Can anyone tell me/explain to me why we should not round up all illegal immigrants?

[theczar1776]

nm

[Danke]

Can anyone tell me/explain to me why we should not round up all illegal immigrants? I personally can't see any use for keeping them here.

Well, how about the method they (the authorities) would need to inplement such a plan?


Would every American have to carry identification at all times to prove they are here "legally."

Can they pull me aside at any place and any time to check my credentials out?

Sounds like a police state...

[Truth Warrior]

The government claims that it is impossible to find them. If found, it's too expensive to catch and deport them. Preventing their illegal entry is not feasible due to the expense, and prevention resources availabe. Bottom line: They don't wanna.

Reality: Too many very important people are making/saving really big money from their being here. It also helps clear the way for the NAU.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Because we're not nazis?

[reaver]

Because there isn't a fence yet?

[Bradley in DC]

Where in the constitution is the authority to limit immigration for non-specific individual reasons (contagious disease, etc.)? Or don't we think we should follow the constitution anymore?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136673

[Truth Warrior]

Where in the constitution is the authority to limit immigration for non-specific individual reasons (contagious disease, etc.)? Or don't we think we should follow the constitution anymore?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136673
Article I

[Bradley in DC]

Article I

More specifically?

Obviously Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress its authority--but which clause, what words?

[Truth Warrior]

More specifically?
Read it.

[Bradley in DC]

Read it.

Yup, naturalization for citizenship but no authority for immigration. Great read. ;)

[Bradley in DC]

Just to make it easier for you:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Article I Section 8 Clause 4

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

What the Founding Fathers' meant, for anyone interested in the original intent (and not the "living constitution" followers :rolleyes:):


An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization (http://www.historykat.com/statutes/docs_1_2_3.html)


First Congress, Session 2, Chapter 3
March 26, 1790

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

APPROVED, March 26, 1790.

[liberteebell]

As long as the welfare gravy train is alive and well, I have a big problem with illegal immigration. Welfare gone and a "level" playing field and I'm an open-borders kind of person.

And besides, if 12 million of us decided to not pay our taxes next year, I'm certain the feds would have no problem whatever finding and rounding every last one of us up.

[Bradley in DC]

So, aside from being unconstitutional, against our philosophy and bad for the country, how much higher do you want to raise my taxes for your idea and how much more of a police state would you institute to pull this off? Please elaborate on exactly how intrusive and costly it would be for what you think would be necessary?

More broadly, the people here who send money back home mitigate the problems there that reduce the disparities and local problems that create the conditions for those to come here. Your plan would marginally increase the demand to come here.

So, that round of unconstitutional government intervention would fail, which, I suppose, would be the justification for the next, greater, round of government interventions of higher taxes and more intrusive government creating even greater incentives for migrants to come here.

Does that answer your question?

[Bradley in DC]

As long as the welfare gravy train is alive and well, I have a big problem with illegal immigration. Welfare gone and a "level" playing field and I'm an open-borders kind of person.

Yup. The welfare state is the problem.

[HOLLYWOOD]

The government claims that it is impossible to find them. If found, it's too expensive to catch and deport them. Preventing their illegal entry is not feasible due to the expense, and prevention resources availabe. Bottom line: They don't wanna.

Reality: Too many very important people are making/saving really big money from their being here. It also helps clear the way for the NAU.

The problem is... the State & Federal Governments mandatory to send a complete BILL for ALL expenses in the ILLEGAL sector. If they do not pay, do what the state and Federal governments do to AMERICAN CITIZENS everyday... put LIENS, GARNISHMENTS, &/or REPROCESS property, assets, wages, etc.

The US Federal just FROZE ALL ASSETS of the country, VENEZUELA, which is retaliation for ASSETS Venezuela SEIZED for American Petroleum Corporations Oil assets related to the ORINCO Heavy Oil region.

BILL ALL the ILLEGALS country of ORIGIN/CITIZENSHIP... WITH PENALTIES, FINES, INTEREST, FEES, SURCHARGES, etc... just like the US governments do to Americans


SIMPLE

[Truth Warrior]

Yup, naturalization for citizenship but no authority for immigration. Great read. ;)
They read, find and fabricate their power and authority, from between the lines, dontcha know? :rolleyes:

Amendment X ( X for unkown ;) )

[familydog]

Where in the constitution is the authority to limit immigration for non-specific individual reasons (contagious disease, etc.)? Or don't we think we should follow the constitution anymore?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136673

Constitutional scholar Louis Henkin argues that Congress has implied powers that carried over from the Articles of Confederation. Congress was the holder of national sovereignty in the Articles, and he believes that this sovereignty carried over into the Constitution since the framers never addressed the issue in the Constitution. If we look at Article I, more specifically the necessary and proper clause, he determined that Congress has implied powers as the national sovereign to regulate international commerce, immigration, U.S. citizens overseas, etc. Again, as the holder of national sovereignty, he believes Congress has more foreign affairs powers than specifically enumerated since there are many foreign affairs issues left unenumerated for both the executive and the legislative branch.

See Henkin's book Foreign Affairs and the Constitution

[Bradley in DC]

Constitutional scholar Louis Henkin argues that Congress has implied powers that carried over from the Articles of Confederation. Congress was the holder of national sovereignty in the Articles, and he believes that this sovereignty carried over into the Constitution since the framers never addressed the issue in the Constitution. If we look at Article I, more specifically the necessary and proper clause, he determined that Congress has implied powers as the national sovereign to regulate international commerce, immigration, U.S. citizens overseas, etc. Again, as the holder of national sovereignty, he believes Congress has more foreign affairs powers than specifically enumerated since there are many foreign affairs issues left unenumerated for both the executive and the legislative branch.

See Henkin's book Foreign Affairs and the Constitution

Yeah, Dr. Paul's all over reading things into the constitution that aren't there. ;)

[torchbearer]

The sugar cane farmers in louisiana wouldn't have any labor... even with the cheap labor they are coming up short.
The plant nurseries of Forest Hill would close...they would have to raise the prices of their plants to pay higher wages, sales are already slumping due to higher cost of living..
It's amazing how much of louisiana's farm economy is still built on quasi-slavery.

The local law enforcement knows all about the illegals, but do nothing about it.
When asked why... well, the illegals just come right back after we deport them.

While working at the battered women's shelter, we had criminal complaints against illegals.
They showed up in court, admitted they were illegal, and were allowed to leave because the owner of the "plantation" shows up and is good friends with the judge.

this is the state i live in.

[Truth Warrior]

Constitutional scholar Louis Henkin argues that Congress has implied powers that carried over from the Articles of Confederation. Congress was the holder of national sovereignty in the Articles, and he believes that this sovereignty carried over into the Constitution since the framers never addressed the issue in the Constitution. If we look at Article I, more specifically the necessary and proper clause, he determined that Congress has implied powers as the national sovereign to regulate international commerce, immigration, U.S. citizens overseas, etc. Again, as the holder of national sovereignty, he believes Congress has more foreign affairs powers than specifically enumerated since there are many foreign affairs issues left unenumerated for both the executive and the legislative branch.

See Henkin's book Foreign Affairs and the Constitution

It looks to me that the Federalists merely overthrew ( replaced ) the Articles in an illegal coup.

[voytechs]

If that happens, then you will have to prove to the government that you are legal here. You will have to have your papers with you all the time and if you forget you might yourself end up in one of these camps if you can't prove who you are. This is exactly where this is all leading.

[torchbearer]

If that happens, then you will have to prove to the government that you are legal here. You will have to have your papers with you all the time and if you forget you might yourself end up in one of these camps if you can't prove who you are. This is exactly where this is all leading.

+1. show me your real id.

[voytechs]

+1. show me your real id.

I tried to open up an account on goldmoney.com today to purchase some more shinny stuff. The account is free, but the information they require in order to enable the account (verify the account) is more stringent than opening up a brokerage account. As last step they wanted a notarized copy of passport or real-ID card.

I showed them the finger and purchased my gold on APMEX where simple email address is sufficient. Better buy your future while you still can before you have to go through companies like goldmoney.

[familydog]

Yeah, Dr. Paul's all over reading things into the constitution that aren't there. ;)

I'm not suggesting Henkin is right. Although we should listen to him even if we disagree with his rationale. He thinks that Congress has more authority in foriegn affairs than the president, and this is one of his ways to show it. I'd rather have 500+ legislators make foreign policy, all of whom are subject to public scrutiny and overthrow, than a few cladenstine brains in the presidents cabinet none of whom are accountable by the people.

Anyways, rather than dismiss it outright without explanantion, care to explain why you think Henkin is wrong?

[AutoDas]

It should be a state issue.

/typical RP fanboy

[Bradley in DC]

I'm not suggesting Henkin is right. Although we should listen to him even if we disagree with his rationale. He thinks that Congress has more authority in foriegn affairs than the president, and this is one of his ways to show it. I'd rather have 500+ legislators make foreign policy, all of whom are subject to public scrutiny and overthrow, than a few cladenstine brains in the presidents cabinet none of whom are accountable by the people.

Anyways, rather than dismiss it outright without explanantion, care to explain why you think Henkin is wrong?

The Constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of Congress and says everything not explicitly enumerated here is reserved to the states and to the people.

If you understood the constitution, you'd have noticed that I only cited Article I which refers to Congress. (Article 2 is Executive, Article 3 is Judiciary)

[familydog]

The Constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of Congress and says everything not explicitly enumerated here is reserved to the states and to the people.

If you understood the constitution, you'd have noticed that I only cited Article I which refers to Congress. (Article 2 is Executive, Article 3 is Judiciary)

Fair enough.

However, there are certain issues that are regulated by Congress, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. If we are to believe that everything not enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the states, then we must fundementally change how the government regulates certain activities. Where in Article I does it state that Congress has the power to regulate United States citizens abroad? Surely they are subject to United States authority if they are citizens, even if working, vacationing, residing, in another country? If I'm working in a country overseas and commit a crime, is the state of Pennsylvania responsible for what happens to me? Or is the United States federal government? What about the regulation of foreign visitors inside this country? Nowhere does Article I give Congress the explicit authority to make laws on that.

What are enumerated powers granted to Congress in Article I, that deal with foriegn issues?

-Congress has the right to provide for the national defense
-declare war
-to raise and support armies
-regulate international commerce
-make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying out its other responsibilities.

Is immigration a foreign issue? Yes, it involves citizens from other countries, either naturalizing into this country (legal immigration), or invading our sovereignty without naturalizing (illegal immigration). Even if the immigrants are here on United States soil, they are not legally part of our sovereign, therefore are still under the realm of being a foreign issue.

With that said, let's go back to Henkin. In his book that I mentioned, he designates that Congress has even more foriegn issue powers than specifically enumerated above in this post. He labels these "Foreign Affairs Powers." These powers, although not specifically derived from the Constitution come from the fact, again, that Congress is the holder of United States sovereignty. Congress enjoys this priviledge because they enjoyed it under the Articles of Confederation, and since the framers of the Constitution never addressed who is or who isn't the holder of national sovereignty in the Constitution, Congress still retains it. Some examples of these "Foreign Affairs Powers" that he mentions are the regulaton of aliens, the authorization of international commitments, and the extradition of citizens to other states. To reiterate, immigration is an issue which regards national sovereignty. As the holder of national sovereignty, couldn't Congress do as it sees fit in order to protect it?

If not, who is the holder of national sovereignty? Could it be the people of the United States? Maybe, but how would they go about enforcing our sovereignty? Vigilantism? Going to their state legislatures? If they go to their state legislatures, again, the states will have to be in charge of extradition of citizens, regulating aliens, United States citizens overseas, etc. The reason the Articles of Confederation was scrapped in the first place was because the Congress was weak, and the states had to do all this. It just didn't work. So who is left? I'll stick with the United States Congress.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

+1. show me your real id.

-1. All this stuff about concentration camps for the unidentified is conjecture. ID Cards do not necessarily lead to authoritarianism.

[Bradley in DC]

Fair enough.

However, there are certain issues that are regulated by Congress, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. If we are to believe that everything not enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the states, then we must fundementally change how the government regulates certain activities. Where in Article I does it state that Congress has the power to regulate United States citizens abroad? Surely they are subject to United States authority if they are citizens, even if working, vacationing, residing, in another country? If I'm working in a country overseas and commit a crime, is the state of Pennsylvania responsible for what happens to me? Or is the United States federal government? What about the regulation of foreign visitors inside this country? Nowhere does Article I give Congress the explicit authority to make laws on that.

What are enumerated powers granted to Congress in Article I, that deal with foriegn issues?

-Congress has the right to provide for the national defense
-declare war
-to raise and support armies
-regulate international commerce
-make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying out its other responsibilities.

Is immigration a foreign issue? Yes, it involves citizens from other countries, either naturalizing into this country (legal immigration), or invading our sovereignty without naturalizing (illegal immigration). Even if the immigrants are here on United States soil, they are not legally part of our sovereign, therefore are still under the realm of being a foreign issue.

With that said, let's go back to Henkin. In his book that I mentioned, he designates that Congress has even more foriegn issue powers than specifically enumerated above in this post. He labels these "Foreign Affairs Powers." These powers, although not specifically derived from the Constitution come from the fact, again, that Congress is the holder of United States sovereignty. Congress enjoys this priviledge because they enjoyed it under the Articles of Confederation, and since the framers of the Constitution never addressed who is or who isn't the holder of national sovereignty in the Constitution, Congress still retains it. Some examples of these "Foreign Affairs Powers" that he mentions are the regulaton of aliens, the authorization of international commitments, and the extradition of citizens to other states. To reiterate, immigration is an issue which regards national sovereignty. As the holder of national sovereignty, couldn't Congress do as it sees fit in order to protect it?

If not, who is the holder of national sovereignty? Could it be the people of the United States? Maybe, but how would they go about enforcing our sovereignty? Vigilantism? Going to their state legislatures? If they go to their state legislatures, again, the states will have to be in charge of extradition of citizens, regulating aliens, United States citizens overseas, etc. The reason the Articles of Confederation was scrapped in the first place was because the Congress was weak, and the states had to do all this. It just didn't work. So who is left? I'll stick with the United States Congress.

Your legal reasoning here deserves no response. For starters, you confuse immigration and naturalization. ;) Most of the rest is just as ignorant. You misquote me--and look up the contracts clause while you're at it.

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Most countries that I have traveled to if you don't have papers you are going to get arrested if they ever talk to you.

They will lock you up for a week or so while you try to prove you are their legally.

They will try to shake you down for several thousand dollars in fees.

Then if you cant show papers they will take you to the airport and you will pay for a same day ticket back to your legal home country. It will cost you over a thousand dollars. If you don't have the money or cant borrow it from family or friends you will stay in jail.

This really has very little to do with if we need lettuce picked cheaply or hotels cleaned.

The law is the law in most countries.

And yes I have known people who were overstaying a work visa. They got arrested and the above happened. They never even got to go back to their apartment to pack.

[Danke]

Where in Article I does it state that Congress has the power to regulate United States citizens abroad? Surely they are subject to United States authority if they are citizens, even if working, vacationing, residing, in another country?

Nope. But being the fact that the US has welded a lot of power, you may benefit from that fact in foreign lands.

Mostly these matters are handled with treaties.

[Ozwest]

Yup, naturalization for citizenship but no authority for immigration. Great read. ;)
Mmmm... I wonder ...

Remember the Alamo. How about California? New Mexico?

Seems like the rules have already been bent, broken, and shattered.

I suggest you be some-what pragmatic.

[Ozwest]

Not to mention World War II internment camps ...

[familydog]

Your legal reasoning here deserves no response. For starters, you confuse immigration and naturalization. ;) Most of the rest is just as ignorant. You misquote me--and look up the contracts clause while you're at it.

So in other words, you don't know the answers to any of my questions.

That's all you needed to say :p

[Bradley in DC]

So in other words, you don't know the answers to any of my questions.

That's all you needed to say :p

No, I am saying that this is nonsensical:


Is immigration a foreign issue? Yes, it involves citizens from other countries, either naturalizing into this country (legal immigration), or invading our sovereignty without naturalizing (illegal immigration). Even if the immigrants are here on United States soil, they are not legally part of our sovereign, therefore are still under the realm of being a foreign issue.

If you don't understand basic definitional terms/history/law, communication doesn't work.

[torchbearer]

-1. All this stuff about concentration camps for the unidentified is conjecture. ID Cards do not necessarily lead to authoritarianism.

Yeh ok. What other purpose is there since we already have IDs for our states.

[familydog]

No, I am saying that this is nonsensical:


Is immigration a foreign issue? Yes, it involves citizens from other countries, either naturalizing into this country (legal immigration), or invading our sovereignty without naturalizing (illegal immigration). Even if the immigrants are here on United States soil, they are not legally part of our sovereign, therefore are still under the realm of being a foreign issue.

If you don't understand basic definitional terms/history/law, communication doesn't work.

I'm a simpleton, so you'll have to explain it to me in more than one sentence. I'm bringing up issues, and you're saying I'm wrong without any sort of explanation. I'm a sheeple Bradley, help set me free.

I feel like I'm on the set of Family Fued. I can imagine the audience screaming GOOD ANSWER! in a sarcastic manner everytime I read your posts. Each time I ask a question and bring up an issue, you say I'm wrong and follow that up with essentially "because I said so."

The issue rests upon national sovereignty. We can throw out all the theories we want to, but the fact is that national sovereignty is useless if there is no tangible entity to enforce it. I'm arguing that Congress is that tangible entity. Since the original post entails illegal immigration, I proposed that illegal immigration is an issue of national sovereignty and foreign affairs since we are being invaded by people of other countries who do not belong here. Similar to what we did to Iraq, these immigrants are illegally invading a sovereign nation without invitation or without being provoked. They are infringing upon our internal affairs. Therefore, Congress can use its "foreign affairs powers" as it can and does in other examples I cited, to deal with the issue. So, when it comes to these "foreign affairs powers" Congress' power does not need to be enumerated in Article I. I've asked you to tell me why I'm wrong, and you give me nothing to work with. Maybe if I repeat myself enough times you will finally enlighten me. :D

[Bradley in DC]

I'm bringing up issues, and you're saying I'm wrong without any sort of explanation.

Not trying to be sarcastic, but your answer makes no sense to me. Immigration is very much NOT the same as naturalization, etc. They are entirely separate ideas.

For that reason, we're just talking past each other with no common language.

If it helps (still kind of wishing I had an interpreter), naturalization deals with citizenship. I DON'T think everyone who comes here should be given citizenship (in fact I think it should be tightened up).

Historically, human migration controls have been on emigration. The Founding Fathers, put them in their context, were very much opposed to migration controls--they escaped tyranny themselves. Aside from agreeing not to ban the importation of slaves for a set period of time, I don't know that they even debated or considered immigration controls--it wouldn't have occurred to them.

My point is that since there haven't been any subsequent amendments...

Does that help?

[Ozwest]

I'm a simpleton, so you'll have to explain it to me in more than one sentence. I'm bringing up issues, and you're saying I'm wrong without any sort of explanation. I'm a sheeple Bradley, help set me free.

I feel like I'm on the set of Family Fued. I can imagine the audience screaming GOOD ANSWER! in a sarcastic manner everytime I read your posts. Each time I ask a question and bring up an issue, you say I'm wrong and follow that up with essentially "because I said so."

The issue rests upon national sovereignty. We can throw out all the theories we want to, but the fact is that national sovereignty is useless if there is no tangible entity to enforce it. I'm arguing that Congress is that tangible entity. Since the original post entails illegal immigration, I proposed that illegal immigration is an issue of national sovereignty and foreign affairs since we are being invaded by people of other countries who do not belong here. Similar to what we did to Iraq, these immigrants are illegally invading a sovereign nation without invitation or without being provoked. They are infringing upon our internal affairs. Therefore, Congress can use its "foreign affairs powers" as it can and does in other examples I cited, to deal with the issue. So, when it comes to these "foreign affairs powers" Congress' power does not need to be enumerated in Article I. I've asked you to tell me why I'm wrong, and you give me nothing to work with. Maybe if I repeat myself enough times you will finally enlighten me. :D
Don't look to Washington.

You are living in a "Corporate fascist state," amongst apathetic , drooling , countrymen, unable to elect representatives, or protect their civil liberties.

The economy is about to disintegrate (already is), and anyone with any smarts is prepared.

Sorry, for the lack of sympathy, but you guys made your bed.

Now...

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Yeh ok. What other purpose is there since we already have IDs for our states.

Standardization, which is what REAL id is about. We already have all the downsides of ID cards but none of the benefits.

[Deborah K]

Can anyone tell me/explain to me why we should not round up all illegal immigrants? I personally can't see any use for keeping them here.


It isn't necessary. Most will leave by attrition if businesses stop hiring them.

[familydog]

Not trying to be sarcastic, but your answer makes no sense to me. Immigration is very much NOT the same as naturalization, etc. They are entirely separate ideas.

For that reason, we're just talking past each other with no common language.

If it helps (still kind of wishing I had an interpreter), naturalization deals with citizenship. I DON'T think everyone who comes here should be given citizenship (in fact I think it should be tightened up).

Historically, human migration controls have been on emigration. The Founding Fathers, put them in their context, were very much opposed to migration controls--they escaped tyranny themselves. Aside from agreeing not to ban the importation of slaves for a set period of time, I don't know that they even debated or considered immigration controls--it wouldn't have occurred to them.

My point is that since there haven't been any subsequent amendments...

Does that help?

It helps, because it is actually more than one sentence :p

With that said, I know very well what naturalization is. You needn't explain it to me. My basic point is that Congress has the authority to take such drastic measures as outlined in the thread title, and as far as I know you have been disagreeing with that. So, I've just been trying to give evidence for my point. :)

[familydog]

Don't look to Washington.

You are living in a "Corporate fascist state," amongst apathetic , drooling , countrymen, unable to elect representatives, or protect their civil liberties.

The economy is about to disintegrate (already is), and anyone with any smarts is prepared.

Sorry, for the lack of sympathy, but you guys made your bed.

Now...

Oh believe me, I'm not looking to Washington to solve the mess. I only look to them as the cause of it.

[erika]

We fought a War with mexico. We shot anyone who tried to come into the u.s.

We should be shooting anyone who continues to try to come into the u.s. illegally from that southern border.

Guess what.....they might get the message then. Come into the u.s. illegally and you will be shot.

Btw all this bs about us being fenced in is pure nonsense. If you want to take a boat(they do it every day!) out of orange county ca. and leave the u.s. to baja you can easilly do it. If you wanted to stay you might have to pay a little money but it can be and is done often.

If you save up enough money you can take a russian barge from most u.s. ports to russia. I know a guy who did that. Only cost him 500 usd and he married a russian girl over their.

[UnReconstructed]

Everything government touches turns to shit. I do not want it doing anything but dieing. If you want to keep brown people off of property you own then that is your business but you should not be trying to tell anyone else they can't have brown people on their property.

It's simple racism. The same thing the government does over and over again. They separate people based on their skin color. What makes a person legal or illegal? Because people calling themselves government said they were? Bullshit! Government sucks and I don't want them doing anything!

[DAFTEK]

The American Emigration Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NcYMG-zv0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NcYMG-zv0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NcYMG-zv0)

[erika]

A lot of italians are tan or brown and they were allowed in(some weren't though). 30 million+ mexicans are brown or tan and they have been allowed in since 86. So it's not a matter of being brown, it's a matter of numbers and the economy.

However it's interesting to note that legal european immigration has been cut to 1% why the third world is continually raised to higher %'s.

If that's not racism against euros, I don't know what is.

[RickyJ]

Can anyone tell me/explain to me why we should not round up all illegal immigrants? I personally can't see any use for keeping them here.


There are plenty of reasons for keeping them around, just none of them are very good reasons for the average American, but rather are only good for big corporations and farmers.

They should all be deported by law. Obviously laws are only enforced when the elite want them enforced and on who they want them enforced on.

[SeanEdwards]

I think there are a lot of people here without legal status that should probably not face deportation. All those people are individuals, and they should not be collectivized into one monolithic group and treated identically. We don't punish all criminals the same way either. They get their day in court, and hopefully they get some measure of justice. Undocumented immigrants certainly deserve at least the same access to justice as accused murderers receive.

[RickyJ]

Undocumented immigrants certainly deserve at least the same access to justice as accused murderers receive.

They can receive justice in their own country.

They are not undocumented immigrants. They are illegal aliens.

[SeanEdwards]

They can receive justice in their own country.

They are not undocumented immigrants. They are illegal aliens.

For some of those people here illegally, America IS their home country.

[RickyJ]

For some of those people here illegally, America IS their home country.

For people that are escaping persecution in their home country and are seeking refuge status, I agree. But all others should be deported IMO. Also this anchor baby stuff has got to stop. Ron Paul is also against allowing anyone born in America to automatically be a US citizen.

[SeanEdwards]

For people that are escaping persecution in their home country and are seeking refuge status, I agree. But all others should be deported IMO. Also this anchor baby stuff has got to stop. Ron Paul is also against allowing anyone born in America to automatically be a US citizen.

There are people living in America that are undocumented, that have spent their entire lives living as an American. They were brought into the country illegally when they were babies, and subsequently grew up in this country. In many cases these people only speak English, and have no ties whatsoever to the country their parents left. To arbitrarily mass-deport these innocent victims of immigration policy, and their parent's crime, would be monstrously unjust.

I'd rather deport you.

[mellamojuana]

test; please ignore tq.

[torchbearer]

test; please ignore tq.

mic check.
welcome.

[MRoCkEd]

I remember during some of the huge immigrant marches my history teacher proposed dropping a giant net over all of them... lol

[anaconda]

If we rounded up all of the illegal aliens, a couple of certainties are that production costs would increase dramatically due to the severe labor shortage, and output volumes would decrease. This means fewer consumer goods at higher prices. Also fewer services at higher prices. There would be new availabilities for minimum wage type jobs. Legal residents who are already performing these jobs would see a slight increase in their real wage and those who were formally unemployed and actually want ones of these jobs might now be working.

[LT for the Truth]

Can anyone tell me/explain to me why we should not round up all illegal immigrants? I personally can't see any use for keeping them here.

Because the banking interests that run this country don't want to!:confused:

[mellamojuana]

Can we afford to do anything about anything, really? As a nation, I mean.

I am personally aggrieved sometimes that we help those who pay a fraction of the taxes that long-time citizens have paid, yet cannot help ourselves or our elderly who do not want to go to a warehouse to live out the rest of their lives. I'm a 24/7 caregiver who gets no help caring for two frail parents who were as principled and independent as they come. Back up. A good neighbor comes 1x/wk so I can go to the grocery store.

I dnk what would happen if our illegals went back home. I am angered by the demanding attitude some have for more and better services; I haven't a drop of income or health insurance or any other insurance for myself. My parents get only Medicare. But several of our illegals tell me I need to learn Spanish, while our local community colleges are going out begging the illegals to go to ESL (English as a Second Language) classes.

The following is said in good fun:
Eef you lie mee tu trahnslay tu de espahnee, ay weel. My
Spanglish is pretty good. Better than my computer skills. Thanks for tolerating my test, Torchbearer, & 4 ur mic check.

May God help us all; I obviously have more questions than answers. I am pleased with all the Campaign 4 Liberty thinkers I have read, yes, read.

While I'm at it--lose is l-o-s-e, that is, to get rid of something one didn't want to be rid of. Loose is as in ends! Let's impress those other folks out there with our erudition and our politeness.

[Lord Xar]

For some of those people here illegally, America IS their home country.

So what. That is a fools argument because it absolves all parties of responsibility. Well, actually - not all. The United States taxpayer is now on the hook.

These "children" do not become wards of the state, as you have obviously advocated - but rather should go back to their parents country of origin, WITH THEIR PARENTS. Simple.

[Lord Xar]

If we rounded up all of the illegal aliens, a couple of certainties are that production costs would increase dramatically due to the severe labor shortage, and output volumes would decrease. This means fewer consumer goods at higher prices. Also fewer services at higher prices. There would be new availabilities for minimum wage type jobs. Legal residents who are already performing these jobs would see a slight increase in their real wage and those who were formally unemployed and actually want ones of these jobs might now be working.

Again, another crotchety argument. We need 'foreign workers' -- sure, I'll buy into that. BUT WE DO NOT need 20+ illegal immigrants, a fraction who actually are working in services industries that we require. Most are displacing american workers and displacing american children in classrooms, hospitals etc... These resources are not infinite, therefore - to accomodate an illegal, then we are displacing an American. Either with taxpayer monies, resources of teachers or availability of medical services.

It would be wise to read up on such things. You know what happens with these "big companies" get raided --- AMERICANS STEP INTO THE JOBS. We have always had foreign workers. But like Chavez, who hated illegal immigrants, we can bring in workers LEGALLY!

Gotdayum.. get with man.

[SeanEdwards]

So what. That is a fools argument because it absolves all parties of responsibility.


Our country has a responsibilty to enforce it's own laws. Even in criminal cases, there is a thing called the statute of limitations. If a crime goes unpunished for long enough, then it is no longer a punishable offense. If our nation lets these babies of illegal immigrants spend their entire conscious lives in this country, in some cases spending their entire school career in the U.S. and graduating from an American high school, then there is no reasonable justification to deport that person. Our government fucked up by letting the kid grow up in this country, and at that point it is simply too late to declare them unwelcome.

You want to arbitrarily deport people that have spent 17 of their 18 years of life as an American? That's totally fucking insane and it's never going to happen in a civilized society.

Not only is it monstrously unjust to these innocent children of illegals that you want to deport as punishment for their parent's crime, it's also stupid and harmful to us. Some kid that graduates an American high school is an asset to this country, and you want to throw them out? That is a perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[erika]

Again, another crotchety argument. We need 'foreign workers' -- sure, I'll buy into that. BUT WE DO NOT need 20+ illegal immigrants, a fraction who actually are working in services industries that we require. Most are displacing american workers and displacing american children in classrooms, hospitals etc... These resources are not infinite, therefore - to accomodate an illegal, then we are displacing an American. Either with taxpayer monies, resources of teachers or availability of medical services.

It would be wise to read up on such things. You know what happens with these "big companies" get raided --- AMERICANS STEP INTO THE JOBS. We have always had foreign workers. But like Chavez, who hated illegal immigrants, we can bring in workers LEGALLY!

Gotdayum.. get with man.

well said. We actually bring in 2+ million Legally each year.

[OddballAZ]

If we rounded up all of the illegal aliens, a couple of certainties are that production costs would increase dramatically due to the severe labor shortage, and output volumes would decrease. This means fewer consumer goods at higher prices. Also fewer services at higher prices. There would be new availabilities for minimum wage type jobs. Legal residents who are already performing these jobs would see a slight increase in their real wage and those who were formally unemployed and actually want ones of these jobs might now be working.

There are very few people who say we should "round them all up". There are much easier ways of making them go home without resorting to police state tactics. Cutting off the welfare and other social services, and enforcing employment laws would get rid of the vast majority of illegal immigration.

Your argument prices would rise is simply false. Many high school kids can no longer find jobs because illegal immigrants take those jobs. Go to any fast food joint and try to order in English if you don't believe me. We may have to pay an extra 20 cents for a head of lettuce or some other produce but the amount of money you will save in healthcare will more than make up for it. Ever seen the amount of money hospitals in CA, AZ, NM, and TX spend on treating illegal aliens that they are NOT reimbursed for? They are reimbursed for some but not all. And guess who picks up the tab for the rest of it? You and me through higher costs for our own care.

Any industry that has had competition for employment by illegal immigrants has NOT seen an increase in their real wage. Construction, painters, farm workers, all have had their pay steadily getting lower and lower.

And I'm not even going to go into the problems with the gangs, human smuggling, drug smuggling and other 3rd world criminal behavior that occur down on the border. Believe me I live 50 miles from it and it's getting close to being a war zone. Educate yourself about what goes on: http://m3report.wordpress.com/

LEGAL immigration is fine. There is NOTHING wrong with making sure the people we accept into our country don't have crazy diseases, have some skills we need, and have a way of supporting themselves so they are not a drain on the rest of us. We used to do it 100 years ago. We can do it now. All SANE country's have immigration laws that they enforce. Try going to Mexico illegally and see what happens to you. You'll end up in a prison and you damn well may not get out for a few years.

[Lord Xar]

You want to arbitrarily deport people that have spent 17 of their 18 years of life as an American? That's totally fucking insane and it's never going to happen in a civilized society.

Not only is it monstrously unjust to these innocent children of illegals that you want to deport as punishment for their parent's crime, it's also stupid and harmful to us. Some kid that graduates an American high school is an asset to this country, and you want to throw them out? That is a perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I don't agree with you. But as the case of many a liberal/libertarian argument you use extremes to validate your argument.

1. Amend to the constitution to explicitly deny anchor babies.

IF a person is how 18yrs or older, then I will agree they can stay. If you are under 18 and under the care of a legal guardian WHO BROKE THE LAW -- then out you go till you're 18. In which case you can get in line for citizenship.

Why is an American high graduate an asset to this country? Why? That is political speak that means nothing. I know many a college graduate that are cheats, liars and vagabonds.. your point is what?

All your argument is "they are here, so lets just kick the can and accept it."

I love how all these open border apologists have a ton of sympathy for illegals and their ilk, but have no concern for the american people and their wallets OR the rule of law. Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

[constituent]

As long as the welfare gravy train is alive and well, I have a big problem with illegal immigration. Welfare gone and a "level" playing field and I'm an open-borders kind of person.

And besides, if 12 million of us decided to not pay our taxes next year, I'm certain the feds would have no problem whatever finding and rounding every last one of us up.

lol, not only do many (if not most) "illegal" immigrants pay taxes, SSI, etc., they also never (repeat NEVER) file for their "refunds."

[Deborah K]

Can anyone tell me/explain to me why we should not round up all illegal immigrants? I personally can't see any use for keeping them here.

It isn't practical and it isn't necessary. They'll leave through attrition once the fricken states start enforcing federal immigration laws like they're supposed to. Of course that won't happen until the people rise up and demand it. It's finally working in Arizona.

[OddballAZ]

It isn't practical and it isn't necessary. They'll leave through attrition once the fricken states start enforcing federal immigration laws like they're supposed to. Of course that won't happen until the people rise up and demand it. It's finally working in Arizona.


This is 100% true. I live in AZ and have seen a change ever since we started cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens. Although I still see PLENTY of people coming across the border; they aren't coming to AZ to stay. They are just passing through and going all over the country.

The smugglers have a very elaborate network of smuggling people (and drugs) across the border. Usually once they are in AZ they are taken to a "safe house" where they are kept until they pay the smugglers. Many of the people are basically kidnapped and held for ransom until their family pays. Once they pay they are then transported by car to wherever in the country they are going. Then they work for wages that are now artificially low due to the illegal immigration. It's really just modern day slavery that bleeding heart liberals and some of the totally misguided libertarians seem to endorse.

I don't expect liberals to get it. But libertarians (and Neo Con's for that matter) should understand you cannot sell out your country's sovereignty just to make a buck.

[Josh_LA]

Stupid question :

1. they're people too
2. no human being is illegal
3. rounding them up is what Nazis do
4. they didn't come here to hurt us
5. they're just here for a better life
6. it's racist to say anybody can't come when we did for hundreds of years

(anything I missed?)

[RickyJ]

Stupid question :

1. they're people too - (who is saying they are not?)
2. no human being is illegal (They are here illegally hence they are illegal aliens)
3. rounding them up is what Nazis do (No, rounding them up and deporting them would be enforcing the law.)
4. they didn't come here to hurt us (Some of them did and have.)
5. they're just here for a better life (Some of them aren't, they are here to take over)
6. it's racist to say anybody can't come when we did for hundreds of years (We have a border and we have immigration laws. If they can't respect our border and immigration laws then they shouldn't be here. Anyone that calls that racist is not too bright.)

(anything I missed?) (Yeah, you forgot that the USA is a sovereign nation.)

[Josh_LA]

Stupid question :

1. they're people too - (who is saying they are not?)
2. no human being is illegal (They are here illegally hence they are illegal aliens)
3. rounding them up is what Nazis do (No, rounding them up and deporting them would be enforcing the law.)
4. they didn't come here to hurt us (Some of them did and have.)
5. they're just here for a better life (Some of them aren't, they are here to take over)
6. it's racist to say anybody can't come when we did for hundreds of years (We have a border and we have immigration laws. If they can't resect our border and immigration laws then they shouldn't be here. Anyone that calls that racist is not too bright.)

(anything I missed?) (Yeah, you forgot that the USA is a sovereign nation.)
Sorry if I wasn't obvious (sadly, its becoming less obvious). I was being sarcastic.

[Lord Xar]

lol, not only do many (if not most) "illegal" immigrants pay taxes, SSI, etc., they also never (repeat NEVER) file for their "refunds."

More distractions. Do they pay their fair share in relation to the services they use? Do they pay their fair share in relation to the wage suppression and American Job losses? Also, when you create a huge base of uneducated and 'poor' workers - they will not and cannot pay their fair share -- thus, middle class americans or rich americans will have to make up the difference.

If you have 20 pedophiles who all were convicted and sentenced to 1yr in prison, and once let out - tremendous shouts of opposition are raised.. you don't say ..

"Many, if not most have served their time" -- as if that is some barometer for validation of the wrongs that were done. You wave away so much of the discussion with such remarks. Before you do so - you might want to take a cost/benefit analysis. There are many out there - just look.

[Lord Xar]

Sorry if I wasn't obvious (sadly, its becoming less obvious). I was being sarcastic.

lol. one look at your avatar t-shirt and it should be apparent of your nature. lol.

btw -- I 'would' love that shirt -- but sadly, I might get trounced for being an anti-semite while wearing that in public .... such times.

[constituent]

More distractions. Do they pay their fair share in relation to the services they use?

Collectivist Bilge. Many use no services. Some never pay a cent.

But the same is easily said for "Americans" of every stripe.



Do they pay their fair share in relation to the wage suppression and American Job losses?

More collectivist bilge. Wage suppression is caused equally by the employers who hire them (in violation of the law) in order to get away w/ paying them less, as it is by the employees willing to work for less.



Also, when you create a huge base of uneducated and 'poor' workers - they will not and cannot pay their fair share -- thus, middle class americans or rich americans will have to make up the difference.

No one is creating a huge base of uneducated and 'poor' workers.

Certainly not me.

That said, there was already a huge base of uneducated, poor folks, even excluding all immigrants from the S. over the past quarter-century.



If you have 20 pedophiles who all were convicted and sentenced to 1yr in prison, and once let out - tremendous shouts of opposition are raised

And pedophilia relates or even compares to unlawful border crossing, staying past a visa how exactly?



"Many, if not most have served their time" -- as if that is some barometer for validation of the wrongs that were done. You wave away so much of the discussion with such remarks.

Uhhh.... you said it, not me. Who is waiving away the discussion?



Before you do so - you might want to take a cost/benefit analysis. There are many out there - just look.

I'd recommend you do the same.

How many employers couldn't afford to stay afloat w/out the "cheap" labor? Would those employers closing their doors be a good thing for the economy?

How much MORE would we be paying for the goods and services they do provide otherwise?

[Lord Xar]

Collectivist Bilge. Many use no services. Some never pay a cent.

But the same is easily said for "Americans" of every stripe.

They are not americans (as in american citizens), so your argument fails.



More collectivist bilge. Wage suppression is caused equally by the employers who hire them (in violation of the law) in order to get away w/ paying them less, as it is by the employees willing to work for less.

I believe it is you who is the collectivist. So, by saying employers are "equally" at fault does NOT erase my statement. Are you so use to side-stepping things that you do not have any idea that you invalidate your own arguments?

The topic at hand is illegal immigrants. We can wax poetic on all the reasons they are here etc... but it doesn't change the fact - that the are. Now, you can keep dismissing everything everyone says and say "its because of this.. and not the immigrant" - great. But it doesn't support your argument. The funny thing about your party, assuming you are a libertarian, is that you base all your arguments on a fairy tale. The fairy tale doesn't exist, therefore your arguments are invalid in the reality of things. Its a circular argument. IF we had enforcement and IF we have government doing its job, we wouldn't have this discussion. But unlike you, I ALSO put blame on the lawbreakers. See I don't have that liberal mindset that everyone is a victim.




No one is creating a huge base of uneducated and 'poor' workers.

Certainly not me.

That said, there was already a huge base of uneducated, poor folks, even excluding all immigrants from the S. over the past quarter-century.

You haven't presented an argument here. Just more distractions. This is getting tiring. 20+million illegals and their chain migrated folk are a HUGE burden. If you cannot see this, then you are too far gone. And again - you are comparing american citizens to NON - citizens. See, this is where you fail. You seem to think there is no distinction and this is where we differ. Also, like you said - sure, there are poor americans - but so what? What is your point? That s.american poor or african poor vs. american citizen poor have no differences on the United States and the taxpayer? On the social and economic systems? What? Stop hitting foul balls. It seems you are trying to fit a circle in a square peg. We have the concept of "citizens" and of "borders" and of "Taxes" etc... so given that, the argument must stay within the reality of such things. You 'can' think there are no borders and no such thing as non-citizen, but at that point - there is no point in discussing.



And pedophilia relates or even compares to unlawful border crossing, staying past a visa how exactly?

Staying past a visa? That is leftist media concocted story. MOST of the illegal immigrants are NOT here on visas and again - you are trying to sugar coat things. Also, my pedophile comment went over your head.




How many employers couldn't afford to stay afloat w/out the "cheap" labor? Would those employers closing their doors be a good thing for the economy?

How much MORE would we be paying for the goods and services they do provide otherwise?

You'd be surprised. Do you remember that huge hoopla over a 'head of lettuce' and if we didn't have jose or juan or miguel picking em' we'd have to pay thru the nose etc... if they hired AMERICAN workers.. 5cents. Five fuckings cents. I would certainly pay 5 cents extra for a head of lettuce because I'd save hundreds in property taxes, sales taxes that are used to the benefit of illegals. There always is this argument.. "how much are you willing to pay for... if the illegal isn't working"... how about this argument "How much will we save if we didn't have illegals overcrowding our schools, our social and medical services, our governmental services, the value of properties going down etc...." so much.

You want illegals, I don't. Simple. Or more apt, I believe in the concept of "illegals", you don't.

[Josh_LA]

lol. one look at your avatar t-shirt and it should be apparent of your nature. lol.

btw -- I 'would' love that shirt -- but sadly, I might get trounced for being an anti-semite while wearing that in public .... such times.

Well Xar, you must remember that this WAS the place somebody got furious and doubted my loyalty because they couldn't detect sarcasm (or simply lacked humor).

[Josh_LA]

They are not americans (as in american citizens), so your argument fails.


I already know (unless he admits he agrees with you) this guy's going to say something like "well there's no such thing as a citizen or illegal alien or an illegal immigrant because these are all voluntary statuses"

Yes, just like there's no such thing as an illegal murderer or an illegal trespasser because people who trespass and murder do it voluntarily (and so do those who chose not to).

Hello? "voluntary" means "both sides agree" so the fact immigrants (whatever kind) are not welcome by the current residents is enough to say they don't belong here.

[Josh_LA]

More collectivist bilge. Wage suppression is caused equally by the employers who hire them (in violation of the law) in order to get away w/ paying them less, as it is by the employees willing to work for less.




Doesn't matter who breaks the law to you, as long as you don't recognize the law. Which I assume you don't. It's not true at all that those who oppose immigration are OK with employers, but it sure doesn't follow that therefore immigrants are completely innocent and not an issue.

(don't get me wrong, I don't care about Americans losing jobs, but I'm just saying they have a point and a reason other than just being racist).

[Josh_LA]

That said, there was already a huge base of uneducated, poor folks, even excluding all immigrants from the S. over the past quarter-century.




Exactly, so we're supposed to allow more poor and uneducated people in to better our situation, right?:eek:

[erika]

Guys, illegals(mainly mexicans actually, to be scientific) are so awesome I mean have you seen all the cool areas of l.a. that are completely fucked now? I used to be able to drive through their. Not anymore. Now it's an armpit of gang members, and stench of piss. But hey, they just want jobs n shit, right? Ya right. how many more emergency rooms will close?
They are on burdon to the u.s. and california.

[Josh_LA]

Guys, illegals(mainly mexicans actually, to be scientific) are so awesome I mean have you seen all the cool areas of l.a. that are completely fucked now? I used to be able to drive through their. Not anymore. Now it's an armpit of gang members, and stench of piss. But hey, they just want jobs n shit, right? Ya right. how many more emergency rooms will close?
They are on burdon to the u.s. and california.

Hey, who are we to say it's fucked? Haven't you been taught to respect all cultures and embrace diversity? Why should you be afraid of driving through there? Don't you know it's racist to be afraid of people based on their skin color or culture?

[erika]

Hey, who are we to say it's fucked? Haven't you been taught to respect all cultures and embrace diversity? Why should you be afraid of driving through there? Don't you know it's racist to be afraid of people based on their skin color or culture?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but It's not skin color that is the problem because most of them look beige like me. I don't care about color. It's gang activity and areas that used to be nice are now run down areas because of them. Also areas that used to be parks where I could take my kids. It's very dangerous to be there now. "We've got a problem".- oj

[Josh_LA]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but It's not skin color that is the problem because most of them look beige like me. I don't care about color. It's gang activity and areas that used to be nice are now run down areas because of them. Also areas that used to be parks where I could take my kids. It's very dangerous to be there now. "We've got a problem".- oj

YEs, I'm being sarcastic, I'm not a moron. This is at least the 2nd time somebody couldn't detect it in this thread.

And sadly, I don't blame you if you couldn't tell, our children are being brainwashed into thinking so politically correct today.