People who chip people are the up-f*ckedest people in the world.

The picture I have over on the left is an RFID chip. My parents have one in their shiba inu, Buster, because he's, well, a dog. Shibas are a super-curious breed and sometimes bound off for weirder things. They wanted to be sure he could be found if he got the wanderlust.

But of course, he's a dog. He's not just chipped, he's "snipped" (no baby "Busters") and really doesn't have a say in how things are done--with the possible exception of when to get up and take out the dog. And sometimes he decides what they watch on tv, but that's another matter, entirely.

Out of Iowa, where GOP 3rd District congressional candidates have taken note of the immigration issue in AZ (I bet), someone has now proposed: chipping illegal aliens.

Third District GOP congressional hopefuls called for more R&D on illegal immigration – as in round-up and deport.

Speaking at a Tama County Republican forum Monday, six candidates for the GOP nomination to face seven –term Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell opposed amnesty for illegal aliens and called for tougher enforcement of border security.

“I think we should catch ’em, we should document ’em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going,” said Pat Bertroche, an Urbandale physician. “I actually support micro-chipping them. I can micro-chip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I micro-chip an illegal?

“That’s not a popular thing to say, but it’s a lot cheaper than building a fence they can tunnel under,” Bertroche said.

Hmm. He can microchip his dog because it's a dog, and it's his. People are people and don't actually "belong" to other people. It's sort of a big deal distinction, you think?

But, and blame this on my sense of whimsy--what are we talking about? A "catch, tag, and release" program like parks sometimes use to track endangered species and whatnot? La Migra with hand-held scanners to determine if someone was already caught before? And of course--why would that ever result in lawsuits or any kind of uproar from human rights groups? Besides implanting things in people being something of a violation of their human rights....just saying.

It's when you use terms like "illegals" (not even "unlawful immigrant" or "illegal alien", which at least imply that a person is referenced, not a status) and dehumanize people and see them as existing only in relation to some status, that you have this kind of messed-up thinking. I don't see it as the kind of thinking you would want in a person who helps make the law of the land.

(And, again, sense of whimsy--has anyone ever done a back-of-the-envelope estimate on what a people-chipping program would run them? How does he know that's cheaper than a fence? Oy. Just....oy.)