Law School Conservative

I would really prefer to be listed under “Anonymous,” but apparently that’s now a faux pas on this forum haha…

Tab- interesting post. My big question, however, is this: is his illegal status really incidental to the crime, meaning, did he commit this horrible crime because he was illegal or because he was a bad guy/gang member and a waste on society under any claim of citizenship? It seems pretty clear that the fact that he was here illegal did not cause him to commit the crime, or rather did not alter his DNA to make him more or less likely to commit violent crime. The serious issue seems to be the gang membership and criminal past. Even so, he could have shot this cop in the head if he was a legal resident with no criminal past. I know its not the point of the post, but it seems to get at the heart of the immigration issue in a way, and so I enter it as my own stab at this issue. Obviously, if he was deported after his first offense, he probably wouldn’t have shot the cop, but its equally likely that he would have still shot the cop in the scenario above (where he is a legal resident with no priors).

So, deportation of illegals after their first (or second or third) offense certainly won’t prevent acts like this from ever happening again. It’s also not a practical solution (though the present-day incarnation of my poor, bastardized GOP has infinite more faith than I in government’s ability to solve these problems, and certainly more willingness to print and waste untold billions of dollars in the process, thus denying our generation of our deserved usufructuary power over national wealth). It seems to me that the only sensible way to approach this immigration issue is to examine the incentive structure that drives these individual actors to enter the country illegally. A fence skips this important step, and will just create a police v. drivers with radar detectors sort of problem. The immigrants, driven by incentives that would not be impacted by a fence in any substantial way, would innovate around the fence and find their way into the US (any plausible fool-proof fence would necessitate an Orwellian police state that, I hope, is unequivocally unappealing to each of our readers).

So, what are the incentives and how can we work around them? That will have to be dealt with tomorrow…

A fine Philadelphia tradition, and a must for any Presidential candidate who travels through this city, Rudy Giuliani got himself a cheesesteak yesterday.

This is “controversial” because Geno’s Steaks, at the corner of 9th and Passyunk (pronounced “Pashunk,” don’t ask me why), has a sign on its window that says “This is America, when ordering, please speak English.”

The PC police in the City of Philadelphia Human Relations Commission (yet another example of big government, but I digress), have sued Geno’s Steaks for “discrimination.”

Look, I’m a native speaker of Spanish. I love my languages, I cherish my traditions, both American and Puerto Rican (not that the two are separate, but once again, I digress). I understand why Geno’s steaks has that sign up. I’m as big a fan of cultural displays as the next guy, but I think its rude to outwardly challenge the prevailing culture as an outsider.

Yes, I think its rude for my so-called compatriots to wear those tacky Puerto Rican flag bandannas, t-shirts, shoes, pants and jewelry in public (lets face it, most of those people have never visited PR, and they’re easy to pick out in a crowd, even in PR), especially in neighborhoods closely associated with other cultural groups (i.e. South Philly, especially the area around Geno’s, a prominently Italian neighborhood).

Wow, I’m way off topic.

Anyway, Rudy spoke of immigration reform at the event. Didn’t say much other than “Illegal immigration is a bad thing” (shocking, I know).

Stay tuned for a polling analysis once the new polls come out.