After the amount of bull sh/it I’ve heard from the Mises Institute recently, I’m so disillusioned with this movement because of you viruses that I’m beginning to agree.
Fortunately I’m not the only one.
Actually, it has everything to do with the lack of labor at the price point that market is willing to pay. There is no lack of oil in this country either, if you are willing to drill for $200/bbl, there’s plenty oil. We import oil for the same reason, for a price point that can make a lot of additional economic activity possible (i.e. viable and profitable). If you really understand economics, a lack of something always means lacking something at a given price point. Yes, removal of relatively inexpensive source of energy and labor will most definitely have detrimental effect on the economy.
First of all, there are a lot of legal immigrants hired in this country, and they do pay taxes. If we are talking about illegal immigrants, at their wage level, workers do not pay income taxes under the current IRS code; instead, low income workers get earned income tax credit, which is a hand-out by the government. Obviusly, by law, illegal immigrants are not eligible for that. According to SS administration, 25 million wrong-SSN notices were sent out last year. SSA only sends out notices if an employer’s informational returns contain 10 or more wrong SSN’s. Personally, I think illegal immigrants are not the only ones using fake SSN’s, as there are only 12-15 million illegal immigrants and not all of them work for employers law-abiding enough to file informational returns and hire at lest 10 illegal immigrants each. There must be a lot of real Americans using fake SSN’s, perhaps to dodge income tax or avoid income garnishment or simply those trying to have a start-over. In any case, people who use fake SSN’s automaticly forfeit their SS benefit because their payments are being creditted to someone else’ accounts. So we have a situation where illegal immigrants (and Americans who prefer to hide their identities) paying into the social security system but will derive no benefit from such payment. Then the third category is people who get paid off the books; both immigrants and non-immigrants can and do that. I don’t see how you could draw the conclusion that “illegals can always underbid actual citizens because they don’t have to pay taxes.” At different income levels and different law-abiding levels, they either both pay or both can be tax evaders; the only difference is at the low-income level, where the vast majority illegal immigrant laborers are, citizens can get “earned income tax credit” and social security benefits, whereas illegal immigrants can get neither despite their payment into the tax system if the employers are stickers enough to demand a social security number.
If you truely believe that employers unscrupulous enough to break the law are the only ones really benefiting from illegal immigrant labor, shouldn’t the law be changed so that law breaking can no longer be beneficial? It’s a bit like the anti-drug laws. If anti-drug enforcement is what makes drug trafficing profitable, it’s all the reason more why such irrational laws should be repealed.
I deny that hypothesis in unequivocal terms. If those immigrants came here just for free public school and free public healthcare, they could have stayed home. Most third-world countries have that kind of “free” stuff. The whole anti-immigration lobby is quite self-contradictory: what kind of Mexican parents would want to come to this country and have their kids taught in Cuban or Pueto Rican Spanish if they are supposed to want their kids taught in their native tongue? Most spanish teachers in this country speak Cuban or Pueto Rican Spanish instead of Mexican Spanish. The whole caricature of immigrants makes no sense to anyone with a modicum of economic sense. The real reason why people come to this country is because compared to other countries, the US is still relatively free, therefore in relative terms the US is still a land of opportunity. That’s why men and women like Mises, Hayek, Rand and even Hoppe came to this country. Do they necessarily drive the power of the state to even higher levels? Well, aside from Hoppe’s advocacy for immigration control.
On the other hand, increasing immigration control most certainly drive the power of the state to even higher levels. Just like war on drugs and welfare, action by the government is never free and almost always very expensive, both in monetary terms and civil liberty terms. Immigration enforcement would certainly be no exception. Besides the gaggles of tax dollars that would be spent on building useless walls and fences, plus effectively trade barriers that get in the way of free market trade, a far more pernicious boondongle will be the so-called “high-tech wall.” Get ready for the national ID system. When they really get into investigating those 25 million instances of fake social security number uses, chances are that the majority being rounded up by the drag net will not be illegal immigrants but real Americans who do not want to be found.
Here we see evidence of those suffering from a particular social pathology called racism committing political suicide again. For what it’s worth, many Canadians come south to seek medical service, whereas those strapping Mexicans who pass the desert endurance test probably are less likely to need medical attention than any of us here chipping at the keyboard all day 
With all due respect to Canadians in general, some parts of the great north are suffering from socialism in a big way (although I hope those heading south are trying to escape precisely that), whereas the unwashed masses coming from down south probably have a stronger organic sense of family and duty in life than some of us here. In any case, both groups should be recruited for the cause of liberty and freedom, not banned or maligned in some misguided attempt to preserve the rotten social welfare system here . . . and certainly not wasting tax money on enforcement against them for their very existence in this country, and most certainly not let the government develop a system of tracking and reporting activities of all members of the society under the guise of immigration enforcement.
To the contrary, an anarchy is precisely what an organic society is. Furthermore, even social anarchists have historically been conflicting with Marxists over means, since Marxists propose the use of the state as a pre-text to a future stateless classless society. Even the anarcho-communists such as Bakunin were critical of Marx and took very different views on strategy.
We’re not. I’ve never met a social democrat or neoconservative that rejects political borders in principle and rejects all state ownership of land. So it would be quite erroneous to conflate the anarchist arguement against borders and immigration controls with what passes for “open borders” for social democrats and neoconservatives.
Do you ever ask yourself why you are on the side of the white nationalists on this issue? I can play this game too.
Social democrats support open immigration because they believe it will help them increase the size of the state to suit their aims - the growth of the welfare state. Closed border advocates support closing the borders because it will help them increase the size of the state to suit their aims - the growth of the police state.
Anarchist support the annihilation of the state. They are against the agressive use of force and the very existance of the state. We oppose border restrictions because it necessitates the growth of state power, and entails another increase in the level of violence.
Marxists support the creation of a society stratified into Masters and Slaves, as demonstrated by the history of the USSR. If you think that they actually expect to create a classless society, you are deluded.
Can you spot the difference? Apparently not.
If that were the case, we’d be ardent supporters of the State, the actual entity that has displaced and destroyed every natural, organic institution that has been in existence. But we’re not. Nor are we anarcho-collectivists who do in fact express the views you described above. So it is far from obvious how market anarchists can be described by any of the above.
Or perhaps they just want to preserve a polity that at least retains some heritage of limited government and property rights. And without a global tax base, the welfare-warfare state must either scale back or watch its credit disappear.
Your exposition of anarchism is terribly superficial and of Marxism just plain off, but never mind.
Here is the anarchists’ dilemma: when the central state collapses, people coalesce into different communities all with their more or less uniform ethos–that’s what organic society does. The pre-state institutions of family, faith and tribe become resurgent to establish order and enable future planning. All of these institutions are, to some extent, coercive. At the very least, they follow a generally uniform code of behavior and do not allow a competing ethos. Thus the anarchist, to be true to his creed, must extend his revolution from the state to the pre-state institutions.
In similar fashion, the Marxist finds himself confronted with human nature. People don’t care about the collective; they care about their families. People don’t worship the central committee; they worship God. Thus the Marxist must smash the pre-state institutions who frustrate his dream.
Both the anarchist and the Marxist seek to immanentize the eschaton and raise up a New Man who transcends the baggage of the pre-state institutions. The end is the same: New Economic Man, who transcends non-quantifiable values stemming from faith, family and tribe and exists solely as an atomized participant in an economy. The difference is the anarchist–to his credit–is willing to leave the economy to a free market and the Marxist will leave it to the central committee.
And I am not convinced that the anarchist vision would not result in an expansion of the state. Westerners currently enjoy a galaxy of theoretical and procedural rights that would never have been countenanced prior to the secular democratic state. The historical response to sexual deviancy, vagrancy and other anti-social behavior was banishment or death, and often by the hand of non-state actors. Such activities represent a direct affront to the pre-state institutions. Thus, an enormous civil rights bureaucracy armed with nuclear weapons has arisen to protect the deviant few at the expense of the normative majority. (Obviously, as in Iraq, the Balkans and elsewhere, the solution is to allow individuals to retreat to safe harbors with their own kind and trade or not trade with the other as they see fit. Thus, the bohemians can have their Bohemia, the theocrats their Caliphate or New Jerusalem, and more likely than not, they will even sojourn in each others’ lands under the patronage of sponsors.)
I am admittedly painting with a broad brush. I believe Inquisitor’s distinction between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-collectivism is a valid one.
Then they are gullible enough to believe that the way to achieve such goals is by increasing the size of government (population flow control and ID tags) and eroding existing property rights (in how people spend their own money and whom they allow into their own houses). The heritage of limited government and property rights as envisioned by the founding fathers did not entail immigration control at all. The first set of anti-immigration laws was introduced in the second half of the 19th century, sponsored by the labor union movement. Needless to say, the communistic labor union movement advocates neither limited government nor property rights.
You are very wrong on this. Trade and collaboration between different groups of people took place long before there was a centralized government. When a central state collapses, trade routes that exist under the aegis of that state would indeed be disrupted; however, the resulting sub economic units that emerge after such a collapse are usually by no means made up of uniform population. Trade and collaboration, even at a local level, still have to take place to facilitate division of labor. Preference of individuals would still have to be sufficiently different from each other to make trade possible. After a long period of relative isolation, uniformity (in the eyes of outside observers at a later time) may indeed emerge due to extended period of inter-breeding among a group of people who are geographically and economicly isolated; the isolated group however may not have been “pure” to begin with. Take for example, after the collapse of Roman Empire, the British Isles did not turn back into “pure” Celtic land; nor did Rome turn back into pure Romans. Instead, a new people called English emerged, mixing a lot of Celtic and Roman blood, plus several big doses of Saxons and Normans (who themselves were mixed breeds) etc.. who stumbled across the North Sea during the dark ages.
Actually that’s incorrect. In Thomas E. Woods’ “33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask” he addressess that precise question, namely, the postion of the founding fathers with regard to immigration. He found in various documents that Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc. were very conscious of immigration policy. Their worries mainly consisted of the idea that those who emigrated to the states would, in many cases, because of different cultural attitudes, upbringing, etc., not share the same affinity for freedom, and, as a result, the state would gradually grow in size and eventually become that which it had seceded from. Their scruples were rather justified too.
So please, please, please do not misquote the founding fathers to further some opinion. It’s fine to further an opinion by citing eminent intellectuals but to falsely do so makes one look quite bad.
One other thing I wanted to throw out there is this: I am a fervent supporter of freedom, despite what the raving madman Niccolo may have to say (who, may I say, would make far more headway in his quest to convert “statists” to “agorists” if he didn’t come off as being so da/mned angry all the time; I’d be more apt to take him seriously if he approached everything in a composed and intellectual manner; in fact, I find Agorism rather interesting). Nonetheless, one thing that has always struck me as, what you may call, a “weakness” of freedom is the fact that the existence of freedom itself implies the freedom to take away freedom. To let everyone votes means to let everyone who despises freedom vote against freedom. To let everyone immigrate means to let anyone, regardless of whether they believe in freedom, immigrate.
In other words, what makes freedom so magnificent makes it brittle at the same time. It’s own definition allows for it’s own destruction. That’s not to say that I think we should begin to limit certain freedoms to protect freedom because that would be contradictory and I certainly believe freedom is the most desirable of all human states. But the founding fathers seem to have understood this concept perhaps more practically than most and the institutions which they developed were designed to protect freedom. Even their efforts, while perhaps the most successful to date, have been quite easily dismantled. It begs the question, is freedom always doomed to begin with?
I’m sorry, but you are the one misquoting the founding fathers. Where do you see in the original US Constitution clauses for immigration control? The founding fathers were certainly correct in recognizing that some people from the old world may not share the same affinity for freedom as we do, a case in point would be those pro labor union voters in the 19th century who came up with the anti-immigration agenda; they were largely derived from northern and central European stock, who half a generation after their own immigration became against immigrants from other parts of Europe. Even today, Hoppe’s racialisticly motivated advocacy for government eugenics through immigration control is another case of those old world continental caste system that is historically quite incompatible with Anglo-American values. What did the Founding Fathers decide after considering the isssue? They did nothing in the laws that they introduced. Why? Because a law or constitution to screen out continental statists from continental Europe would in itself introduce a government bureacracy just as overbearing and abusive as those typically found in continental Europe.
The message of freedom and liberty should be a compelling message in and of itself. The very foundation of libertarianism is built on the assumption that people by and large want freedom and liberty, on their own volition. By their own action of fleeing from the government of their birth places, chances are that immigrants have a higher libertarian-to-statist ratio than people who never move beyond their places of birth. It is no co-incidence that immigrants are grossly over-represented among the big-gun libertarian thinkers throughout the century and half of libertarian history.
If you believe at heart that brittle freedom needs to be protected by Plato’s Sage King, then you are not really a believer in freedom. Power corrupts, absolutely power corrupts absoutely; great men are usually bad men. The “you” here is a rhetoric “you,” not necessarily you, Edward.
No it is not. People want to be free to do what they want on their own volition; yet at the same time, most people are not so principled as to refuse taking advantage of another person when the opportunity presents itself without associated cost. That’s why political power is corrupting. That’s why freedom-sustaining social system should not have political inequality. Once political privileges are allocated to a subgroup, and open season declared to pilfer from another group, freedom will indeed be in jeopardy: it will be a slippery slope going down that road of political victimization. That’s why immigration enforcement is pernicious: it divides participants in the market place into two categories: those who are legal and those who are illegal by their very existence; it will be a simpe exercise to add additional members into that “illegal” category after the statist machine is in place to do the enforcement.
JimS,
Immigration was considered a state matter, at least until the SCOTUS ruled it came under the ambit of foreign relations in the 1850’s. That’s why you don’t see it explicitly mentioned in the federal constitution. That is something else that is overlooked in this debate: immigration really is a local issue, not a national one.
I notice you are critical of labor unions. You must surely be aware of Italian, Irish and Jewish involvement in the labor movement in the 20th century.
Your hypothesis on the libertarian sentiments of immigrants is unsupported. I invite you to attend any public school, any social security or DFCS office, any public hospital, and any plaintiff/comp claimant law firm in any area with lots of immigration. They may be delighted to work for the kind of money they can get here as compared to back home, but they will also happily consume all the government services that we’re stupid enough to provide.
Maybe you could contact La Raza and see if they’d endorse Ron Paul.
I actually agree that immigration policy should be a state and local matter. There shouldn’t be a federal citizenship that is not derived and automaticly derived from state citizenship. That means, a would-be immigrant should have at least 50 jurisdictions to shop from; if any one of them grants immigrantion, the person is in.
As opposed to the majority of anyone else? There are 47 million uninsured Americans and 50 million under-insured Americans. You can’t be seriously telling me that there are nearly 100 million immigrants in this country. The welfare state system itself is broken, immigrants or no immigrants is quite irrelevent to the issue.
Actually, they are quite relevant to the issue, because you are darn sure not going to get rid of the welfare state by expanding its tax base and constituency. This is one of the practical realities that libertarians never get around to addressing.
There are only two possible outcomes to the US’s post-1965 immigration experiment. Either the centralized US state will collapse under the weight of its obligations, and you can watch as the tribes taking root here line up under their respective ethnic banners faster than you can say blood is thicker than water, or we will succeed in converting the new arrivals to our secular, pluralistic ideals, in which event we will enjoy glorious social democracy with a global tax base for many decades to come.
Admittedly, the former stands the best chance of establishing the framework for a free society.
Immigrants are far less entitled to welfare than non-immigrants, and immigrants are not entitled to voting as much per centage-wise. For the same level of income and wealth, there are far higher per centage of non-immigrants on welfare than that of immigrants . . . simply because the latter are not eligible in many cases. You simply can not logically accuse immigrants of working off the books (hence creating an economy that the greesy hand of the government can not reach) and accuse them of expanding tax base and constituency for the welfare state at the same time.
There is no post-1965 immigration experiment. There is only the post-mid-19th century anti-immigration experiment, and it’s a catastrophy. The more strict the immigration control is, the higher per centage of “law breakers” end up coming in among the immigrants who come in despite such restrictions.
That must have been why King Harold was busy fighting and killing his brothers before turning to the Norman invaders, all the while retaining celts and saxons in his army. Must also have been why, before that, after the fall of Rome, western Europe splintered into numerous small polyglot feudal holdings with ethnically essentially identical lords (often times blood relatives) at the top fighting each other while each commanding states/statelets that had numerous nationalities left over from the Roman days.
I never said anything about the quotations coming from the Constitution. I was simply referring to specific quotations by various founding fathers in different documents. For instance, one quote from Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia was that such immigrants would “bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.” or he proposed a thought experiement, “Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans were thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addittion of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
These are just a couple of the quottions. Others with the same tone of idea came from Franklin, Washington, John Jay, Rufus King, and Hamilton to name a few.
If you still believe I am misquoting them, then I am at a loss as to how I can convince you it’s not something made up from nothing.
And if I may be so bold, I think it would not be over the top to think that the founders would think it insane and rather stupid to federally require all immigrants be allowed to enter in light of the fact that we live in an extreme welfare state.
I too think we should leave it up to the states. This would indeed be preferable to a federally mandated allowance of all immigrants. But the fact still remains, the maginitude of federal welfare programs is enormous. Any sensible person would only commit to the unlimited admittance of immigrants if the various welfare programs were also left up to the states. Atleast give people the option of moving to places where their tax money won’t go to floods of lower class peoples.
There are so many on this forum that if you say the slightest thing that may even be perceived as degrading the principle of freedom you get pounced on. Jim, I adore freedom; I think it’s the most fantastic and wonderful thing in the world. Just because I say it may have certain weaknessess with regard to its own resilience or endurance doesn’t suddenly mean I’ve become a socialist. You read the other portion of what I wrote. I also said that it’s weaknesses don’t, however, justify taking freedom away from certain people. It’s so exhausting to have to defend myself against false claims, so please don’t quote me out of context.
Some times I’m not so sure whether more than less prefer freedom as libertarians define it. The freedom we believe in is, more or less, responsibility for oneself. You decide your own destiny. A substantial number of people, who knows how many, want “freedom”, not in the sense just described but in a sense which would more accurately be described as power. Like you said, this is certainly a product of the state. But the state itself is a product of people. The wealth building power of freedom creates natural disparities and eventually certain people start demanding more than what they have even though they would ultimately have far less than what they have as a result of freedom. I do think there is a natural tendency for certain people to develop the need for regulation, especially in wealthy societies. The selection and evolutionary process deems it inevitable.
Sure you can. Public schools and hospitals typically enforce the sort of policies that don’t require legitimate identification. These two programs alone are among the biggest in the US. Futher, the prison system, which is payed for by taxes, certainly houses a fair amount of immigrants. They’re certainly not paying taxes. And I’ve been to various food stamp offices. Some consist of both workers and applicants who speak exclusively in Spanish. All of the signs and forms were in Spanish. It felt like I had left the country. But I suppose you would assume these were all legitimate citizens right? Further, actual policies have been implemented to allow federal funds to be utilized by undocumented immigrants for college purposes.
They are clearly many ways to get around the law. Especially when many of the policies enforced take on a “sanctuary city” type character. They simply don’t inquire whether you’re a citizen. And it makes sense. Politicians want their votes and they’re willing to grant favors for those votes. There’s no sort of strange doctrine which stipulates that to receive benifits you have to give in return. It’s far more often the case that those who receive the most pay in the least. Come one you should know this.
And I definitely wouldn’t assume that there are more non-immigrants than immigrants who receive a higher percentage of public benefits with comparison to their income. One, it’s impossible to quantify such a thing. Two, we don’t really know how many undocumented citizens there really are. Three it would in fact seem the opposite when you rationally consider the situation. Those who are willing to risk their lives coming to the US must be in absolute dire straights. They’re typically of the lowest class in Mexico. Higher crime rates, lack of education, etc, characterize illegal immigrants at very high relative rates. These are the sorts of people that immediately begin to drain the public benefit system, prompting higher taxes. Further, they fall into the tragic and viscious cycle of the welfare state which has plagued the blacks since the civil rights movement.
It’s ok to hold to the opinion of open borders for ostensibly libertarian principles but to simultaneously think that everything will be hunky dory as a result is just pure lunacy.
Yet, what exact federal law did they institute to restrict immigration? Nothing. Nothing at all! That’s exactly my point: you were misleading by omission. Yes, like I mentioed before, some of them indeed had misgivings about some of the ideological habits that some continental European immigrants living mostly under feudalistic crown heads would bring with them. Yet, their decision was not to do anything restricting the immigration of such continental Europeans even if these continental Europeans were used to live under special feudal political privileges and unused to how relatively free market worked.
I think it would be quite safe to assume that the founders would think it insane to have our extreme welfare state Employing another few hundred thousand federal agents to enforce laws against population migration, just so that certain domestic job holders might be protected in their old jobs, while ripping off millions of employers and property owners in the process, would probably be even more insane in their eyes.
IMHO, the real cause of “prosperity rot” is the wealth building power of freedom eventually leads to a level prosperity that a certain segment of the population can afford to live off the fruit of the labor of others, if only they can come up with a scheme to make the others part with a portion of their labor. New-age religions like global warming and prohibitionist crusades like war on alcohol, war on drugs and war on immigrants all fall under this category of razzle and dazzle. So long as states have to compete against each other, it would be obvious that the polity that embraces a philosophy of live-and-let-live and leave-people-the-heck-alone would have the most success. People would be voting with their feet through . . . migration.
These issues are really beating around the bushes. Food stamps, hospitals, public schools (even including college level) represent a tiny proportion compared to the mainstays of entitlement programs, such as SS and medicare. Even among these fringe benefit programs, non-immigrants obviously represent the overwhelming majority of recipients. There are 47 million uninsured Americans and 50 million under insured, compared to only 12-15 million illegal immigrants. Besides, those who pass the desert endurance test probably are more physically fit than the average population in the US. You can’t be possibly suggesting that immigrant children now account for the majority of public school attendants in the US. Spanish-speaking food stamp office? how many English-speaking ones are out there for every Spanish-speaking one? There are entire towns living off food stamps in the interior of the country, and they most certainly speak English. As for prison inmates, I’m pretty sure that they’d rather be somewhere else, immigrants or non-immigrants; you have to pick bones with irrational prohibitionist laws on this one . . . some of those are precisely anti-immigration laws. The immates would be out working on someone’s lawns and make a living instead of being fed and housed by taxpayers in a prison.
Another point about public education and college funds, isn’t the whole point of public funding for education based on the assumption that education is a worthwhile investment? So long as the person is here to stay instead of carrying his educated brain somewhere else after graduation, the person should statisticly be contributing more to the society than the cost of the education, no? Of course, assuming no irrational prohibitionist laws get in the way of his employment.
Exactly. More public spending on a prohibitionist war on immigrants would only lead to even more law breaking and corruption, while wasting tax money in the process. That’s if we are lucky. If we are not lucky, the same laws that enable government officials to do the monitoring and controlling may well prove more effective against us normal Americans instead of against “those desperate people” who already proved their worth getting around laws and fences.
Not necessarily. Much of the rest of the world have not become as “soft” as us urbane Americans. Many of them still have the gumption of some of our grandparents’ generation had when they walked 5 miles in snow to go to school everyday. Today, the DSS would arrest the parents for letting the kid risking his life. The border crossers are not necessarily desperate. They are just young and optimistic . . . like those youths from upstate New York shacking up in NYC, three roommates to a one-bedroom apartment. On top of those border smugglers, another huge group of “illegals” are tourists, students and special-skills people who simply over-stayed their visa. Instead of us Americans who can pick up the phone and call the hotel front desk (or at most having to call the front desk of another hotel) when we decide to extend our stay in a city for another day, they become illegals under current immigration law. They are neither paupers nor un-educated. In fact, many of them are very well educated and have valuable skills.
It never ends does it. Every argument thus far made against “illegal” immigrants can be leveled at “legal” citizens, but lets ignore the reasons for those problems and find the nearest scapegoat. Find any legit reasons against immigrants that don’t directly relate to some government program or action. We wouldn’t even have anything other than a natural market reaction in immigration (come when there is enough money, leave when there isn’t) if not for government regulations regarding immigration. Why spend thousands of dollars to sneak into the country and work for crap wages if you could just come and go? Make a few thousand dollars here and take that home and invest in your community, taking skills and connections along the way. The only reason they stay is because cost wise it is cheaper to stay in the US.
Incorrect. Please read up on the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. The quantity and character of immigration has been deliberately changed.
Don’t believe me? Pop into the nearest Hispanic ghetto and tell everyone how “down” you are with them.