Why building a fence on the border is a HORRIBLE idea!

[RevolutionSD]

While I agree with Dr. Paul on most issues, I strongly disagree on immigration, and feel he is way out of line with a libertarian solution here.

The border fence is a ridiculous and horrible idea. Here's why:

1. You could build the Great Wall of China on the border and people will still get in here as long as the gov't is offering them a basket of goodies if they can make it to the other side- i.e. schools, hospital care, welfare, etc.

2. There is nothing wrong with immigration. Borders are an illusion. "Illegal immigration" is simply people moving from one location to another. We should not, nor should we want to, use the guns of government to police the situation. It's not libertarian and it's not even humane, it's just turning the guns on others, exactly what we as libertarians are against.

3. If the government builds a gigantic wall, it will eventually be used to keep us from getting out, rather than to keep brown skin folks from getting in.

4. The Canada border is wide open. Should we build a 3,000-mile taxpayer-funded fence up there too?

5. Who's going to pay for all this? Count me out. Will you force me at gunpoint to "pay my taxes" to fund this project?

6. Eminent domain (communism). In order to build the fence, the government will have to steal land from residents. How is this even the slightest bit liberty-promoting? This is pure communism.

The simple solution is to end the welfare-warfare state. No fence will be needed and immigrants will have to make it on their own with no government help or taxpayer funding.

[Cinderella]

While I agree with Dr. Paul on most issues, I strongly disagree on immigration, and feel he is way out of line with a libertarian solution here.

The border fence is a ridiculous and horrible idea. Here's why:

1. You could build the Great Wall of China on the border and people will still get in here as long as the gov't is offering them a basket of goodies if they can make it to the other side- i.e. schools, hospital care, welfare, etc.

2. There is nothing wrong with immigration. Borders are an illusion. "Illegal immigration" is simply people moving from one location to another. We should not, nor should we want to, use the guns of government to police the situation. It's not libertarian and it's not even humane, it's just turning the guns on others, exactly what we as libertarians are against.

3. If the government builds a gigantic wall, it will eventually be used to keep us from getting out, rather than to keep brown skin folks from getting in.

4. The Canada border is wide open. Should we build a 3,000-mile taxpayer-funded fence up there too?

5. Who's going to pay for all this? Count me out. Will you force me at gunpoint to "pay my taxes" to fund this project?

6. Eminent domain (communism). In order to build the fence, the government will have to steal land from residents. How is this even the slightest bit liberty-promoting? This is pure communism.

The simple solution is to end the welfare-warfare state. No fence will be needed and immigrants will have to make it on their own with no government help or taxpayer funding.


yes i agree...my worst fear is them using it to keep us locked in.....

[kombayn]

That's what I've always been saying, do what they've done in Arizona. Take away all the benefits for illegal immigrants and they'll leave willingly. I don't agree with a border fence but I do agree that we should spend our national defense on our borders. Have our troops home, protecting the homeland.

[yongrel]

Thanks for posting this in grassroots central instead of "Dr. Paul On the Issues."

[freedom-maniac]

2. There is nothing wrong with immigration. Borders are an illusion. "Illegal immigration" is simply people moving from one location to another. We should not, nor should we want to, use the guns of government to police the situation. It's not libertarian and it's not even humane, it's just turning the guns on others, exactly what we as libertarians are against.


I agree with most of what you said except for this part. Why? Because, if someone came into your home, without notifying you, and without your approval, you have the right to evict them. They are tresspassing. So why is it any different when citizens from another country come here, without our knowing of who they might be, any different?

[freedom-maniac]

Thanks for posting this in grassroots central instead of "Dr. Paul On the Issues."

Yes, now we can have a serious discussion on this issue instead of it being a dead thread by the end of the day.

[yongrel]

Yes, now we can have a serious discussion on this issue instead of it being a dead thread by the end of the day.

And we can dilute the value of grassroots central by another drop.

[freedom-maniac]

That's what I've always been saying, do what they've done in Arizona. Take away all the benefits for illegal immigrants and they'll leave willingly. I don't agree with a border fence but I do agree that we should spend our national defense on our borders. Have our troops home, protecting the homeland.

I've suggested we should have a sort of New Deal type program for hiring unemployed citizens as new border agents, instead of building a useless fence.

Still, the problem with that are the words "New Deal".

[Jeremy]

What's a country without borders? Imagine if we had no borders, we'd be... omg, NAU!

[RevolutionSD]

I agree with most of what you said except for this part. Why? Because, if someone came into your home, without notifying you, and without your approval, you have the right to evict them. They are tresspassing. So why is it any different when citizens from another country come here, without our knowing of who they might be, any different?

How is this "your" home though? Did you purchase this land?
If we're going to get into who really owns this place, shouldn't it be the native americans (indians)?

Just because you were born here doesn't mean that you somehow have the right to keep others you don't like out. Just like we didn't choose our government, or our parents, we didn't choose where we were born.

[runningdiz]

border fences work now in the areas they exist cause people just walk around them ;)

Oh and my question why is it such an issue when most of our border in along Texas. All of the Texans on here brag about their wonderful guns and gun laws... SO why don't you use them?

[freedom-maniac]

How is this "your" home though? Did you purchase this land?
If we're going to get into who really owns this place, shouldn't it be the native americans (indians)?

Just because you were born here doesn't mean that you somehow have the right to keep others you don't like out. Just like we didn't choose our government, or our parents, we didn't choose where we were born.

Have you ever considered the fact that I might be (partly) Native American? Besides, I believe saying that someone is entitled to land just because their ancestors once lived on it is very monarchic, and collectivist. Its like the Israelis showing up after two thousand years demanding the Palenstinians to get up and leave.

I am not anti-immigrant (that's why I agree with your other statements). I think we should make immigration laws less strict, but just that they should be enforced. It's true we don't choose where we are born, but I wasn't born inside your house, and I can't just walk right in if I choose. I have to ask for permission. And as far as I'm concerned, we should be welcoming people into our nation...just as long as they come through the front door, not sneaking in the basement window...

[RevolutionSD]

What's a country without borders? Imagine if we had no borders, we'd be... omg, NAU!

Wrong. We would be a free country. NAU means more government, I'm talking about dismantling the federal government, or at minimum taxes and ridiculous welfare and warfare programs.

[nate895]

This is one of the issues why I don't call myself a libertarian.

[pahs1994]

While I agree with Dr. Paul on most issues, I strongly disagree on immigration, and feel he is way out of line with a libertarian solution here.

The border fence is a ridiculous and horrible idea. Here's why:

1. You could build the Great Wall of China on the border and people will still get in here as long as the gov't is offering them a basket of goodies if they can make it to the other side- i.e. schools, hospital care, welfare, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38
Ron Basically says the same thing. But he also realizes that border security and enforcing our immigration laws in some form is needed.

[RevolutionSD]

Have you ever considered the fact that I might be (partly) Native American? Besides, I believe saying that someone is entitled to land just because their ancestors once lived on it is very monarchic, and collectivist. Its like the Israelis showing up after two thousand years demanding the Palenstinians to get up and leave.

I wasn't suggesting we should have a government set up by the native americans. Your points are correct, that saying someone is entitled to land because their ancestors lived on it is collectivistic. Therefore, "protecting the borders" is also collectivistic (and non-libertarian).


I am not anti-immigrant (that's why I agree with your other statements). I think we should make immigration laws less strict, but just that they should be enforced. It's true we don't choose where we are born, but I wasn't born inside your house, and I can't just walk right in if I choose. I have to ask for permission. And as far as I'm concerned, we should be welcoming people into our nation...just as long as they come through the front door, not sneaking in the basement window...

Why not get rid of immigration laws as well as all the welfare? We don't need the laws if everyone that comes in has to make it on their own- or leave. My house is my personal property. I can defend that. The country is simply a land mass. It isn't "yours" or "mine" or even "ours". "We" don't own the country, we were simply born here. Make sense?

[RevolutionSD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38
Ron Basically says the same thing. But he also realizes that border security and enforcing our immigration laws in some form is needed.

He is- but he is also saying we need a fence. He's pandering here. I don't like it. My hope would be that if he actually won the presidency, he would drop this ridiculous notion of a fence, and focus on ending welfare (and warfare).

[freedom-maniac]

This is one of the issues why I don't call myself a libertarian.

Luckily for me, this is one of the issues where Dems and Libs overlap. (This is also why Mike Gravel mistakenly believes he is more libertarian than Dr. Paul).

I do believe our borders must be enforced, but I believe that we should make it much easier for immigrants to come here legally. (Anti-immigration was something actually started by the Federalists, knowing that the poor immigrants would vote for Jefferson's gang). I can't blame anyone for wanting to get out of a crappy country like Mexico. I still have some concerns with the Reconquesta people that believe they have a right to come here without any registration though.

If I was writing the citizenship test, above the question that asks "Do you speak English? REALLY, hablas ingles?" would be "If your native country was to get into a war with the United States, what side would you be on?".

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

This is one issue I am definetely not a libertarian on.

I'm not opposed to immigration at all, as long as it is legal, they want to become AMERICAN CITIZENS, and the immigrants do not put a strain on social services, force me to hear Spanish, or cost taxpayers millions to "educate" their children.

I'm not for a fence, I'm for internet-controlled machine guns set up 100 yards apart on the southern border.

[dannno]

I thought he was against a border fence?

Last I heard, he said he wasn't so concerned about a border fence at all, he just wanted to take away the incentives.

[RevolutionSD]

Luckily for me, this is one of the issues where Dems and Libs overlap. (This is also why Mike Gravel mistakenly believes he is more libertarian than Dr. Paul).

I do believe our borders must be enforced, but I believe that we should make it much easier for immigrants to come here legally. (Anti-immigration was something actually started by the Federalists, knowing that the poor immigrants would vote for Jefferson's gang). I can't blame anyone for wanting to get out of a crappy country like Mexico. I still have some concerns with the Reconquesta people that believe they have a right to come here without any registration though.

If I was writing the citizenship test, above the question that asks "Do you speak English? REALLY, hablas ingles?" would be "If your native country was to get into a war with the United States, what side would you be on?".

Eliminate the welfare & warfare states, and no "citizenship test" is needed.

[freedom-maniac]

I wasn't suggesting we should have a government set up by the native americans. Your points are correct, that saying someone is entitled to land because their ancestors lived on it is collectivistic. Therefore, "protecting the borders" is also collectivistic (and non-libertarian).

Libertarians believe that every one is entitled to life, liberty, and PROPERTY, and that they are free to defend them however they want. This land is America, and Americans have the right to defend and keep whoever they want out. If we decided to only let in people from Zimbabwe, and no other countries, we would still have a right to do so (not that I'm advocating that or anything).




Why not get rid of immigration laws as well as all the welfare? We don't need the laws if everyone that comes in has to make it on their own- or leave. My house is my personal property. I can defend that. The country is simply a land mass. It isn't "yours" or "mine" or even "ours". "We" don't own the country, we were simply born here. Make sense?

I do believe we should get rid of welfare and most immigration laws. We need a few just to keep a check on who's comming in, but we should make immigration as easy as possible (Even the immigrants from Europe had to come through Ellis Island). I agree with you on this point.

But my essential point is that these immigration laws we do have MUST be enforced. I support decreasing the amount of restrictions on immigration, but the ones we have MUST be enforced. Why? Because to not do so would be to abandon the principle of republican government, and condemn this nation to anarchy. Any nation that cannot defend and define it's borders is no nation at all.

On this point, let me ask you, have you ever known any shape to still be a shape without it's edges? Try drawling a square without any lines....you can't do it. Now take a cell from your body. Remove the membrane from around the cell, and it falls apart....Now why would anything be different with a nation?

[freedom-maniac]

Eliminate the welfare & warfare states, and no "citizenship test" is needed.

True, I grant you that point. But if we are to do this, it will make illegal immigration impossible. Why? Because immigration cannot occur if no political states exit for people to move about.

Abolishing the citizen ship test would allow anyone to be citizens, and therefore vote. And if all the illegals are coming here for the welfare, what makes you believe they will vote for someone who's going to end welfare?

[OptionsTrader]

I don't like it because it is another money pit of a government program like socialized health care and trillion dollar wars based on lies. The goal of the elite in control is to spend this nation into bankruptcy, all the while transferring weath from the poor to them, and the means by which this is accomplished is irrelevant to them. If it costs heaps of money you had better convince me it is constitutional and also that the result cannot be acheived in a cheaper manner, like Paul's philosophy of ending the incentives for illegal immigration.

This whole "iimigration debate" is a sideshow distraction to get joe six pack's mind off the real causes of the weak economy.

[RevolutionSD]

True, I grant you that point. But if we are to do this, it will make illegal immigration impossible. Why? Because immigration cannot occur if no political states exit for people to move about.

Abolishing the citizen ship test would allow anyone to be citizens, and therefore vote. And if all the illegals are coming here for the welfare, what makes you believe they will vote for someone who's going to end welfare?

Which is exactly why it is very difficult to vote our way to freedom. That leads to the question, why are we relying on politicians to change things for us? At some point we just need to bite the bullet and withhold our taxes.

Think about it. What do we truly need the federal government for? Centralized planning goes against the concept of freedom. Even if you reject anarchism, you still probably agree that we need to shrink gov't down to a fraction of what it is. Welfare needs to go away just like lobbying does. We can't just expect that elections are going to take care of this.

Even if we did believe in elections as reform solutions, how do we get the average american, let alone the immigrant population, to buy into ending the welfare state?

The point is we need to focus on eliminating government, not how people are going to vote in the future.

[RevolutionSD]

delete

[RevolutionSD]

I don't like it because it is another money pit of a government program like socialized health care and trillion dollar wars based on lies. The goal of the elite in control is to spend this nation into bankruptcy, all the while transferring weath from the poor to them, and the means by which this is accomplished is irrelevant to them. If it costs heaps of money you had better convince me it is constitutional and also that the result cannot be acheived in a cheaper manner, like Paul's philosophy of ending the incentives for illegal immigration.

This whole "iimigration debate" is a sideshow distraction to get joe six pack's mind off the real causes of the weak economy.

True, which is why I think Paul is unfortunately pandering on this issue.

[VaderM5]

If your for open boarders you might as well be for the NWO. :rolleyes: It all becomes this "one nation, one world" business one way or another.

[crazyfingers]

The idea of a physical fence is just not practical, but the government should be able to secure the border relatively well with some sort of virtual barrier. I don't even want to think about what kind of surveillance technology they have, but I'm sure it'd be sufficient.

I agree with Ron Paul that the key is ending the welfare state. However the legal immigration process also needs to be streamlined. Maybe they should outsourced it to a private company; obviously the government isn't up to the job. Of course we'd probably end up with Haliburton getting the "no-bid" contract.

[RevolutionSD]

If your for open boarders you might as well be for the NWO. :rolleyes: It all becomes this "one nation, one world" business one way or another.

It's the opposite of being for the NWO.

NWO is centralized government planning on a large scale.

A border fence is centralized government planning within the U.S.

Building a fence makes us less free and does not come close to addressing the root issue, which is the welfare/warfare state.

[freedom-maniac]

Which is exactly why it is very difficult to vote our way to freedom. That leads to the question, why are we relying on politicians to change things for us? At some point we just need to bite the bullet and withhold our taxes.

And end up like Wesley Snipes? Doing so, even though it is noble indeed, would be counter productive, as we would be in jail causing even more tax dollars to be spent to feed us. Besides, no politician has run a fair campaign in prison since Eugene V. Debs. Though I do believe we should make "tax-deductible" donations as often as possible


Think about it. What do we truly need the federal government for? Centralized planning goes against the concept of freedom. Even if you reject anarchism, you still probably agree that we need to shrink gov't down to a fraction of what it is. Welfare needs to go away just like lobbying does. We can't just expect that elections are going to take care of this.

We do need to shrink government, that is agreeded. It's main purpose should be to deal with the problems addressed in the Federalist Papers...However, I do believe dealing with immigration is something that the federal government should handle.


Even if we did believe in elections as reform solutions, how do we get the average american, let alone the immigrant population, to buy into ending the welfare state?

The point is we need to focus on eliminating government, not how people are going to vote in the future.

We must work on educating, enlightening, people, about Dr. Paul and his message if we want them to vote against the welfare state. If we returned the budget to what it was in 1997, we could abolish the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still balance the budget. (RP said this in a radio ad I heard once). The thing about that, is that was in '97, when Clinton was in office, so many of the welfare programs were still intact. But how did Clinton cut spending? He cut down on military spending, and "reformed" welfare. RP said we could still have money for taking care of people at home if we should just cut back on our imperialism. So, we should cut back on the Warfare state, and then the welfare state.

Besides, we're getting a little of the topic of immigration.

[RevolutionSD]

The idea of a physical fence is just not practical, but the government should be able to secure the border relatively well with some sort of virtual barrier. I don't even want to think about what kind of surveillance technology they have, but I'm sure it'd be sufficient.

I agree with Ron Paul that the key is ending the welfare state. However the legal immigration process also needs to be streamlined. Maybe they should outsourced it to a private company; obviously the government isn't up to the job. Of course we'd probably end up with Haliburton getting the "no-bid" contract.

Yes, monopolization doesn't work either. Why does the government know best? We can't keep letting them have this kind of power over us. Freedom does not come from letting taxpayer-funded bureaucrats build border fences. Beyond that, it goes back to one of my points: do you want to force me to pay for this fence through income taxes?

What do government officials posses in terms of intellect that the rest of us don't?

[freedom-maniac]

True, which is why I think Paul is unfortunately pandering on this issue.

Most of his campaign-mailers paint him as being somewhere to the right of Tancredo on the immigration issue. I think to myself, "My God! Dr. Paul is nothing like Tancredo...Dr. Paul actually has a soul."

[dannno]

So where's this statement by Ron Paul that he wants to build a fence?

[garrettwombat]

ok this thread is stupid as hell... ron paul DOESNT want a fence and has made fun of it many times..... what the hell are you guys even talking about?

[ClayTrainor]

ok this thread is stupid as hell... ron paul DOESNT want a fence and has made fun of it many times..... what the hell are you guys even talking about?

he's made fun of it? got a citation for that man?

[majinkoola]

I imagine the OP is not from a southwestern state. This is yet another example where state's rights should be invoked. A person from the East Coast has little idea about the real effects of immigration.

What's really upsetting is that people on here assume that everyone, citizen or non-citizen, have the same rights in America. That's just not true. The liberties in the Constitution are guaranteed to the citizens of this country, not everyone in the world. And it is certainly not a violation of the Constitution to restrict immigration per the country's demands.

The current immigration situation is handicapping states like California and AZ in that their only option is to attack employers who hire illegal immigrants, and regulations like that certainly don't help the economy.

[garrettwombat]

he's made fun of it? got a citation for that man?

did you guys not watch any of the debates? any of his videos on youtube?

ron paul is for no amnesty, no birthright citizenship, no benefits, no nothing...
where are you guys getting this fence idea from?

[crazyfingers]

He is pretty clear in this interview with John Stossel (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ron_paul_on_immigration.html).


You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

[dannno]

He is pretty clear in this interview with John Stossel (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ron_paul_on_immigration.html).

"You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive."

Ugh.. I've been trying to stop this freight train since page 2.

Thank you.



I thought he was against a border fence?

Last I heard, he said he wasn't so concerned about a border fence at all, he just wanted to take away the incentives.

[RevolutionSD]

did you guys not watch any of the debates? any of his videos on youtube?

ron paul is for no amnesty, no birthright citizenship, no benefits, no nothing...
where are you guys getting this fence idea from?

Just go to www.ronpaul2008.com and click on "Issues" at the top, bring up his immigration page and you will see. Saddening his stance, but that's politics for you.

When the RP revolution is over, we need to consider non-political as well as political solutions to obtaining liberty and freedom.

[scandinaviany3]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6081501

[crazyfingers]

Just go to www.ronpaul2008.com and click on "Issues" at the top, bring up his immigration page and you will see. Saddening his stance, but that's politics for you.

When the RP revolution is over, we need to consider non-political as well as political solutions to obtaining liberty and freedom.


Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

That's not necessarily an endorsement of the proposed legislation. But yes, he does want to secure the borders because the welfare state can no longer sustain the unfettered mass flow of humanity.

[OptionsTrader]

I find it rather offensive

They should have spelled it offencive for some humor.

[Kalifornia]

I agree that a fence is a stupid idea, unless you also dig a moat, fill it with burning shite, and install .50s every 100 yards with motion sensors. It is much more effective to put people in prison who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

As for everything else you said. I disagree. Borders are important because national identity is important. Your borderless world is one in which the U.S. ceases to exist. The goal is to restore the Constitution, not destroy the whole country. Defending our sovereignty and borders is definitely one of the things that the Constitution was designed to empower the federal government to do.

[Akus]

While I agree with Dr. Paul on most issues, I strongly disagree on immigration, and feel he is way out of line with a libertarian solution here.

The border fence is a ridiculous and horrible idea. Here's why:

1. You could build the Great Wall of China on the border and people will still get in here as long as the gov't is offering them a basket of goodies if they can make it to the other side- i.e. schools, hospital care, welfare, etc.

2. There is nothing wrong with immigration. Borders are an illusion. "Illegal immigration" is simply people moving from one location to another. We should not, nor should we want to, use the guns of government to police the situation. It's not libertarian and it's not even humane, it's just turning the guns on others, exactly what we as libertarians are against.

3. If the government builds a gigantic wall, it will eventually be used to keep us from getting out, rather than to keep brown skin folks from getting in.

4. The Canada border is wide open. Should we build a 3,000-mile taxpayer-funded fence up there too?

5. Who's going to pay for all this? Count me out. Will you force me at gunpoint to "pay my taxes" to fund this project?

6. Eminent domain (communism). In order to build the fence, the government will have to steal land from residents. How is this even the slightest bit liberty-promoting? This is pure communism.

The simple solution is to end the welfare-warfare state. No fence will be needed and immigrants will have to make it on their own with no government help or taxpayer funding.
I wish you were at my local Republican club. THere was a guy there talking about illegal immigration problem and all I heard both from the crowd and the speaker was "the wall", "troops on the border" and similar non sense.

[josephadel_3]

Umm, Ron Paul would immediately end the welfare-warfare state. He voted for the fence reluctantly as a way of saying you know, this isn't right.

[Lord Xar]

I wish you were at my local Republican club. THere was a guy there talking about illegal immigration problem and all I heard both from the crowd and the speaker was "the wall", "troops on the border" and similar non sense.

It wasn't nonsense. That is what we need. 20+million illegals and you want to cherry pick your strategies and live in this "open borders" scenario. It just isn't viable in our culture and corporatism. It just isn't.

We will NEVER cut off the handouts. If anything, this country is moving towards MORE handouts.. so given the current trends...

Do what many of you are suggesting: open borders, no fence AND MORE HANDOUTS

or

build the border fence, secure it, man it AND MORE HANDOUTS.

I think the latter is the clearer choice.

Sorry to say. We can wax poetic all year long on "not allow benefits, no birthright citizenship..." etc.. but the idea of a fence isn't the best solution, but it certainly helps.

Stop living in a dream world.


ALSO, I find it very suspect that somebody posts on illegal immigration and disparages Ron's stance on a fence. Stupid. Dude sounds like another open border lobbyist trying to persuade NAU positions. He/she knows the handouts will not stop, so they get others on board with their open border philosophy saying "IN A PERFECT WORLD THIS WILL WORK"... but the problem is, it isn't. So most are supporting a dreamstate, regurgitating that dreamstate and thus just reiterating the NAU philosophy...

[driller80545]

You can build fences thirty feet tall, but it won't stop in inflow as long as the welfare is on the other side. It might make it more expensive and dangerous, but just like drugs, it won't slow them down for very long.

[Akus]

It wasn't nonsense. That is what we need. 20+million illegals and you want to cherry pick your strategies and live in this "open borders" scenario. It just isn't viable in our culture and corporatism. It just isn't.

We will NEVER cut off the handouts. If anything, this country is moving towards MORE handouts.. so given the current trends...

Do what many of you are suggesting: open borders, no fence AND MORE HANDOUTS

or

build the border fence, secure it, man it AND MORE HANDOUTS.

I think the latter is the clearer choice.

Sorry to say. We can wax poetic all year long on "not allow benefits, no birthright citizenship..." etc.. but the idea of a fence isn't the best solution, but it certainly helps.

Stop living in a dream world.


ALSO, I find it very suspect that somebody posts on illegal immigration and disparages Ron's stance on a fence. Stupid. Dude sounds like another open border lobbyist trying to persuade NAU positions. He/she knows the handouts will not stop, so they get others on board with their open border philosophy saying "IN A PERFECT WORLD THIS WILL WORK"... but the problem is, it isn't. So most are supporting a dreamstate, regurgitating that dreamstate and thus just reiterating the NAU philosophy...Lord Xar, if you believe that merely making a law that says you can't cross an imaginary line in the dirt and building an obstacle so people won't be able to cross the afore mentioned dirt, you shouldn't accuse ME of living in a dream world.

And if your last paragraph was also referring to me as some "open border lobbyist", then you did what most people out there do to Ron Paul. They try to marginalize him. This is right along the lines of "Are you saying we should follow Al Quaeda marching orders?" type question.

No, I am not for NAU, because the Constitution of the United States will become meaningless and thus, so will our rights be. I am just saying that if a person crosses Nicaragua, Guatemala and Mexico so he could be in the US, he is not going to turn around merely because there is a Great Wall of China like structure on the border.

Illegal immigration is not a problem, it is a symptom of a problem. If merely erecting a wall would be a magic end-all cure-all panacea, there would be no illegal Cubans separated by 100 miles of natural barrier, as there would be no illegal Chinese, Vietnamese and other South East Asians, who are separated by at least thousand miles from the US.

They run cause we got something they want. Get rid of the honey, and the flies will go elsewhere.

[Deborah K]

You can build fences thirty feet tall, but it won't stop in inflow as long as the welfare is on the other side. It might make it more expensive and dangerous, but just like drugs, it won't slow them down for very long.

Wrong! We've had a 14 mile fence in San Diego for about 15 years and it's cut the crossings down by 95%.

I don't like walls, or fences either, but as a Minuteman who patrols the border one weekend a month, I can tell you first hand we have a serious problem. Illegal workers are sending their money back to Mexico to the tune of 32 billion dollars a year. They use our social services, and in California alone over 70 hospitals have been closed due to illegals not paying for medical services. They have flooded our schools and prison system. They compete for work in trucking, construction, landscaping, food service, factory work and manufacturing jobs to name a few. It's hunky dory for the greedy business owners who employ them but it's shrinking the middle class in this country who can't compete for dirt cheap almost slave wages that the illegals will accept because they are willing to pull their resources and live several families to one dwelling.

Then there's the drug cartels and the middle eastern illegals who learn spanish and change their names to mexican names and sneak across. Terrorist cells? hmm........

It's a problem folks, like it or not. And besides, every single country has immigration policies, including Mexico, whose policies btw, happen to be much more stringent than our own.

Until we put a government in place that is willing to enforce existing immigration laws, and beef up our border patrol, we don't have any other option but to supplement border security efforts by fencing off the high traffic areas. It does work. Like it or not.

Bottom line: Illegal immigration is significantly contributing to the destruction of our economy. It is also contributing to the drug addiction problems in our country, and lastly our swiss cheese southern border is an invitation to more acts of terrorism.

[SeanEdwards]

With a fence or without, the American nation has a right to control immigration into this country. The people living in an area have rights too, the desires of foreigners to enter this country do not trump all other considerations.

Start shooting illegal immigrants and their employers. That would probably discourage the practice, and then a wall wouldn't be needed.

[RevolutionSD]

Wrong! We've had a 14 mile fence in San Diego for about 15 years and it's cut the crossings down by 95%.

And this has solved the problem exactly how? Seems to me we this problem is still alive and well, with this wall you mention in place.


I don't like walls, or fences either, but as a Minuteman who patrols the border one weekend a month, I can tell you first hand we have a serious problem. Illegal workers are sending their money back to Mexico to the tune of 32 billion dollars a year. They use our social services, and in California alone over 70 hospitals have been closed due to illegals not paying for medical services. They have flooded our schools and prison system.

Which is why the only solution that will work is to end the welfare state.


They compete for work in trucking, construction, landscaping, food service, factory work and manufacturing jobs to name a few. It's hunky dory for the greedy business owners who employ them but it's shrinking the middle class in this country who can't compete for dirt cheap almost slave wages that the illegals will accept because they are willing to pull their resources and live several families to one dwelling.

Competition is good. Taxpayers paying for them is bad. Huge difference. And why are you calling these business owners "greedy"? Do you have proof of this greed? Seems to me they are doing what they have to to survive. Why should the state be able to tell them how to run their business?


Then there's the drug cartels

Which is yet another problem caused by the government in the form of the war on drugs, another federal program that needs to end


and the middle eastern illegals who learn spanish and change their names to mexican names and sneak across. Terrorist cells? hmm........

Where is this terrorism you speak of? I see it no where around me. The War on Terror is just another myth brought to you by the government. The only solution to this is to end the government's interventionist policy, not build walls around the country.


It's a problem folks, like it or not. And besides, every single country has immigration policies, including Mexico, whose policies btw, happen to be much more stringent than our own.

Yes it is a problem. Your solution is another story. Every single country has a lot of bad policies- like high taxes, a central bank, interventionism, etc.- why should we want to copy these countries? And why in the WORLD would we want to follow in Mexico's footsteps....in ANYTHING?


Until we put a government in place that is willing to enforce existing immigration laws, and beef up our border patrol, we don't have any other option but to supplement border security efforts by fencing off the high traffic areas. It does work. Like it or not.

I don't like it because using the government as a political football to build fences and shoot brown people is a horrible policy that will not only fail miserably, but lead to less freedom and liberty for all Americans.


Bottom line: Illegal immigration is significantly contributing to the destruction of our economy.

It's the government policy that's the problem- get rid of the carrot (welfare), and you've solved the problem.


It is also contributing to the drug addiction problems in our country, and lastly our swiss cheese southern border is an invitation to more acts of terrorism.

The drug problems of our country are CAUSED by the government's war on drugs, not Mexicans. And again, it's not our southern border that invites acts of terror, it's having troops stationed in 130+ countries around the world, pissing everyone off and igniting extremism and blowback. You can "beef up" the border all you want, but if you do nothing about the out of control government policies, things will only get worse not better.

[RevolutionSD]

With a fence or without, the American nation has a right to control immigration into this country. The people living in an area have rights too, the desires of foreigners to enter this country do not trump all other considerations.

Start shooting illegal immigrants and their employers. That would probably discourage the practice, and then a wall wouldn't be needed.

sean, why are you advocating government violence? this is exactly the thing we are trying to avoid.

[RevolutionSD]

It wasn't nonsense. That is what we need. 20+million illegals and you want to cherry pick your strategies and live in this "open borders" scenario. It just isn't viable in our culture and corporatism. It just isn't.

We will NEVER cut off the handouts. If anything, this country is moving towards MORE handouts.. so given the current trends...

Do what many of you are suggesting: open borders, no fence AND MORE HANDOUTS

or

build the border fence, secure it, man it AND MORE HANDOUTS.

I think the latter is the clearer choice.

Sorry to say. We can wax poetic all year long on "not allow benefits, no birthright citizenship..." etc.. but the idea of a fence isn't the best solution, but it certainly helps.

Stop living in a dream world.


ALSO, I find it very suspect that somebody posts on illegal immigration and disparages Ron's stance on a fence. Stupid. Dude sounds like another open border lobbyist trying to persuade NAU positions. He/she knows the handouts will not stop, so they get others on board with their open border philosophy saying "IN A PERFECT WORLD THIS WILL WORK"... but the problem is, it isn't. So most are supporting a dreamstate, regurgitating that dreamstate and thus just reiterating the NAU philosophy...

I'm advocating going for the root cause of the problem, you want to tackle symptoms.

You want to spend billions of dollars on a fence that won't work, I'm saying just end the reason they want to get in in the first place. Who's living in dream land?

How about responding to my 6 points instead of just spewing nonsense like equating me with advocating the NAU?

[qh4dotcom]

That's what I've always been saying, do what they've done in Arizona. Take away all the benefits for illegal immigrants and they'll leave willingly.

Ha Ha Ha...they will leave willingly...it all depends on how smart they are

An unemployed illegal immigrant has the same options as an unemployed American...what does an unemployed American do? Steal, beg for money on the street, start a business, etc.

and if they don't have a job or benefits...how can they afford to buy the plane ticket to go back to their country? Will they have a home to return to?

BJ Lawson said on his blog


***************************
Maybe your standard of living isn’t affected yet — great, that’s fantastic for you. But get your concealed carry permit, and prepare to absorb the cost of increased police protection when increasingly desperate members of society turn to crime to satisfy basic needs.
***************************

I prefer that illegal immigrants keep their job than to have more criminals on the street.

[SeanEdwards]

sean, why are you advocating government violence? this is exactly the thing we are trying to avoid.

I'm no pacifist. Violence and inspiring fear are time-tested methods for changing behavior.

[nbhadja]

No welfare, no illegal immigrants.

[RevolutionSD]

I'm no pacifist. Violence and inspiring fear are time-tested methods for changing behavior.

Then you're a statist, not a libertarian, don't believe in freewill, and want to use the guns of government to advance your desires. Why are you even a Ron Paul supporter? Those guns could just as quickly be pointed at you even if you get your way.

[SeanEdwards]

Then you're a statist, not a libertarian, don't believe in freewill, and want to use the guns of government to advance your desires. Why are you even a Ron Paul supporter? Those guns could just as quickly be pointed at you even if you get your way.

Nonsense. There is nothing in the philosophy of liberty that says I must submit to being robbed. Imposing penalties against law breakers is not statist. It is justice.

[RevolutionSD]

Nonsense. There is nothing in the philosophy of liberty that says I must submit to being robbed. Imposing penalties against law breakers is not statist. It is justice.

What do you mean "submit to being robbed"? You have the right to protect yourself. You might as well be a neocon and use violence to build a demcracy!

You want to start shooting mexicans at the border and killing businessmen so really, there's no need to continue this discussion since it's ridiculous.

[SeanEdwards]

What do you mean "submit to being robbed"?



Illegal immigrants rob from all tax payers. They also distort labor markets, lowering wages and living standards for legal immigrants and residents. They don't have a right to break the law and enter the country illegally. It's just that simple.



You have the right to protect yourself. You might as well be a neocon and use violence to build a demcracy!

You want to start shooting mexicans at the border and killing businessmen so really, there's no need to continue this discussion since it's ridiculous.

I don't care if they're mexican or martian. Follow the immigration rules, or gtfo. That's all there is to it.

[majinkoola]

Then you're a statist, not a libertarian, don't believe in freewill, and want to use the guns of government to advance your desires. Why are you even a Ron Paul supporter? Those guns could just as quickly be pointed at you even if you get your way.

Are you for a strong national defense? Because with how you're talking, it seems like you are not. If you are opposed to the gov't having guns for the purpose of controlling immigration, I imagine you are against the gov't having guns for the purpose of national defense, which are necessary for a "strong national defense." So then why are you even a Ron Paul supporter?

That's a stupid question, just like it was a stupid question for you to ask. Calling someone a neo-con because they aren't for open borders will not help sustain the big tent that has developed.

[Deborah K]

And this has solved the problem exactly how? Seems to me we this problem is still alive and well, with this wall you mention in place.

Did you not read what I wrote??? It has cut down the illegal passage in that area by 95% Do you understand the difference between a fence and a wall?


Which is why the only solution that will work is to end the welfare state.

This does not address the competition posed to the American worker by the illegal alien, they don't just come over here to sponge off of our social services. They compete for our jobs and are squeezing out the middle class.



Competition is good. Taxpayers paying for them is bad. Huge difference. And why are you calling these business owners "greedy"? Do you have proof of this greed? Seems to me they are doing what they have to to survive. Why should the state be able to tell them how to run their business?


It's a simple deduction, cheap labor begets a bigger profit margin. Where's your proof that they're hiring illegals just to survive? The state has the right to force them to abide by the law. The law states you can't hire illegal aliens. Competition is NOT good when it involves people who break our laws. Either we're governed by the rule of law or we're not!



Which is yet another problem caused by the government in the form of the war on drugs, another federal program that needs to end.

One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Even if you ended the so-callled war on drugs, as long as the borders are porous, drug trafficking will occur.


Where is this terrorism you speak of? I see it no where around me. The War on Terror is just another myth brought to you by the government. The only solution to this is to end the government's interventionist policy, not build walls around the country.

Are you a truther? Even Ron Paul acknowledges that our foreign policy is what got us attacked. Again, read what I wrote, I never said anything about building a wall around the country. Gawd! How melodramatic can you get?



Yes it is a problem. Your solution is another story. Every single country has a lot of bad policies- like high taxes, a central bank, interventionism, etc.- why should we want to copy these countries? And why in the WORLD would we want to follow in Mexico's footsteps....in ANYTHING?

Huh??? Having immigration laws is bad policy? How did you leap from immigration policies to a central bank, etc. LOL!



I don't like it because using the government as a political football to build fences and shoot brown people is a horrible policy that will not only fail miserably, but lead to less freedom and liberty for all Americans.

Who said anything about shooting brown people? You're trying to turn this into a race issue now. Making a fallacious, disingenuous statement like that implies that if Canadians, who are predominantly white were flooding our prisons, hospitals, and schools and competing with us for jobs, etc. that somehow we'd be okay with it because they're white. What bunk!


It's the government policy that's the problem- get rid of the carrot (welfare), and you've solved the problem.

Already addressed. This is only a partial solution.



The drug problems of our country are CAUSED by the government's war on drugs, not Mexicans. And again, it's not our southern border that invites acts of terror, it's having troops stationed in 130+ countries around the world, pissing everyone off and igniting extremism and blowback. You can "beef up" the border all you want, but if you do nothing about the out of control government policies, things will only get worse not better.

Show me where I said our southern border "invites acts of terror". Show me where I said Mexicans cause the drug problems. You are misrepresenting my argument and that just pisses me off to no end. I said the drug smuggling is contributing to the drug addiction in this country. BIG difference. You are trying to make this a race issue because your argument doesn't have a leg stand on.

[RevolutionSD]

Are you for a strong national defense? Because with how you're talking, it seems like you are not. If you are opposed to the gov't having guns for the purpose of controlling immigration, I imagine you are against the gov't having guns for the purpose of national defense, which are necessary for a "strong national defense." So then why are you even a Ron Paul supporter?

That's a stupid question, just like it was a stupid question for you to ask. Calling someone a neo-con because they aren't for open borders will not help sustain the big tent that has developed.

Let me ask you, who would attack us if we stopped bothering other countries?

You have to get to the root.

If we arm all our borders and yet still have troops in 130+ countries, we are at serious risk.

If we pull troops out from all those countries and embrace a non-interventionist policy, we do not give a reason for others to want to attack us.

Please respond to my 6 points on the OP instead of calling things "stupid".

[RevolutionSD]

Did you not read what I wrote??? It has cut down the illegal passage in that area by 95% Do you understand the difference between a fence and a wall?

The fence has not solved the problem, and is not necessary if we'd face up to the root of the problem- the welfare/warfare state. We could build all the fences in the world and if we continue to provide welfare to all and occupy 130+ countries, it won't do a damn thing to make us safer or better off.

.


This does not address the competition posed to the American worker by the illegal alien, they don't just come over here to sponge off of our social services. They compete for our jobs and are squeezing out the middle class.

Again, competition is good. Did a so-called illegal take your job? Well you better improve yourself and find another one. We can't just go kicking people out of the country because of where they are from. If we get rid of the welfare, brown people pose no innate threat to us. It would be the same if you said we shouldn't let Irish or German people into the country because they might take jobs from "us"!






It's a simple deduction, cheap labor begets a bigger profit margin. Where's your proof that they're hiring illegals just to survive? The state has the right to force them to abide by the law. The law states you can't hire illegal aliens. Competition is NOT good when it involves people who break our laws. Either we're governed by the rule of law or we're not!

You made the claim of "greedy" business people. I just asked for proof of that. It's simple economics. If I can hire someone at $5/hour that can do the same work as another that's going to cost me $15/hour, I'm hiring the $5/hour one. People are driven by profit, you can't fight that. The law twists and turns with the whims of politicians. The law also says that you must pay income taxes. Does that make it right? The law says I can't smoke marijuana. Should I be thrown in jail for something I do to my own body?




One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Even if you ended the so-callled war on drugs, as long as the borders are porous, drug trafficking will occur.

Think about it. The war on drugs is a total failure. Drug dealers themselves are FOR the war on drugs because it keeps their profits up! Since the inception of the W.O.D. in 1971 drug use has skyrocketing and billions have been wasted. Legalize drugs, and you don't have drug wars at the border. There would be no such thing as "drug trafficking" because there would be no reason to do it this way. The war on drugs has everything to do with the fighting we see at the border, the issues go hand in hand.




Are you a truther? Even Ron Paul acknowledges that our foreign policy is what got us attacked. Again, read what I wrote, I never said anything about building a wall around the country. Gawd! How melodramatic can you get?

Now you're just attacking me with speculation. I said our interventionist foreign policy is the cause of the american hatred around the world. End that and you don't have to worry about so-called terrorist trying to attack us. So you're not for building a wall along the Canadian border? If not, why not? It's wide open. Terrorists can just as easily (or more easily) sneak in through canada, why should we stop at the protecting the southern border??





Huh??? Having immigration laws is bad policy? How did you leap from immigration policies to a central bank, etc. LOL!

Immigration laws are only necessary if you have a welfare/warfare state. If you offer the goodies, poor people from the south WILL find a way to get in. If you continue to attack sovereign nations and station troops around the world, you will continue to stir up hatred.





Who said anything about shooting brown people?
Another poster said we should shoot illegals.


You're trying to turn this into a race issue now.

No, I'm not. It is partly a race issue. Many Americans are afraid of brown people. I for one can care less what your skin color is, if you are a productive citizen contributing to the economy and not sucking off the state, come on in.


Making a fallacious, disingenuous statement like that implies that if Canadians, who are predominantly white were flooding our prisons, hospitals, and schools and competing with us for jobs, etc. that somehow we'd be okay with it because they're white. What bunk!

I didn't say anything like this. Might as well stick to the argument instead creating straw men. My entire point is that we need to cut the welfare. If we do not do this, the problem will never be solved.



Show me where I said our southern border "invites acts of terror"

You mentioned terrorism and middle easterners sneaking in posing as mexicans.


Show me where I said Mexicans cause the drug problems.

Didn't know I said this. Sorry if I misinterpreted here.


You are misrepresenting my argument and that just pisses me off to no end. I said the drug smuggling is contributing to the drug addiction in this country. BIG difference. You are trying to make this a race issue because your argument doesn't have a leg stand on.

The "drug smuggling" would be a non-issue if we got to the root of that problem which is the war on drugs. I'm not "trying" to make it a race issue. Please review my original post, which was composed of 6 points, none of them having anything to do with race. Having said that, it is impossible to discuss this issue without discussing race, so whether I bring it in or not, it is an issue.

But the core of my argument stands. If you don't get to the root (government), you will never solve the problem.

[SeanEdwards]

All this crap you are posting is irrelevant. They have no right to break our immigration laws, no matter how much they want to come here and work/sponge/beg/whatever. Their need to enter this country is irrelevant. All this crap about terror and drugs and foreign policy is irrelevant. We've got laws on the books, and those laws should be enforced. If you disagree with the immigration laws, then get the laws repealed.

I've lived and worked abroad. I did it legally. I didn't sneak into a country and work in an illegal underground economy. Why is it impossible for those people coming to America to do the same?

And no, we don't need to modify our welfare programs in order to stop this crap. We don't need to change a damn thing about how we live in order to avoid tempting foreigners. They can either abide by our laws, or they can suffer the consequences. And we sure as hell can stop people from crossing a border if we put our mind to it. Preventing people from crossing a secured perimeter is a no-brainer. Put up some fences and guard posts and patrol that bitch.

[Knightskye]

Moderator, please move this to "Dr. Paul on the Issues".

Well, Ron Paul said the fence wasn't why he voted for the bill. He said it was to enforce the law. Why bash him without the facts?

[DriftWood]

<half joking>

In a way illegal aliens are living the libertarian dream. They are living without a government. No taxes, and no benifits. We should all become illegal aliens! To resolve disputes they probably have some grassroots free black market type solution, as they cant go to the police or a judge. To bad the govt does not let them alone, and keeps throwing them in jail. I wouldnt mind being a "2nd class citizen" who could not vote or get any benifits, if that meant i did not have to pay taxes. Where do i go to cansel this membership of citizenship, and what form do i have to fill in?

</half joking>

Cheers

[SeanEdwards]

<half joking>

In a way illegal aliens are living the libertarian dream. They are living without a government. No taxes, and no benifits. We should all become illegal aliens! To resolve disputes they probably have some grassroots free black market type solution, as they cant go to the police or a judge. To bad the govt does not let them alone, and keeps throwing them in jail. I wouldnt mind being a "2nd class citizen" who could not vote or get any benifits, if that meant i did not have to pay taxes. Where do i go to cansel this membership of citizenship, and what form do i have to fill in?

</half joking>

Cheers

Grab an AK-47 and relocate to Somalia. Land of the free.

[majinkoola]

Let me ask you, who would attack us if we stopped bothering other countries?

You have to get to the root.

If we arm all our borders and yet still have troops in 130+ countries, we are at serious risk.

If we pull troops out from all those countries and embrace a non-interventionist policy, we do not give a reason for others to want to attack us.

Please respond to my 6 points on the OP instead of calling things "stupid".

Way to avoid the question. Don't attack RP supporters and call them neo-cons because they aren't an anarchist like yourself. You asked why someone was a Ron Paul supporter because they differed slightly from him on an issue. But yet asking you why you are a Ron Paul supporter when you don't support one of his major planks is wrong?

And the way your statement is set up is misleading. You're trying to say I support the interventionism, when I don't. Immigration and non-interventionism are two entirely separate things. So don't make that accusation.

To respond to the notion that other countries wouldn't attack us if we had no national defense, that's being very naive. We've already pissed off a bunch of the world with our interventionism and no matter what policies we take, there's a lot of people that will still seek revenge.

In response to your six points,

1) I agree, but I'm opposed to the magnets, so that doesn't really apply.

2) You are assuming that we are libertarians. What party is RP running in? I forget...the GOP! "There is nothing wrong with immigration. Borders are an illusion." - That's a very debatable item. I like living in America, not Mexico, Canada, France, or Somalia. I like speaking English. So do most Americans. So I do not want my home state to become a de facto part of another country. People like to pull the racist card here, but that's bull. If it were a "white" country invading ours, I'd think the same thing. You wouldn't let just anyone come into your house.

3) That's possible. Way to assert that racist barb, BTW. Classy. Because all people who aren't for open borders must be racist. Even though I'm probably friends with more illegal immigrants than you've met. I'm not an anarchist like yourself, so I see there being some role of gov't. You probably use the same argument for why there shouldn't be a standing navy, even though the Constitution permits that.

4) It's a bit different situation. Canada's border is huge, as you said. Plus Canada's a lot nicer country than Mexico. So with a lot less illegal immigration and them being a lot more spread out, there's not a noticeable problem. If illegal immigrants from Mexico were spread out and didn't greatly affect a few states as they currently do, as was the case decades ago, it wouldn't be a problem.

5) I think this is one of those things where voluntary contributions could work. I know a whole bunch of people who are fed up about it and would make contributions. Aside from that, again, I believe in a gov't existing, unlike yourself. So I'm not opposed to excise taxes and customs taxes paying for it.

6) Do you have proof of this? I assumed that the land around the border was "federal land." If not I don't think eminent domain would have to be used anyway. There'd be few people owning land on the border against the fence, because the few who didn't want to sell that small strip of land on the border would see a lot of traffic from illegal immigrants. In those small areas there could be something else set up, but I doubt it would be much of a problem.

[Deborah K]

The fence has not solved the problem, and is not necessary if we'd face up to the root of the problem- the welfare/warfare state. We could build all the fences in the world and if we continue to provide welfare to all and occupy 130+ countries, it won't do a damn thing to make us safer or better off.

Dissolving welfare is a partial solution not the only solution for reasons already mentioned. Ideally, putting up fences in high traffic areas will force the illegals to go into well patrolled areas if they want to risk it. As I said before, I don't like fences but they work. Sorry if you don't like that fact.


Again, competition is good. Did a so-called illegal take your job? Well you better improve yourself and find another one. We can't just go kicking people out of the country because of where they are from. If we get rid of the welfare, brown people pose no innate threat to us. It would be the same if you said we shouldn't let Irish or German people into the country because they might take jobs from "us"!

LOL! No, an illegal didn't take my job so save your admonishments on the subject. I live in a border town and I have seen what illegal immigration does to a community. They break the law to get here and many disregard the law while they live here. They make up some of the most vicious violent gangs there are. Ever heard of MS-13? Are you aware that an average of 25 Americans are killed daily by illegal aliens? Calculate that since 9-11.

Irish, Mexican, German, I don't care what nationality they are, they are welcomed as long as they enter legally. Don't try to confuse the issue here.


You made the claim of "greedy" business people. I just asked for proof of that. It's simple economics. If I can hire someone at $5/hour that can do the same work as another that's going to cost me $15/hour, I'm hiring the $5/hour one. People are driven by profit, you can't fight that. The law twists and turns with the whims of politicians. The law also says that you must pay income taxes. Does that make it right? The law says I can't smoke marijuana. Should I be thrown in jail for something I do to my own body?

Stop confusing the issue. Are you saying business owners have the right to break immigration laws? Is that what you're saying? Taxation on wages is unconstitutional, and as far as I'm concerned smoking weed should be protected under the fourth amendment. If businesses want cheap illegal labor then they need to lobby to change the laws NOT break them.


Think about it. The war on drugs is a total failure. Drug dealers themselves are FOR the war on drugs because it keeps their profits up! Since the inception of the W.O.D. in 1971 drug use has skyrocketing and billions have been wasted. Legalize drugs, and you don't have drug wars at the border. There would be no such thing as "drug trafficking" because there would be no reason to do it this way. The war on drugs has everything to do with the fighting we see at the border, the issues go hand in hand.

I disagree. There will ALWAYS be a black market for drugs ESPECIALLY once the government gets control over them. This is a common misconception that proponents for drug legalization often perpetuate. If the gov't legalizes drugs, they'll control them. Great! More gov't control. Isn't that what you're against?


Now you're just attacking me with speculation. I said our interventionist foreign policy is the cause of the american hatred around the world. End that and you don't have to worry about so-called terrorist trying to attack us. So you're not for building a wall along the Canadian border? If not, why not? It's wide open. Terrorists can just as easily (or more easily) sneak in through canada, why should we stop at the protecting the southern border??

Because the southern border is the problem. If and when the northern border becomes the problem it should be addressed as well.


Immigration laws are only necessary if you have a welfare/warfare state. If you offer the goodies, poor people from the south WILL find a way to get in. If you continue to attack sovereign nations and station troops around the world, you will continue to stir up hatred.

And if you have greedy corporations hiring cheap labor - you lose the middle class.



Another poster said we should shoot illegals.

Well it wasn't me! So don't clump my argument in with theirs. That is intellectually dishonest.


No, I'm not. It is partly a race issue. Many Americans are afraid of brown people. I for one can care less what your skin color is, if you are a productive citizen contributing to the economy and not sucking off the state, come on in.
It is not a race issue for me.


I didn't say anything like this. Might as well stick to the argument instead creating straw men. My entire point is that we need to cut the welfare. If we do not do this, the problem will never be solved.

Do you know the difference between a straw man argument and an analogy?? I was making an analogy. A rather accurate one in response to your attempt at making this a race issue.


You mentioned terrorism and middle easterners sneaking in posing as mexicans.

Not the same thing as "our southern border invites terrorism". Read this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070808/NATION/108080088/1001



Didn't know I said this. Sorry if I misinterpreted here.

Apology accepted.


The "drug smuggling" would be a non-issue if we got to the root of that problem which is the war on drugs. I'm not "trying" to make it a race issue. Please review my original post, which was composed of 6 points, none of them having anything to do with race. Having said that, it is impossible to discuss this issue without discussing race, so whether I bring it in or not, it is an issue.

Race is not an issue for me. I want our immigration laws enforced and adhered to by those who wish to come here. I don't care about race. And I want our country protected from terrorism and drug trafficking.


But the core of my argument stands. If you don't get to the root (government), you will never solve the problem.

To this I can agree.

[RevolutionSD]

Way to avoid the question. Don't attack RP supporters and call them neo-cons because they aren't an anarchist like yourself. You asked why someone was a Ron Paul supporter because they differed slightly from him on an issue. But yet asking you why you are a Ron Paul supporter when you don't support one of his major planks is wrong?

I didn't "attack" anyone. My comment stands. Why would you be a Ron Paul supporter if you advocate violence through the state to solve problems? We're trying to get away from that here.




And the way your statement is set up is misleading. You're trying to say I support the interventionism, when I don't. Immigration and non-interventionism are two entirely separate things. So don't make that accusation.

I didn't make an accusation. Terrorists from the middle east sneaking in through our southern border has everything to do with our foreign policy, so immigration and non-interventionism are tied together here.



To respond to the notion that other countries wouldn't attack us if we had no national defense, that's being very naive. We've already pissed off a bunch of the world with our interventionism and no matter what policies we take, there's a lot of people that will still seek revenge.

Excellent point. However, who has the capability to attack us here in the U.S.? Even if some country or group could feasibly attack us, I think a few years of non-interventionism would seriously deter any chances of this happening.


In response to your six points,


2) You are assuming that we are libertarians. What party is RP running in? I forget...the GOP! "There is nothing wrong with immigration. Borders are an illusion." - That's a very debatable item. I like living in America, not Mexico, Canada, France, or Somalia. I like speaking English. So do most Americans. So I do not want my home state to become a de facto part of another country. People like to pull the racist card here, but that's bull. If it were a "white" country invading ours, I'd think the same thing. You wouldn't let just anyone come into your house.

You misunderstood. I said libertarians with a small 'l'. I would hope that we're all small-'l' libertarians here, I could care less about the big-L Libertarian party however. Your point about America becoming Mexico: I'm not sure why you think this would happen. If we don't continue to pay for Mexicans (or anyone else) coming in here (in other words cut the benefits), they would have to work their ass off to get by here. Then, why would you be against productive citizens who want to move here and prosper?


3) That's possible. Way to assert that racist barb, BTW. Classy. Because all people who aren't for open borders must be racist. Even though I'm probably friends with more illegal immigrants than you've met. I'm not an anarchist like yourself, so I see there being some role of gov't. You probably use the same argument for why there shouldn't be a standing navy, even though the Constitution permits that.

Where did I say all people who aren't for open borders must be racist?


4) It's a bit different situation. Canada's border is huge, as you said. Plus Canada's a lot nicer country than Mexico. So with a lot less illegal immigration and them being a lot more spread out, there's not a noticeable problem. If illegal immigrants from Mexico were spread out and didn't greatly affect a few states as they currently do, as was the case decades ago, it wouldn't be a problem.

Ok, but there are many who think terrorists are coming to get us and sneaking in through Mexico. Many of the same people who say this are using it for a reason to want the bureaucrats to build a border fence. If this is the case, those people need to be consistent and want a fence along the Canadian border as well.


5) I think this is one of those things where voluntary contributions could work. I know a whole bunch of people who are fed up about it and would make contributions. Aside from that, again, I believe in a gov't existing, unlike yourself. So I'm not opposed to excise taxes and customs taxes paying for it.

There's where we have a huge difference. Taxes are nothing but theft. You would like to steal my money at the point of a gun to use for a program that you want. When we start getting into this realm it becomes a political football and it's unending. You want that program, some liberal wants welfare for everyone making less than 30k, someone else wants to expand the war in iraq, and next thing you know we're 10 trillion in debt and falling apart.


6) Do you have proof of this? I assumed that the land around the border was "federal land." If not I don't think eminent domain would have to be used anyway. There'd be few people owning land on the border against the fence, because the few who didn't want to sell that small strip of land on the border would see a lot of traffic from illegal immigrants. In those small areas there could be something else set up, but I doubt it would be much of a problem.

There are many people who live near the border in Texas who would have to have their homes and ranches seized by the government. If this isn't communism I don't know what is.

If we built the most perfect fence in the world on the border, we would not have solved the problem. Why bother wasting millions or likely billions of taxpayer money in the first place? Just cut welfare and everyone wins (except those sponging off the state).

[RevolutionSD]

Dissolving welfare is a partial solution not the only solution for reasons already mentioned. Ideally, putting up fences in high traffic areas will force the illegals to go into well patrolled areas if they want to risk it. As I said before, I don't like fences but they work. Sorry if you don't like that fact.

I don't like it because it's simply not true. The problem continually gets worse even with this fence.



LOL! No, an illegal didn't take my job so save your admonishments on the subject. I live in a border town and I have seen what illegal immigration does to a community. They break the law to get here and many disregard the law while they live here. They make up some of the most vicious violent gangs there are. Ever heard of MS-13? Are you aware that an average of 25 Americans are killed daily by illegal aliens? Calculate that since 9-11.

Irish, Mexican, German, I don't care what nationality they are, they are welcomed as long as they enter legally. Don't try to confuse the issue here.

Well, there would be no issue if we didn't offer the benefits in the first place. Let's get to the root instead of arguing about after the fact statistics. Legal just means you can legally get benefits. I don't want legals or illegals sponging off the state. Do you? Eliminate the state benefits, eliminate the problem. No fence neeed.




Stop confusing the issue. Are you saying business owners have the right to break immigration laws? Is that what you're saying? Taxation on wages is unconstitutional, and as far as I'm concerned smoking weed should be protected under the fourth amendment. If businesses want cheap illegal labor then they need to lobby to change the laws NOT break them.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying there would be no need for immigration laws if we didn't offer them the world as a reward for sneaking in. I'm totally against lobbyist and am a free market capitalist, so I don't think the government should be intervening here.



I disagree. There will ALWAYS be a black market for drugs ESPECIALLY once the government gets control over them. This is a common misconception that proponents for drug legalization often perpetuate. If the gov't legalizes drugs, they'll control them. Great! More gov't control. Isn't that what you're against?

The government already controls the illegal drug market! I'm saying get the government the hell out of it. Make drugs legal, period. No government control. Free market. Opposite of the War on Drugs.



Because the southern border is the problem. If and when the northern border becomes the problem it should be addressed as well.

The reason this came up is because we were discussing terrorists getting in. If this is indeed a problem, they can get in from the north as well as the south. Non-interventionism however solves this problem.



And if you have greedy corporations hiring cheap labor - you lose the middle class.

So where is your proof they are greedy? What is wrong with trying to cut your costs in the labor market if you are a business owner? Are you saying the minimum wage is a good thing?



Well it wasn't me! So don't clump my argument in with theirs. That is intellectually dishonest.

I didn't lump anything I don't think. Sorry if I did! Lots of discussion going on here.



It is not a race issue for me.

Good!


Do you know the difference between a straw man argument and an analogy?? I was making an analogy. A rather accurate one in response to your attempt at making this a race issue.

How is race not a factor here? I never said it was strictly a race issue, but race is certainly part of the equation.



Not the same thing as "our southern border invites terrorism". Read this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070808/NATION/108080088/1001

Terrorism is a non-issue. It's the current boogeyman to keep us all in fear.



Race is not an issue for me. I want our immigration laws enforced and adhered to by those who wish to come here. I don't care about race. And I want our country protected from terrorism and drug trafficking.

Then forget about building a fence or a wall and join the effort in getting rid of welfare benefits and ending the war on drugs, which are the root causes of the problems we are discussing.

[Knightskye]

A question to the OP...

Why post this thread (and I don't mean in the wrong forum, although an answer to that might not be a bad thing)?

[literatim]

Fence? Fence won't work. We need a great wall and a moat.

[DriftWood]

My take on it.. the people of a country do not own that country. They only own what they own. They own their house and can tell anyone they don't like to piss off their property. If you own a house but you don't own the whole the street, then you can not tell a newly arrived neighbor to piss off because you don't like him. If you owned the whole street you could do that. When it comes to something as big as a country, you really don't own it and you shouldn't really have a say in who can buy a house at the other side of the country in some town you never been, nor have any say in who a company you do not own is allowed to hire. So what if they are not Americans, what does that even mean? I have a hard time justifying nationalism. Okay. so most Americans probably dont want their culture to change, but do they actually have the right to by force or regulation keep it that way? I mean freedom does what freedom will, do we have any right to stop it?

Cheers

[constituent]

Oh and my question why is it such an issue when most of our border in along Texas. All of the Texans on here brag about their wonderful guns and gun laws... SO why don't you use them?

i think you'll find that the border zealots don't number many texans.

why would i shoot a guy for trying to get a job? and to protect federal immigration laws at that? you have got to be crazy!

the immigrants i have a problem w/ are the california yuppies and new york yankees who come down here driving the prices of everything up through the roof.

[constituent]

I don't like it because it is another money pit of a government program like socialized health care and trillion dollar wars based on lies. The goal of the elite in control is to spend this nation into bankruptcy, all the while transferring weath from the poor to them, and the means by which this is accomplished is irrelevant to them. If it costs heaps of money you had better convince me it is constitutional and also that the result cannot be acheived in a cheaper manner, like Paul's philosophy of ending the incentives for illegal immigration.

This whole "iimigration debate" is a sideshow distraction to get joe six pack's mind off the real causes of the weak economy.

an excellent post.

[constituent]

I have a hard time justifying nationalism. Okay. so most Americans probably dont want their culture to change....



no worries, they've got t.v. in mexico too (lol).

[dannno]

For clarification I'd like to reiterate that ron paul is against the fence (not rabidly, but he wouldn't choose to put one up since there are better options)

[Grandson of Liberty]

Wow, I can TOTALLY see how this thread will help the grassroots get RP elected. :rolleyes: Nine pages? Seriously? Can we get this thread moved, please?

If only we could have built a "thread fence" to keep threads like this out- ironic, huh? :cool:

[jonhowe]

While I agree with Dr. Paul on most issues, I strongly disagree on immigration, and feel he is way out of line with a libertarian solution here.

The border fence is a ridiculous and horrible idea. Here's why:

1. You could build the Great Wall of China on the border and people will still get in here as long as the gov't is offering them a basket of goodies if they can make it to the other side- i.e. schools, hospital care, welfare, etc.

2. There is nothing wrong with immigration. Borders are an illusion. "Illegal immigration" is simply people moving from one location to another. We should not, nor should we want to, use the guns of government to police the situation. It's not libertarian and it's not even humane, it's just turning the guns on others, exactly what we as libertarians are against.

3. If the government builds a gigantic wall, it will eventually be used to keep us from getting out, rather than to keep brown skin folks from getting in.

4. The Canada border is wide open. Should we build a 3,000-mile taxpayer-funded fence up there too?

5. Who's going to pay for all this? Count me out. Will you force me at gunpoint to "pay my taxes" to fund this project?

6. Eminent domain (communism). In order to build the fence, the government will have to steal land from residents. How is this even the slightest bit liberty-promoting? This is pure communism.

The simple solution is to end the welfare-warfare state. No fence will be needed and immigrants will have to make it on their own with no government help or taxpayer funding.


1. Why not do both? Even if we change the economic benefits of illegally coming here, I doubt most people would get the message, and having a wide open border leaves us completely defenseless. So, lets do both!
2. Nothing wrong with immigration, but there is something wrong with unchecked migration; some economies just can't handle it. We arent saying shoot them all, just make it such an imposing idea (ie, the wall) that they never try. Maybe they can then work for reform in their OWN country...
3. That's such paranoia it's not even funny. The fence is to stop small (but numerous) groups of human traffickers and the like from crossing the border. If we had a reason to run from our government, it would NOT be hard to knock down a bigass fence.
4. Honestly, I think a fence there WOULD be good, but lets look at the realities: it's less of a problem, so we can deal with it later.
5. Well, if it was passed by congress, we would pay for it. They won't force you at gunpoint for not paying taxes, but they will arrest you... Until we get rid of the income tax, it is the law of the land...
6. This is the only valid point you raise, but honestly, as long as you build close enough to the border (better yet, right on the border) this issue is quite small.

Seriously though, there is an importance, I think, to being an American citizen, or at least a legal visitor. Im not saying we should all be tracked and recorded (I know someone is going to say thats what Im saying, its NOT), but we're Americans, if you want to be a citizen, become a citizen. Don't come in some backalley way and live in fear and shame for your life, become a citizen.

Is that really so bad?

[kigol]

bravo

[DealzOnWheelz]

I can't believe that after 9 pages NOBODY HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF TERRORISTS BEING ABLE TO CROSS THE BORDER FREELY

a 100% Libertarian approach would mean no fence; So what prevents terrorists from coming into the country on the whole premise of you have to take care of yourself because the government won't


And besides welfare which is not the only reason illegals come here; part of it has to do with the fact that we are still the best country to live in so even without welfare they would still come because it is better than Mexico and we need a way to prevent them from coming ilegally and track those coming legally

[freedom-maniac]

I can't believe that after 9 pages NOBODY HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF TERRORISTS BEING ABLE TO CROSS THE BORDER FREELY


I considered it, but I don't like to get into fear mongering.

[Deborah K]

I can't believe that after 9 pages NOBODY HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF TERRORISTS BEING ABLE TO CROSS THE BORDER FREELY

a 100% Libertarian approach would mean no fence; So what prevents terrorists from coming into the country on the whole premise of you have to take care of yourself because the government won't


And besides welfare which is not the only reason illegals come here; part of it has to do with the fact that we are still the best country to live in so even without welfare they would still come because it is better than Mexico and we need a way to prevent them from coming ilegally and track those coming legally


You obviously didn't read my posts. :rolleyes:

[danberkeley]

to solve the "illegal immigration" problem, we must re-enforce property rights. if some crosses the border and steps onto your 300-acre ranch, that's called trespassing. trespassiong is illegal. also, patrol should be making sure that people, wether illegal immigrants or US citizens, are not crossing onto private property. but since border patrol isnt really doing it job (government failure), we have the minutemen patrolling the border and protecting private property (free market at work).

also, since our roads and sidewalks are owned by the government, we see so many illegal immigrants (or day laborers. call them what you want) on them. for example, day laborers arnt posted at Home Depot's parking lot instead, they are posted on the sidewalk. if a sidewalk was private property, the owner could decide wether or not to have people loitering on it. the same with schools, parks, hospitals, and so on.

lastly, if our economy was strong and growing, we would be encouraging immigration. but since our economy is doing badly, illegal immigrants are being used as scapegoats.

EDIT: spelling

[jkm1864]

I think they need to dredge the Rio Grande and install a series of locks and dams to make the river deeper and wider. I think this would also be a good social project because it will provide water for the farmers in the area that are having water shortages. I feel the fence idea is stupid because it will be used to award contracts to the governments cronies as a way to fleece the tax payers.

[constituent]

to solve the "illegal immigration" problem, we must reenforce property rights. if some crosses the border and steps onto your 300-acre ranch, that's called trespassing. tresspassiong is illegal. border patrol should be making sure that people, wether illegal immigrants of US citizens, are not crossing onto private property. but since border patrol isnt really doing it job(government failure), we have the minutemen patrolling the border and protecting private property (free market at work).
.

last i checked it was pretty much up to the property owner to "enforce" their private property... unless it's "posted no trespassing"

please, inform me if that's changed.

[danberkeley]

last i checked it was pretty much up to the property owner to "enforce" their private property... unless it's "posted no trespassing"

please, inform me if that's changed.

no. it still is up to the property owner to protect his property. thats why i support the minutemen and anyone else protecting private property. mind you, though, ive seen bills proposed that would make it illegal to shoot illegals trespasing onto private property.