and national law, a citizen of the United States. THIS WILL NOT, OF COURSE, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners. Or aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers, or accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Anyway, it settles the great uh citizen uh question of citizenship and removes uh all doubt as to what persons are or not citizens of the United States. Well that's uh that's the intent of the guy who wrote it, and it's been turned on its head to say if you're just born here, if you pop out a kid here you're an automatic citizen. And, and, and Jacob Howard, the guy who wrote it, said "huh-uh, that does NOT include people who are not subject to our jurisdiction."
Jan: And if you're not a citizen you are not subject to our jurisdiction. You are under our LAWS, but you're still, if you're a Mexican citizen, you're under the jurisdiction of Mexico. Not the United States.
[Editorial comment: Jan had said, "people he he who are even in the country illegally, ee, are entitled to equal protection of the law." Now he says "...if you're a Mexican citizen, you're under the jurisdiction of Mexico. Not the United States."
[As for Senator Howard's quote, and what he meant by it, and how much that matters, my inquiry led to a separate article. See "Should babies of 'illegal aliens' born here be counted as citizens? And, while we're at it, May we enslave 'illegals'? The answer depends on how we define 'jurisdiction'" at www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/14thAmendmentJurisdiction.htm.]
[Bringing up Howard's explanation of which babies born here should be citizens is a triple red herring! Now Jacob Howard is invoked, not to dispel the fact that undocumented immigrants are entitled to equal protection of our laws, but to prove that being born here to non-citizens shouldn't make them citizens! I never made any such point, nor is it crucial to the solutions I propose. But Jan has REALLY taken on a difficult goal; whether or not the 14th Amendment settles the link between birth and citizenship, the U.S. Code (the laws enacted by Congress) clearly makes the link, and the link has been made for many generations. That's a lot of heritage to persuade Congress to reverse! If that issue were put to a vote of the American people, I think Jan would find himself in a tiny minority.]
Dave: I'd appreciate a copy of that.
Jan: (laughs) So, and now you're digging around the Constitution here. Um, it says in section 4, Article 4, Section 4, the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government and shall protect EACH of them against invasion. That is exactly what's happening on our Southern border. For political reasons, the regime of Vincente Fox and previous ones have used the United States and its border and sees it as a negotiable item rather than a legal restriction, sees it as a legal fiction and have encouraged citizens of its own country to invade against our laws uh our land in order to bail itself out of its own social obligations in taking care of its own citizens. It is even printing out brochures telling how Mexican citizens can invade the United States and do so by how to avoid the laws of the United States, and how to collect money from our social safety net. I consider that an invasion, and is exactly what our Constitution is supposed -- and our government is supposed to --
Dave: You're putting a lot of spin on these facts.
Jan: -- is supposed to protect us against.
[Editorial comment: our relationship with another government is not, has never been, and should never be, a reason to punish citizens of that government fleeing to our shores. This seems like another Red Herring, though Jan may more rationally see a connection here, than in the cases before. Anyway, it didn't seem to me worth addressing in any detail. But the facts are that Hispanics fleeing north must be a huge embarrassment to Vicente Fox and his government, so naturally anything they can do to blame someone other than themselves, they will be tempted to do. To call these things an "invasion", though, along with all these other emotionally charged words, and an even more emotionally charged tone of voice, is pretty extreme hyperbole. "Invasion" is the word we use for armed, organized hostile forces coming to kill and loot us, not the word we use for unarmed, disorganized admirers coming to work for slave wages and pay taxes that contribute $33 billion more to our federal treasury than the insignificant "safety net" "services" they consume.]
Jan: If a country is, as a political act, telling its citizens to go and occupy another country, that, by definition, is an invasion.
Dave: I saw the comic book you're talking about and that's quite a bit of spin you're putting on it.
Jan: It's not a comic book it's the United States Constitution.
Dave: I'm talking about the comic book put out by the Mexicans.
Jan: Oh. Oh. Okay, yes. And it's telling, they just put out another edition of that. They have a guy standing there, in front of the Golden Gate Bridge, with a big smile on his face, as having accomplished uh successfully accomplished an illegal act.
Dave: I just, I gotta say, Jesus pointed out that if you have two coats, and you see someone with none,
Dave: Our responsibility is to share. Uh, is, we that's the heart of America. We've had this compassion, we have a Statue of Liberty, we have a, a poem at the base which, which we, which we recite with pride: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."
Jan: Emma Lazarus wrote that. She was a hustler. They put it on a a piece of junk that the French sent us. And I think we ought to rewrite that and say the uh "closed for repairs". That should be our motto at the border for awhile. "Closed for repair." Until we can successfully assimilate the population that we do have now, and get our house in order, we DON'T NEED ANY MORE IMMIGRANTS.
[Editorial comment: And what criteria does he have for what would qualify as successful assimilation? He has defined success so far as shipping them all out. The fact is they already contribute far more than they take. How much more successful does he want things?]
Dave: OK, you've made clear your position on Emma Lazarus. How about on Jesus' statement about sharing?
Jan: No, I agree with that. Yeah. Does it mean I have to allow a burglar access to my refrigerator? That's not the same thing.
Dave: The anal, the correct analogy would be to, uh, you come home and, uh, there's someone sitting on your couch, uh, surrounded by the food from your refrigerator, and your remote in your [their] hand, whom someone else in your family invited.
Jan: No, that's not analagous at all. Nobody in my house invited anybody.
Dave: [Cutting in] Unauthorized immigrants are welcomed by Americans here who want them to be here so bad that they will pay them money to stay and work, by law enforcement who, uh, don't want to turn them over, by ambivilance all the way up and down our legal syst...
[Editorial Comment: An even more accurate analogy would be to come home and find that someone else in your family had invited an admirer who has been busy mowing your grass, waxing your floors, painting your garage, and thrilled to do it for almost no pay.]
Jan: [Cutting in] You wanna subject that notion to a popular vote? You'd lose! (Tone of voice like a sneer.) Big time! Dave, I need to take a short time out. Uh, we'll come right back and, Dave Leach is here, he's uh uh making several arguments and uh uh I'd love to get you involved in this. Our phone lines are full. We'll go to our phone lines in just a moment as Mickelson in the Morning proceeds.
[Station break. During the break, Jan said it was serious theological error to apply the Bible to foreign policy. It is only for our personal, individual relationships.]
Jan: [As head-banging music led into our interview] Dave Leach particularly requested this song. This uh, this is one of your favorite songs too, isn't it?
Dave: Uh, uh, uh,
Dave: My ears aren't working right now.
Jan: (Laughs) We're talking with Dave Leach here in the studio. He wants, uh, us to rethink our relationship with our neighbors, and our borders, and if I understand your point, is that, we, Christian ethics demand that we have an open border. Is that your conclusion?
Dave: Absolutely. Well, uh, you know, open borders, I'd like to be a little more specific than that. But, a,
Dave: ...than to call it an open border...
Jan: No, no! If Christian ethics mean that we have to have an open border, how can we, uh, uh have any criteria at all?
Dave: Uh, for the benefit of those coming over, the Point System would enable them not just to come here legally, but to become citizens.
Jan: Well, wait a minute, Dave, why would a, where do you find a Point System in the Bible?
Dave: What we don't want is a subculture of people here,
Jan: [Cutting in:] Wo, Wo, wo! Wait a minute!
Dave: Well, YOU wait a minute.
Jan: You cannot, once you start with a premise
Dave: Let me ask you...
Jan: ...that open borders are a Christian ideal, then why can you put define it, well why can you say you only want DESIRABLE people?
Dave: LET ME ANSWER YOU!
Jan: Well all right. Go ahead.
Dave: What we don't want here is a subculture of people here who cannot participate in our government like we had, we have 10 million people...
Jan: That's not a Christian ideal. That's a political one. Now you're mixing apples and oranges again.
Jan: If Christ commands that we have an open bor--
Dave: You seem to be making the assumption that if you can't find, if you can't find a Scripture to back up every single detail of a proper policy,
Dave: ...that you cannot use ANY Scripture to back up ANY part of a policy.
Jan: No, no, I'm just saying when you start with a premise, that, uh, Christian ethics demand we have an open border.
Dave: I didn't say that.
Jan: I asked you, and you said Yeah.
Dave: I said that I'd like to qualify the open border part.
Jan: Oh, well why? If it is our duty and moral obligation to have open borders, it would seem to me, if you, if the whole idea of Christian ethics is to (in a condescending, mocking tone) help people who don't have coats, and help the sick and afflicted, the lame and the halt, the tired, poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, (anger is added to his mocking tone), then keeping out those people who are in those categories would violate your Christian ethics. Now you're starting with a premise, you want to keep the very people who are in most need out...
Dave: I'm not talking about keeping them out. Open borders implies absolutely no restraint, no checking up on anything. What we want, or what, I should say, what is wanted, I think what we all want, is basically what S 1387 envisions. A chance to come here and work legally, and and BECOME qualified. But what we don't want is...
Jan: I don't want that.
Dave: ...for it to stop there, and to have a subculture of people who cannot participate in our system of government because they don't know English, they don't understand how our form of government works. We want to create the incentives for them to learn English as quickly as possible, and learn about our government. So that they don't have, you know our present system, you wait a generation before you can, you live here a generation illegally before you can finally get legal status, and another generation after you get legal status, before you can become a citizen. That's too long. Too many millions of people here, without any rights to participate in our government. It's like the Roman Empire with 80% slaves.
Dave: 20% citiz...
Jan: People who show up, and demand the rights of citizenship, whether they're here legally or not, you think that we have a duty and a moral obligation based upon Christian ethics, to allow, uh, um, a, a, a, peo, uh, uh, criminal to have acces...
Dave: To say that they are not invited is simplistic. They are welcome here by a lot of people, by a lot
Jan: People who have a vested interest
Dave: A lot of people have vested interests in it. AND...
Jan: And then they send the rest of us the bill.
Dave: ...and more than -- well, they're about a $33 billion benefit to our, our federal economy.
Jan: Well they're also, so, about a $70 almost a $70 billion liability to the taxpayer.
Dave: Uh, about $33 billion to the good.
Jan: No. That's not true.
Dave: Do we have a couple of minutes to go through a study here?
Jan: Uh, I we uh I we I told you we'd go to the phone lines here.
Dave: All right. (laughs)
Jan: Let's go, we can do that. Let's talk to as many, you can hear us OK on this one? Are your earphones working all right? Let's go right to our...
Dave: I'll find out.
Jan: All right.
Jan: Let's go right to Mark. Good morning Mark.
Mark: Hi Jan.
Mark: How are you?
Jan: I'm doing great.
Mark: I want to go on record as saying I'm against the uh driver's driver's license for illegal aliens, but supposing that we were to do that, I think that Dave is a little naive to believe that registered illegals did not meet the criteria that he wants, that they would automatically go back to Mexico. Because, seems to me, that some of the 9-11 terrorists were here under similar circumstances. Student visas. And they got to the United States legally, and they just disappeared into our society, to later re-emerge as these terrorists of 9-11. I don't, I don't think that these people just automatically go back to Mexico.
Dave: I never meant to suggest that they would, under our present laws. For, uh, for this plan to work, their needs to be the possibility of, of, uh, becoming legal permanent residents if they can qualify. That's the only incentive I know of that would bring them out of the woodwork to sign up, try and get on board.
Mark: But if they don't qualify, they're not just gonna leave. I mean, you think you might have track of them, but they'll disappear into our society, you know.
Dave: The point is that if, they all gonna think that they can qualify, if, IF we have a fair system and that's a REACHABLE system, and the criteria are reasonable and objective and fair, they WILL uh all come on board and sign up, uh for the CHANCE to qualify, I'm confident of that.
Mark: I think that you're naive, Dave, to think they're going to do this.
Dave: But once they are signed up then of course the USCIS knows where they are, so if it turns out they do not qualify, then the USCIS is able to deport them.
Jan: All right, thank you. I appreciate your call. Excellent.
[Editorial comment: As I record this transcription I realize Mark had a mixed point: he started by talking about terrorists here legally, who "disappeared" into our society, meaning the USCIS lost track of them. He said I was "naive" to think, therefore, that illegals would voluntarily go back to Mexico. Of course I had never suggested they would voluntarily go back, as I clarified; but I missed the point that if legal immigrants could "lose" the USCIS, couldn't, also, millions of workers who don't qualify? Just because the workers sign up and the USCIS knows where they are, during their 3 years or so of legal temporary work, doesn't prove they won't slip back in the shadows on the day of their deadline. Good point. So let me address it here in these notes which no one will probably read. It is certainly true that it remains possible in the U.S. for fugitives to escape authorities for a long time, whether citizens or not. But compared with the present quagmire, changing the law will vastly reduce the number of those who get away, especially including terrorists and real criminals. Presently the USCIS struggles to locate and apprehend 10 million or so undocumented immigrants! Terrorists can breathe easy, with USCIS resources stretched that thin! If the Point System begins, most who voluntarily come out of the shadows to earn points will qualify; they will make sure they do! The number of those who don't, and who will be tempted to hide, will be much smaller than 10 million. In fact, it will be very close to zero, if we also enable them to return when they are more qualified, and if we give minus points for breaking immigration laws and going into hiding; because if they did, they would forfeit any future hope of coming here legally.]
Jan: Uh, a brief time out. We'll come back with our last segment. Dave Leach is here. He's lobbying the other side of the street on the uh immigration uh issue and you're welcome to join us as Mickelson in the Morning proceeds.
Jan: Right back to the conversation. Mickelson here with you. Dave Leach is here. We have another guest coming up shortly. But Dave, let's talk to some of those listeners who are joining us. And this is Bob. Good morning, Bob!
Bob: Good morning. Dave, I have several questions for you, and I hope I get a straight answer. Flat out, this country is based on a rule of law. Correct, sir?
Dave: Yes. I'd like, uh,
Bob: Question: if the majority decide that anybody is here illegally,
[Editorial comment: notice the equation of "rule of law" with the "rule of the majority". You see, "rule of law" means a law which applies equally to all, as the 14th Amendment provides, and as God said through Moses, "you shall have the same law for the stranger [foreigner] as for yourselves, for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt." But a majority can vote to tyrannize a minority, which is not a rule of law at all, but is only an extension of the concept of a dictator to a larger number of people.]
Bob: ...claiming resources against the taxpayers, if we make our own decision not to pay that percentage, are we breaking the law?
Dave: If we make our own decision not to pay that percentage?
Jan: Of the taxes, that are being paid for the people who are in the country illegally. [In other words] Can we be tax protesters at that point?
Dave: Oh, I see what you mean. Well, you know, uh, they don't get much of any benefits. (Laughing)
[Editorial comment: The Bible actually addresses the issue of tax protesters. Jesus protested paying taxes to a bureaucracy charged with dispensing religion and justice, when He was their superior in dispensing religion and justice. Nevertheless, Jesus instructed Peter to pay the tax anyway, as if to say there are more important battles now; this one is for later. Matthew 17:24-26.]
Jan: Are you kidding?
Bob: I uh wait a minute. Now just hang on a minute. If a majority of people decide that they are going to take the law into their own hands, and anyone they find illegally they physically boot out, and break our laws by doing it, by even manhandling them, do you, uh, feel a little upset about that?
[Editorial comment: As this conversation occurred, I thought my mind wandered, because when it was my turn to answer I wasn't sure what he had asked. Now I understand why. His scenario began as a majority of people deciding, and then what they decided was to take the law into their own hands. For someone who believes majorities dictate the rule of law, what the majority decides IS the law, so how can they "take the law into their own hands" when it is their own law?]
Bob: Bingo! Well maybe if you'd try thinking that the majority of people here know darn well this country is based on the rule of law, and anyone who comes here legally, welcome to the country. And the people that aren't, frankly, are criminals. And, and you can send as many people as you want, but if the majority decides that they're criminals, ...
[Editorial comment: Maybe this needs to be the focus of our debate: reminding Americans of what "rule of law" means different than "majority rule". You see, if the majority decides to impose, upon a minority, restrictions it will not accept upon itself, that is not the "rule of law", but the "rule of raw power". It is lawlessness. It is hypocrisy. When we impose mindless quotas upon Hispanics which we are glad were not imposed upon our own great grandparents, when we deny Hispanics the right to come here and not live off charity but pay, with their own hard labor, for goods and services willingly sold by American businesses and individuals, while we expect for ourselves the right, should we choose, to emigrate to another country for all summer, or for a few years, or to retire, then we fall under Jesus' bitter criticism of the lawyers of His day: "Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46. The majority of Americans have NO RIGHT to "decide" that a minority of those sharing their land are "criminals" for doing what they themselves do! Any "majority" which makes such a cruel, hypocritical decision ought to be ashamed of itself!]
Bob: ...and they want 'em out of the country, and they start doing it on their own, that wouldn't be a good situation, would it? (I think his point was that if I would be hypocritical to want the laws obeyed that restrain him from commiting crimes against unauthorized immigrants, but not the laws obeyed that keep unauthorized immigrants out.)
Dave: Part of the problem is what the majority really wants. There's a lot of ambivalence. A lot of people just really aren't cold-hearted enough to want, for example, benefits denied to the citizen children born to uh unauthorized immigrants.
Jan: But they're not, not really citizens in a Constitutional sense. That is a court-created right.
Dave: It's also in the U.S. Code.
Bob: You know I have to interrupt for a minute. Because this is plain and simple. You're trying to work on the emotions...
[Editorial comment: And you're not?]
Bob: ...but you don't like the emotions that are coming about because the reality is, the people that are here live under the law.
[Editorial comment: That's another point. Americans have a lot of reverence for the law, when it is others who must obey it, but less reverence for the law, when they can get away with something themselves.]
Bob: ...Why would you want anybody come here and start on the premise of BREAKING THE LAW?
Dave: We need to have a law that is itself Constitutional. And that is not contrary to the Laws of God. I also stand against the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. That's an unconstitutional law.
Jan: I agree with you. But why, why would controlling our border be unconstitutional?
Dave: I'd just like to...
Jan: What provision of the Constitution does having a border violate?
Dave: I think the 14th Amendment. I'd love to be able to talk with you more about this. Than in the 2 or 3 minutes we have remaining here.
Jan: (laughing loud) Okay. So the 14th Amendment erased our borders and why do we have to have NAFTA?
Dave: No, I'm talking about quotas. Quotas is the problem. Quotas is the ONLY problem.
Jan: I don't care about the quotas. You and I may agree about quotas. We might even agree on changing them. But we're not, I'm not, let's see the driver's license issue is not
Dave: Well if you don't care about quotas then maybe we can come to an agreement.
Jan: Then we can negotiate if we're talking about legally admitting people. My problem isn't with the people that we legally admit. It's the ones that are crashing the gates.
Dave: Well, if we had a law that didn't depend on quotas but depended rather on criteria we would not have people crashing gates.
Jan: I don't think you can sustain that argument. But anyway, thank you for beginning it, Dave Leach. It was a vigorous conversation, I appreciate you expending the mental power to think about these things, and I approve of people applying their faith in the political sphere, even if I think you're a heretick and we'll have to stone you in the parking lot.
Dave: Ah, well, that's generous of you.
Jan: Thank you. But we'll just use little rocks, though.
(The guest next hour was "Nearly Psychic Susie". She remarked about how hard he is on his guests. "Do you ever offer people therapy after you're done with them? Like especially that last gentlemen." She was to be on for a half hour, so she said she can barely stand it for a half hour, let alone a whole hour!)
This web site is part of Uncle Ed.'s search for truth. God didn't make any man able to find the truth by himself. Proverbs 15:22 says only in a "multitude of counsellors" are purposes established. And counsel can come from anybody: 2 Chronicles 35:20-24 says God can speak even through your generation's representative of Antichrist! (Isaiah 30 for perspective.)
So if you see errors here, and you don't warn poor Uncle Ed.,, their continued presence here will be your fault! (Ezekiel 3:18-20) (If you don't want your email address posted when we post your comments or criticism, SAY SO!)
Join our FORUM on any article posted here. The discussion board set up at http://x.saltshaker.us/forums is designed for you to respond to any article on this website. (Or start a discussion on your own topic.) To respond to any article on this website, just copy enough of the beginning of the article to let everybody know to what you are responding, along with the url of the and then have at it.
If your comment would be appropriate inserted in one of my articles, email your comment to me, with a little of the text on either side of where you think it should be inserted, and I'll try to post it there, along with any response I may have (to which you are invited to respond further.)