Building a Border Fence is not Libertarian

[Feenix566]

Just thought you guys should know that. Building a fence is an authoritarian proposal. That is all.

[torchbearer]

Just thought you guys should know that. Building a fence is an authoritarian proposal. That is all.

what if its on your property?
a fence indicates a change in sovereignty, that is all.
Same for your property as it is for the extent of our constitution.

[Feenix566]

what if its on your property?
a fence indicates a change in sovereignty, that is all.
Same for your property as it is for the extent of our constitution.

Private land ownership is a libertarian idea. State land ownership is an authoritarian idea.

[torchbearer]

Private land ownership is a libertarian idea. State land ownership is an authoritarian idea.

sovereignty is a property right thing.

[Truth Warrior]

And the current USA is not libertarian either. :rolleyes:

[brandon]

Just thought you guys should know that. Building a fence is an authoritarian proposal. That is all.

I agree.

The border fence is a terrible idea.

[Feenix566]

And the current USA is not libertarian either. :rolleyes:

I didn't say it was.


I agree.

The border fence is a terrible idea.

I didn't say that.

[brandon]

I didn't say that.

I said it. That's why it says 'brandonyates' above it.

[Dr.3D]

Yeah, a true libertarian doesn't have locks on his doors either. :rolleyes:

[robskicks]

i think the fences are to keep us in

[Feenix566]

I said it. That's why it says 'brandonyates' above it.

I just didn't want to give anyone an excuse to hijack the thread by equating my statement of fact that it's an authoritarian proposal with a statement of opinion that it's a terrible idea. Those two statements are different. I just want to see if everyone can agree with the first one, without delving into the second.

[Feenix566]

Yeah, a true libertarian doesn't have locks on his doors either. :rolleyes:

Protecting one's private property rights is a very libertarian thing to do.

[brandon]

Yeah, a true libertarian doesn't have locks on his doors either. :rolleyes:

If you put a lock on your door the government doesn't send the military to your house, demanding to see identification everytime you pass through the door.

Big difference.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I am so done with these damn labels. Who cares what is republican, libertarian or democratic? They are ALL bullshit when it comes down to it because NO ONE in any of these so called parties actually stands and votes for the true intent of the party.

A fence is NOT needed IF we change the policy and stop fucking handing out free money and jobs to illegals. If there is no incentive then guess what, they will stay put. Hell if mexico offered better living then here we might just start running across the border as well.

[Truth Warrior]

I didn't say it was.
Did I say, that you said it was?

NO! :rolleyes:

[Feenix566]

Did I say, that you said it was?

NO! :rolleyes:

I didn't say you said I said it was :p

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not saying you said I said you said I said it was.

[brandon]

I didn't say you said I said it was :p

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not saying you said I said you said I said it was.

did you just say that you didn't say he said you said he said you said it was?

[MRoCkEd]

A fence is NOT needed IF we change the policy and stop fucking handing out free money and jobs to illegals. If there is no incentive then guess what, they will stay put. Hell if mexico offered better living then here we might just start running across the border as well.
yeah. stop the free healthcare and schooling too.

[Feenix566]

did you just say that you didn't say he said you said he said you said it was?

Purple.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

I am so done with these damn labels. Who cares what is republican, libertarian or democratic? They are ALL bullshit when it comes down to it because NO ONE in any of these so called parties actually stands and votes for the true intent of the party.

A fence is NOT needed IF we change the policy and stop fucking handing out free money and jobs to illegals. If there is no incentive then guess what, they will stay put. Hell if mexico offered better living then here we might just start running across the border as well.

+1


On this issue I am not pure Libertarian. I see the border fence like a fence around a Country Club, something the members decide to do together....to keep the caddys off the course after-hours. (I caddy'ed my way through College) (I'm a looper).

[Jason T]

Libertarian idea or not, it's dumb.

A boarder fence, at best, may stop 5% of people who want to cross the boarder. Sure, many people go around the fences that are up already, but that doesn't mean that they won't be able to go over/under/through a fence, it merely means that taking the long way is easier than going over/under/through the fence.

Besides, a large % (40-50) of illegals in the US come in legally on temporary visas. Cost effective measures, such as restricting temporary visas, should be taken first.

[Zolah]

Just thought you guys should know that. Building a fence is an authoritarian proposal. That is all.

You are right, the Libertarian ideal is for borders to be completely eradicated, that is why I'm not Libertarian, but libertarian.

[Feenix566]

Getting rid of free healthcare is a very libertarian solution to the Mexican immigration issue. But I have an even better one:

END THE WAR ON DRUGS

Sounds counterintuitive, doesn't it? Well, allow me to explain.

Ever since the Coast Guard figured out how to stop drug shipments from coming through the Gulf, the shipments have been coming by land, through Mexico. This has lead to a dramatic rise in the wealth and power of the Mexican drug cartels. They've become so powerful, so well-funded, and so well-armed that they actually control parts of Mexico. They frequently have all-out gunfights with each other, and with the Mexican government.

Not surprisingly, the constant violence is tearing apart Mexico's economy. Nobody in their right mind would open up a business in Mexico, because everybody knows it's just going to end up getting blown up, shot up, or flat out stolen by the drug lords. So the economy sucks, and nobody wants to live there.

So what happens next? Surprise, surprise, all the Mexicans try to come across the border into the United States, where jobs are plentiful and rivers of milk and honey pour down every hillside.

If you want to take away the incentive for Mexicans to come here, you've gotta take away the drug cartels that are destroying their country at home. How do you get rid of them? Simple! Legalize drugs! Once the drugs are legal, there won't be any drug cartels. They'll be replaced by legitimate and nonviolent drug companies.

Alcohol Prohibition was one of the most violent times in American history. It gave rise to such notoriously violent figures as Al Capone. When prohibition ended, so did the source of income for criminal organizations. Now we've got companies like Miller and Budweiser supplying us with beer. When was the last time you saw them shooting each other in the street?

[mport1]

Just thought you guys should know that. Building a fence is an authoritarian proposal. That is all.

Yep. But for some reason people believe the anti-immigration propaganda.

[Fox McCloud]

I'd say if all the land on the border is privately owned, and everyone decided to put fence up on his or her property...and it was all interconnected, it'd be perfectly fine...as a matter of fact that'd probably work better than the government building a fence--each individual could choose to maintain (or not) the fence.....and in all likelihood it'd be a lot cheaper, in the long run, for a couple million individuals owning various lengths of fence than the government to own and maintain it all.

[Archie]

yeah the "illegal's" come over for the simple fact that America will butter there bread be it the "legal way" ie Working for cheap labour or the "illegal" way which is "smuggling lots of narcotics" across the boarder. If you get rid of this incentives they wont even bother coming in droves like they do, But there is also another class of people who want to claim back part of the southwest and declare war on the "Gringo" as much as it sounds like some wierd cominc book plot its actually pretty damn real ,and I think thats why you have some people wanting to just put up fence's because they see it as a "security risk" and an "enemy invasion" so before we all just mock people who want Fence's and stuff like that you gotta understand that alot of these people have actually had family hurt or even murdered by this "Gangs" who are declaring war on the Evil "Gringo" and all they want is just to be left alone . ITs a real fuckin Shame that the Mexicans cant get there country to become a stable economy were everyone can have good work and get paid enough to sustian there families and so forth ...

[Truth Warrior]

I didn't say you said I said it was :p

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not saying you said I said you said I said it was.
You started it. :p

[Truth Warrior]

Yep. But for some reason people believe the anti-immigration propaganda. Or is that the anti-illegal propaganda. ;)

[TastyWheat]

Is the fence supposed to be electrified? If not that will just slow them down. Fences can be climbed or cut. It's a lowsy replacement for more border patrol.

[torchbearer]

Is the fence supposed to be electrified? If not that will just slow them down. Fences can be climbed or cut. It's a lowsy replacement for more border patrol.

how about machine gun turret placements every 500 yards?

[Sir VotesALot]

Withdraw our military from Iraq and Afghanistan and put them on the Mexican border. Problem solved. But of course I would be in favor of the fence too.

Who cares what's libertarian and what isn't? I know Mexicans don't.

[acroso]

We need a fence. These people are coming to get our property. They will vote for Dems and Leftists.

We could get a trillion people in this country in no time flat with open border policies.

If you come legally- good.

If you don't....well I hope you run into our new border fence! (if it gets built that is!)

[TastyWheat]

how about machine gun turret placements every 500 yards?
Now THAT'S how you build a border fence.

[FunkBuddha]

This post reminded me of this old southern rap song from '95. It's kinda got a libertarian message to it. Pay attention to the second verse for the relevance to this thread.

Any self-respecting libertarian oughta love the chorus too!

Goodie Mobb - Cell Therapy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dzwWOSwNY8)
Lyrics (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/g/goodie+mob/cell+therapy_20061438.html)

[Sir VotesALot]

If you come legally- good.

Not to me. Unless you're talking about people with high skills. You are aware that government immigration policy since 1965 has been slanted in favor of unskilled third world peoples (hence the condition of our major cities)? The status of legal immigration in this country is just as bad as illegal immigration if not worse.

[acroso]

Not to me. Unless you're talking about people with high skills. You are aware that government immigration policy since 1965 has been slanted in favor of unskilled third world peoples (hence the condition of our major cities)? The status of legal immigration in this country is just as bad as illegal immigration if not worse.

Well I agree with that sentiment too. However, current law is current law.

If someone comes legally, well they did nothing wrong so you can't really hold it against them.

But if someone comes illegally....hopefully they'll bump into the fence instead.

btw-we don't need a fence on Canadian border. We only need one on the Mexican border because 20 million ppl are running across it! duh

[SeanEdwards]

Is locking the door to your house authoritarian?

[Malakai]

You can't really say it is or isn't libertarian. What it is, is useless, I'll give you that. It's like providing an obstacle course to get through, with the reward of a free meal/healthcare/education for your kids.

Remove the reward and you don't need the fence. But we can't talk about intelligent things like that in politics or the media.

[SeanEdwards]

. What it is, is useless,

That's just nonsense. The military knows very well how to establish a secure perimiter. Some people will still enter illegally through other means, but the numbers that can easily walk from Mexico to the US can be substantially curtailed with just a little bit of will and razorwire.

[LibertyEagle]

Yep. But for some reason people believe the anti-immigration propaganda.

And some people fell for the propaganda that was intended to lump together legal immigration and ILLEGAL immigration. Legal immigration is fine; ILLEGAL immigration is not. And until we get our government to stop handing out our tax dollars to ILLEGAL aliens, we'd damn sure better stop the ILLEGAL immigration.

[Brian4Liberty]

We don't need fences, we need more people! At least a couple billion more would fit in the U.S. Gotta keep the pyramid scheme going. Ask anyone in DC or the US Chamber of Commerce.

And look at the benefits:

- Labor costs go down (deflation to counter the real inflation).
- Housing prices go up (and we can all take out no-money-down, interest only loans to get in on the profits).
- Energy prices go up (and we all benefit as shareholders and executives).
- Forces people to stop using those nasty automobiles.
- Food prices go up and we make more profits in the food industry (buy ADM and Potash).
- Makes better use (increased productivity!) of our seriously under-populated urban/suburban areas.
- Increases our (government) budget.

At least it worked for the past 15 years... :rolleyes:

If we could only bring in enough people fast enough we can get the scam rolling again.

[Feenix566]

Legal immigration is fine; ILLEGAL immigration is not.

That argument falls flat on its face. Do you support the law because it's right, or because it's the law?

If the answer is the first one, then you need to explain why our immigration policy is right. You need to justify every single step of the process. Do you even know what the process of legal immigration is?

If you answered the question by saying that you support the law just because it's the law, then you have to support every law ever written, just because they're the laws. So you have to explain why you support slavery, the holocaust, alcohol prohibition, and all laws regulating what can and cannot be done in the bedroom between consenting adults.

[Agent Chameleon]

That argument falls flat on its face. Do you support the law because it's right, or because it's the law?

If the answer is the first one, then you need to explain why our immigration policy is right. You need to justify every single step of the process. Do you even know what the process of legal immigration is?

If you answered the question by saying that you support the law just because it's the law, then you have to support every law ever written, just because they're the laws. So you have to explain why you support slavery, the holocaust, alcohol prohibition, and all laws regulating what can and cannot be done in the bedroom between consenting adults.

I oppose illegal immigration because I believe it's a threat to our country's survival. Is that good enough for you?

As far as legal immigration, I'm open to reforming the laws, however I'm not too keen on allowing more people in than we already take in. I think moderate immigration is reasonable; we don't need the mass immigration waves of the early 20th Century.

[Feenix566]

I oppose illegal immigration because I believe it's a threat to our country's survival. Is that good enough for you?

As far as legal immigration, I'm open to reforming the laws, however I'm not too keen on allowing more people in than we already take in. I think moderate immigration is reasonable; we don't need the mass immigration waves of the early 20th Century.

At least you're being intellectually honest.

[mport1]

And some people fell for the propaganda that was intended to lump together legal immigration and ILLEGAL immigration. Legal immigration is fine; ILLEGAL immigration is not. And until we get our government to stop handing out our tax dollars to ILLEGAL aliens, we'd damn sure better stop the ILLEGAL immigration.

There should be no such thing as illegal immigration. Free people can move wherever they like if individual property owners allow it.

[torchbearer]

Actually, scratch the machine guns, how about apache patrols on the border.
After a few infiltrators are scattered to the wind by its minigun, people will be a lil' more hesitant to push their luck.

[mport1]

Actually, scratch the machine guns, how about apache patrols on the border.
After a few infiltrators are scattered to the wind by its minigun, people will be a lil' more hesitant to push their luck.

Yeah, murdering innocent people is a great idea. Hope you were joking...

[torchbearer]

Yeah, murdering innocent people is a great idea. Hope you were joking...

innocent people? so, someone breaking into your home is innocent, especially when they are hungry and poor? that makes it ok?
If you crossed into china's borders without visa, do you expect a warm welcome?
People who enter illegally are not innocent. And they are not stupid either.
I forget that some people have no concept of sovereignty.

[Sir VotesALot]

Yeah, murdering innocent people is a great idea. Hope you were joking...

Innocence is collectivism.

But in all seriousness an invader is not an 'innocent.' Especially if he's defecating on my crops or assaulting my daughter. All you non-Southwesterners PLEASE stop smugly advocating open borders. Mexcians do not care about your individualism or Austrian economics--they want "their" land "back" and will use your tax dollars (and extreme gullibility) to take it away.

[Dr.3D]

I was thinking more along the lines of a high current, high voltage electric fence along the border. Let em fry themselves and the others who would follow would get the message.

[LibertyEagle]

but in all seriousness an invader is not an 'innocent.' especially if he's defecating on my crops or assaulting my daughter. All you non-southwesterners please stop smugly advocating open borders. Mexcians do not care about your individualism or austrian economics--they want "their" land "back" and will use your tax dollars (and extreme gullibility) to take it away.

+1000

[mport1]

innocent people? so, someone breaking into your home is innocent, especially when they are hungry and poor? that makes it ok?
If you crossed into china's borders without visa, do you expect a warm welcome?
People who enter illegally are not innocent. And they are not stupid either.
I forget that some people have no concept of sovereignty.

Who are they harming by walking across an imaginary line in the sand? If they come onto your property you can kick them off, but if I want them on my property to work or something than it is within my property rights to do so. Barring the free movement of people is a violation of property rights.

No, I don't expect a warm welcome from China, and they are wrong as well. So we should model ourselves after them?

I believe in individual sovereignty but reject the fiction of national sovereignty.

[torchbearer]

Who are they harming by walking across an imaginary line in the sand? If they come onto your property you can kick them off, but if I want them on my property to work or something than it is within my property rights to do so. Barring the free movement of people is a violation of property rights.

No, I don't expect a warm welcome from China, and they are wrong as well. So we should model ourselves after them?

I believe in individual sovereignty but reject the fiction of national sovereignty.

Well, your property lines are imaginary too. I'm coming to your house to set up camp, and i will consume your goods because your idea of property is imaginary too.
Whoopee! true anarchism!

[KenInMontiMN]

It's no coincidence that immigration laws have gone virtually unenforced so long, by the very same administrations that pushed the national debt over the top. You don't destroy a nation's sovereignty by keeping a gov't and populace on a sound foundation. Instead you introduce and encourage rot throughout, and among the combination of rot used particularly effectively from the Reagan administration forward to destroy America's dollar, it's industry, it's self-reliance, it's fiscal balance sheet- while unenforced borders is not alone, it is right at the top of the list with the rest.

But I would agree that a border fence is an ineffective solution. The thoroughly electrified fence must be built in every hiring office in the land instead, ready to instantly sizzle the employer who hires prior to verification. Penalties aimed at those with little/nothing to lose will always be draconian and ineffective, while those aimed at those with plenty to lose have real deterrence. When push comes to shove the economic abuse of the undocumented to the detriment of the entire country is an economic and property crime of large scale, and citizen-violators should in turn be stripped heavily of economy and property for such abuse.

[Andrew-Austin]

Well, your property lines are imaginary too. I'm coming to your house to set up camp, and i will consume your goods because your idea of property is imaginary too.
Whoopee! true anarchism!

Well we can distinguish the two imaginary lines from one another. One is the border of a nation state, the other is the border of an individual's property.

Individuals > states, "society"

I'm sure I don't have to explain how it is detrimental to think of things as states rights, and more beneficial to think of things in terms of individual's rights.

[torchbearer]

Well we can distinguish the two imaginary lines from one another. One is the border of a nation state, the other is the border of an individual's property.

Individuals > states, "society"

they are all lines on paper.
whether its a map of the world, map of the nation, a map of your city, a map of your plot.
to agree to those lines is to subscribe to some form of property right.
to say they are imaginary is to subscribe to anarchy.

[Andrew-Austin]

they are all lines on paper.
whether its a map of the world, map of the nation, a map of your city, a map of your plot.
to agree to those lines is to subscribe to some form of property right.
to say they are imaginary is to subscribe to anarchy.

Yes they are lines on paper, and I believe in property rights.

Anarchism is the lack of a coercive state apparatus, and not necessarily the lack of property rights?

But again, distinguishing the two lines....

-One claim to property is pegged to an individual. A man with a name, a soul, who can tell you what he owns and what is in his perceived best interest.

-One is the "property" marked by a state. The state in no way can speak for all individuals in taking a position on border security, as of course peoples opinions and interests will vary. The state can't serve "societies" best interest either through protectionism, "society" is just as abstract as the lines on the map.

[torchbearer]

Yes they are lines on paper, and I believe in property rights.

Anarchism is the lack of a coercive state apparatus, and not necessarily the lack of property rights?

But again, distinguishing the two lines....

-One claim to property is pegged to an individual. A man with a name, a soul, who can tell you what he owns and what is in his perceived best interest.

-One is the "property" marked by a state. The state in no way can speak for all individuals in taking a position on border security, as of course peoples opinions and interests will vary. The state can't serve "societies" best interest either through protectionism, "society" is just as abstract as the lines on the paper.

WHo enforces your lines on the paper from mobs if there is no government?
If no one can stop the mob, you have no property or rights.
you can't have your property right if a state doesn't have a right to protect your right. and if it has the right to protect your rights, its area of control are the lines on a map.
you can't have one without the other.
you anarchist haven't figured that out yet.
Our current government is fogging your mind.
the sole purpose of a just government is to protect the right of the individual/minority from the mobs who would take it from you.
That requires a government with soveriegnty, with defined borders.
Under the constitution, the state is the most responsible for protecting you from mobs within.
the federal government is to protect your from MOBs from the outside.
Like illegal immigrants.

[SeanEdwards]

Who are they harming by walking across an imaginary line in the sand?

Potentially everyone, if they are infected with some deadly communicable disease.

[Andrew-Austin]

WHo enforces your lines on the paper from mobs if there is no government?
If no one can stop the mob, you have no property or rights.
you can't have your property right if a state doesn't have a right to protect your right. and if it has the right to protect your rights, its area of control is the lined on a map.
you can't have one without the other.
you anarchist haven't figured that out yet.

Our current government is fogging your mind.
the sole purpose of a just government is to protect the right of the individual/minority from the mobs who would take it from you.
That requires a government with soveriegnty, with defined borders.
Under the constitution, the state is the most responsible for protecting you from mobs within.
the federal government is to protect your from MOBs from the outside.
Like illegal immigrants.

I'm really not trying to say that I'm pro-anarchy, just that I don't care for the state's alleged right to build a fence and say who can and cannot come into the country. I view all people as people, not as Mexicans and Americans. And I don't want the government trying to "protect" me from those Mexican "mobs", as you put it "outsiders". I mean the second we aggrandize the state by allowing it to do such things, is the day when the state milks the "us verus them" fear monger paradigm to our detriment.

[torchbearer]

I'm really not trying to say that I'm pro-anarchy, just that I don't care for the state's alleged right to build a fence and say who can and cannot come into the country.

They do that to protect you from outside mobs.
They may not have violated you yet, but they have violated others.
Your state can't keep up. the federal government is doing nothing.

There is a reason our founders gave states some powers.. it was to protect our individual property rights, but in doing so, they created a government that was enlisted to protect a defined border.
That was its sole purpose.

[Sir VotesALot]

I view all people as people, not as Mexicans and Americans.

Is your name Robert Pastor? We don't want your North American Union, Mr. Pastor. Please leave our sovereignty alone.

I view Mexicans as people too--people who have their own country with plenty of natural resources and beautiful white beaches that put America's to shame. But they are invading our country (or "region" for you libertarians) because of our entitlement piñatas--but of course under the pretenses of pursuing the "American Dream" or reconquering "their" land (oh the contradictions!)

The fact is Mexicans are much different than the native stock of Americans. They have higher birth rates and higher crime rates (if statistics bore you then just visit a prison in California). When you say it's "okay" for millions of them to invade the USA you are asking for dispossession and displacement. You are asking for our cities to turn into third-world (non-libertarian) hell holes. Sorry if this is "racism" or "collectivism" but it is the truth.

SECURE OUR BORDERS, then we can start worrying about individualism and sound money. The fact that our New World Order elite is TRYING to flood us with illegal immigrants should be more than enough of an indication that it is NOT a good thing.

[SeanEdwards]

It's just a guess, but I bet the native americans wished they had enforced immigration laws on their territory.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Just thought you guys should know that. Building a fence is an authoritarian proposal. That is all.

I guess living in a house with walls is antilibertarian and authoritanian? We aren't trying to keep them out. We are trying to protect our superior system from their inferior system of tyranny. That is why we are who we are. We wave our flag and die for our nation because we believe our system is superior. That is why those ungrateful bastards down there come up here to wave their Mexican flags at us. They also believe our system is superior. Isn't it time we got back to being the superior bastards who made this great nation what it is?

[Maverick]

I think we're all forgetting just how the government is planning on securing the lad for the border fence. They're snatching up land left and right through eminent domain, even against the wishes of the legitimate property owners. And that sits well with all you libertarian types here, does it?

[klamath]

I guess living in a house with walls is antilibertarian and authoritanian? We aren't trying to keep them out. We are trying to protect our superior system from their inferior system of tyranny. That is why we are who we are. We wave our flag and die for our nation because we believe our system is superior. That is why those ungrateful bastards down there come up here to wave their Mexican flags at us. They also believe our system is superior. Isn't it time we got back to being the superior bastards who made this great nation what it is?

Hey that was very direct and to the point, all in one paragraph;)

[Dr.3D]

I think we're all forgetting just how the government is planning on securing the lad for the border fence. They're snatching up land left and right through eminent domain, even against the wishes of the legitimate property owners. And that sits well with all you libertarian types here, does it?

Just how much land does it take to put up a fence. Twenty feet of width isn't that much if it was even that much.

[Agent Chameleon]

A free society cannot exist without borders, strong defense, and sovereignty.

Sorry, but it's the truth.

Show me one "region" that has survived with completely open borders, no military, and no sense of identity either. I can't think of any.

The simple truth is that the outside world doesn't care at all about Austrian economics, federalism, and low taxes. To them, a defenseless America is just a large land full of resources ripe for the taking.

[torchbearer]

I guess living in a house with walls is antilibertarian and authoritanian? We aren't trying to keep them out. We are trying to protect our superior system from their inferior system of tyranny. That is why we are who we are. We wave our flag and die for our nation because we believe our system is superior. That is why those ungrateful bastards down there come up here to wave their Mexican flags at us. They also believe our system is superior. Isn't it time we got back to being the superior bastards who made this great nation what it is?

thread winner.

[SeanEdwards]

I think we're all forgetting just how the government is planning on securing the lad for the border fence. They're snatching up land left and right through eminent domain, even against the wishes of the legitimate property owners. And that sits well with all you libertarian types here, does it?

That's what eminent domain is, duh. If the property owner wanted to sell then there'd be no need to invoke eminent domain laws.

And it absolutely sits well with me, as long as the reasons for invoking the eminent domain are appropriate. Building a highway, or border fence or other public work are totally legitimate applications of eminent domain, imo. Using eminent domain to hand over property to a private commercial real estate developer at bargain prices is not appropriate.

[AutoDas]

Most of the Ron Paul supporters here are not libertarians. They are mostly paleoconservatives and neoconverts who have no respect for property rights and believe the Mexicans are planning to invade Canada in order to achieve a North American Union. In a libertarian society all of that land would be privatized and if the land owners wanted to build a wall to protect their property they could.

[Andrew-Austin]

Is your name Robert Pastor? We don't want your North American Union, Mr. Pastor. Please leave our sovereignty alone.

I view Mexicans as people too--people who have their own country with plenty of natural resources and beautiful white beaches that put America's to shame. But they are invading our country (or "region" for you libertarians) because of our entitlement piñatas--but of course under the pretenses of pursuing the "American Dream" or reconquering "their" land (oh the contradictions!)

The fact is Mexicans are much different than the native stock of Americans. They have higher birth rates and higher crime rates (if statistics bore you then just visit a prison in California). When you say it's "okay" for millions of them to invade the USA you are asking for dispossession and displacement. You are asking for our cities to turn into third-world (non-libertarian) hell holes. Sorry if this is "racism" or "collectivism" but it is the truth.

SECURE OUR BORDERS, then we can start worrying about individualism and sound money. The fact that our New World Order elite is TRYING to flood us with illegal immigrants should be more than enough of an indication that it is NOT a good thing.

1. When the fuck did I say I was for the NAU? That attack came out of no where.

2. Yes, Mexico is the land of opportunity due to the beautiful beaches it has.. X_x

3. Their birth rates wouldn't even be that problematic if we were not providing them with free hospital service, and free public education.

4. Perhaps (and if I remember right Mr. Paul is in agreement with me) we should be addressing the incentives our government provides which are drawing Mexicans over here in mass, before we build the great wall of America using tax payer money. The "secure the border" mantra is the same one used by those who are pro-drug war, its combating the side effects and do nothing about the source of the problem (bad policy). Just because I disagree with how to handle the issue does not mean I'm pro-NAU and anti-sovereignty.

5. I gotta love the choice of words you are going with here, reminds me of government/MSM propaganda. Invoking the NAU, NWO, and La Raza all in one post. Using the word "invasion". I'm now successfully scared out of my mind.

[Sir VotesALot]

In a libertarian society all of that land would be privatized and if the land owners wanted to build a wall to protect their property they could.

Well we don't live in a libertarian society and probably never will.
And whether the North American Union is real or imagined it makes no difference to us "crackpots" who oppose illegal immigration.


Close the borders! Some of us have to live near them.

[Zolah]

1. When the fuck did I say I was for the NAU? That attack came out of no where.

2. Yes, Mexico is the land of opportunity due to the beautiful beaches it has.. X_x

3. Their birth rates wouldn't even be that problematic if we were not providing them with free hospital service, and free public education.

4. Perhaps (and if I remember right Mr. Paul is in agreement with me) we should be addressing the incentives our government provides which are drawing Mexicans over here in mass, before we build the great wall of America using tax payer money.

Fence - short term. Lessens illegal immigration. The long term goal would be getting rid of the welfare state, with more reasons than you can shake a stick at obviously.

[Agent Chameleon]

Most of the Ron Paul supporters here are not libertarians. They are mostly paleoconservatives and neoconverts who have no respect for property rights and believe the Mexicans are planning to invade Canada in order to achieve a North American Union. In a libertarian society all of that land would be privatized and if the land owners wanted to build a wall to protect their property they could.

Wow, so... if I oppose illegal immigration, that immediately casts me out of the libertarian camp and I'm banished into the neocon or paleocon world? Funny, I'm opposed to intervention so I can't be a neocon and I'm opposed to tariffs so I don't see the paleocons embracing me with open arms.

Meh, maybe its worthless being obsessed with labels. Whenever I take those political quizzes they keep saying I'm a libertarian, and yet opposing anarchy makes me an outsider in the eyes of the "purist libertarians".

I think I'll settle for patriot. :)

[Deborah K]

I am so done with these damn labels. Who cares what is republican, libertarian or democratic? They are ALL bullshit when it comes down to it because NO ONE in any of these so called parties actually stands and votes for the true intent of the party.

A fence is NOT needed IF we change the policy and stop fucking handing out free money and jobs to illegals. If there is no incentive then guess what, they will stay put. Hell if mexico offered better living then here we might just start running across the border as well.

Well put.

Btw, I am a registered non-partisan. I abhor the party system. They serve only to divide us. Candidates should run on a declaration of their principles - that's it.

[Deborah K]

I think we're all forgetting just how the government is planning on securing the lad for the border fence. They're snatching up land left and right through eminent domain, even against the wishes of the legitimate property owners. And that sits well with all you libertarian types here, does it?


Would you mind citing some sources for this, because I live near the border and everyone I know wants the fence, especially the ranchers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKF3Cl9deAI

[Maverick]

Would you mind citing some sources for this, because I live near the border and everyone I know wants the fence, especially the ranchers.


Ask Tony Rancich, owner of 1,700 acres which partially buffers up along the Texas-Mexico border:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/071007dntxranchers.3c2ef15.html

Or restaurateur Jeff Reed, or farmer Fermin Leal, or rancher Micheal Vickers, who all own property on the border, and worry they will be cut off from access to the Rio Grande:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102700844_2.html

Or talk to Bill Moody, another rancher with property bordering the river, who calls the fence "a big expense, a big problem, ugly as hell and unfriendly to Mexico."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003789954_fence15.html

These are all people who will have their property taken away from them, by force, if the border fence project goes through as planned. Surely someone here must agree that we cannot rob these people of their legitimate property just because the majority wills it?

[Andrew-Austin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhUY59IvVnQ&feature=related

2:19

Join us, join The Patriots. So that we may together fulfill her vision.

[SeanEdwards]

These are all people who will have their property taken away from them, by force, if the border fence project goes through as planned. Surely someone here must agree that we cannot rob these people of their legitimate property just because the majority wills it?

You'd rather have the rest of us suffer under a human wave of illegal immigration than tread on their precious property rights? Forget that. This is exactly the kind of case that eminent domain is appropriate for. Compensate the pukes for their land and build a big freakin wall.

edit: Hell, for that matter take the land for a wall out of the mexico side for all I care. Let the beaners go whine to the UN.

[SeanEdwards]

Wow, so... if I oppose illegal immigration, that immediately casts me out of the libertarian camp and I'm banished into the neocon or paleocon world? Funny, I'm opposed to intervention so I can't be a neocon and I'm opposed to tariffs so I don't see the paleocons embracing me with open arms.

Meh, maybe its worthless being obsessed with labels. Whenever I take those political quizzes they keep saying I'm a libertarian, and yet opposing anarchy makes me an outsider in the eyes of the "purist libertarians".

I think I'll settle for patriot. :)

Anarchy is a natural destination for anybody who takes libertarian ideals to the limit of absurdity.

[Maverick]

You'd rather have the rest of us suffer under a human wave of illegal immigration than tread on their precious property rights? Forget that. This is exactly the kind of case that eminent domain is appropriate for. Compensate the pukes for their land and build a big freakin wall.

Well, I'm done trying to talk sense in this thread. I guess you win for now.

It's amazing though, everything I've said is reminiscent of the general consensus on this board when it comes to any other topic, but bring up the border fence, and everyone goes all bizzaro-world on it.


edit: Hell, for that matter take the land for a wall out of the mexico side for all I care. Let the beaners go whine to the UN.

I wonder if this is really what you've got stuck in your craw about this. Maybe race plays an important role for you in your decision-making on this matter.

[tribute_13]

We wouldn't need a f***ing fence if we inforced our laws against illegal immigrants. We're welcoming them with open arms allowing them to make our money without paying taxes and giving them free health care and shit and they don't have the common decency to apply for citizenship.

I mean seriously, think about it. Juan Lopez jumps the border. He is originally from the Yucatan which is about 100's of miles from the U.S. Border. He gets deported and then what? He doesn't get sent back to the Yucatan he gets thrown just over the border where he jumped it in the first place. He gets a good night's sleep and tries again in the morning.

We don't need a fence, anyone can scale a fence. Hell, I know a fat kid that will scale Mt. Everest for an unopened copy of Final Fantasy 6 for the Famicom.

Fences don't fix problems, common sense does.

[SeanEdwards]

Well, I'm done trying to talk sense in this thread. I guess you win for now.

It's amazing though, everything I've said is reminiscent of the general consensus on this board when it comes to any other topic, but bring up the border fence, and everyone goes all bizzaro-world on it.



I wonder if this is really what you've got stuck in your craw about this. Maybe race plays an important role for you in your decision-making on this matter.

RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!R ACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RA CIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RAC IST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACI ST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIS T!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST !RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST! RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!R ACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RA CIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RAC IST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACI ST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIS T!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST !RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST! RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!R ACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RA CIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RAC IST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACI ST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIS T!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST !RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST! RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!RACIST!R ACIST!RACIST!RACIST!

You really got me with that one. :rolleyes:

[mediahasyou]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ffO9mLlEo

[driller80545]

A fence won't stop anything. They will go over it, under it, and through it. It is just another throw money at the problem fix. If the economy were fixed, immigrants would be welcome just as they used to be. So violate some more property rights, waste some more taxpayer money. that ought to do it.

[SeanEdwards]

A fence won't stop anything. They will go over it, under it, and through it.

Why do prisons have perimeter fences?

[Maverick]

A fence won't stop anything. They will go over it, under it, and through it. It is just another throw money at the problem fix. If the economy were fixed, immigrants would be welcome just as they used to be. So violate some more property rights, waste some more taxpayer money. that ought to do it.

Thank you, this is exactly what I've been trying to say. You feel that the seizure of land for the fence is a violation of property rights as well then?

[Agent Chameleon]

Well, I'm done trying to talk sense in this thread. I guess you win for now.

It's amazing though, everything I've said is reminiscent of the general consensus on this board when it comes to any other topic, but bring up the border fence, and everyone goes all bizzaro-world on it.



I wonder if this is really what you've got stuck in your craw about this. Maybe race plays an important role for you in your decision-making on this matter.

I've just lost any respect I've had for your stances now that you're invoking race. Funny how open-border folks invoke the "you're a racist" smear when they run out of intellectual ammunition and are backed into a corner.

Well guess what, I could just as well accuse you of being a anti-American fifth columnist, UN-stooge, communist, or MS-13/La Raza clown, but that wouldn't prove anything or help advance the debate other than simply start a name-calling war.

Please don't waste time over the motive of posters. Leave that to the thought police. ;)

[Agent Chameleon]

For the record, let me state my views on the fence.

I agree with people who say the fence is just a band-aid. Fences are obstacles that can slow down illegals but not stop them.

However, I do feel that it is a step in the right direction.

What would be best is to withdraw our troops from all over the world, reduce its size, and deploy what's left along both borders (along with having bases inside America ready to intercept any invasion).

Don't seize any private land, buy it, and if the owner refuses, then move on. The whole border doesn't need to be fortified in order to make life for these invaders very, very difficult. Fortify choke points that illegals frequently travel through and establish daily patrols. Perhaps develop drones that survey the borders and then alert the border police and have them intercept the invaders and send them back across the border.

[Maverick]

I've just lost any respect I've had for your stances now that you're invoking race. Funny how open-border folks invoke the "you're a racist" smear when they run out of intellectual ammunition and are backed into a corner.

He was the one who used the term "beaner" so maybe you should tell him to stop using the smears. I have no problem with someone speaking their mind. They have every right. I also have the right to muse out loud why someone would choose to use that term.

If you go around tossing out derogatory, collectivist terms in a discussion, it makes it difficult for people to take you seriously, and only serves to diminish your position.

[driller80545]

Prison fences are not 700 miles across. I guess if you put a guard tower every 200-300 yards with a man with a machine gun, then the fence might work. Then we would be the ones in prison.

[Agent Chameleon]

He was the one who used the term "beaner" so maybe you should tell him to stop using the smears. I have no problem with someone speaking their mind. They have every right. I also have the right to muse out loud why someone would choose to use that term.

If you go around tossing out derogatory, collectivist terms in a discussion, it makes it difficult for people to take you seriously, and only serves to diminish your position.

Yes, I reread his post and I agree that beaner is distasteful. However, who knows, maybe in his area, beaner is as widely used as gringo so for him it may not seem as such an evil word. I don't know him, nor do I know his state-of-mind, but I don't think that it's wise to just judge him a racist based on one word.

The point I'm trying to make is that calling someone a racist based on one word is not helpful to the discussion and will just start to unnecessarily raise tensions between different camps. Truth be told, you didn't help either by just saying that people who disagree with you on this issue are from bizarro-world.

If you are serious about this discussion, then don't be so judgmental and be respectful.

[Agent Chameleon]

Prison fences are not 700 miles across. I guess if you put a guard tower every 200-300 yards with a man with a machine gun, then the fence might work. Then we would be the ones in prison.

How so? If you put fences around your property, install alarms or cameras, are you imprisoning yourself?

[Kalifornia]

Building a fence is Libertarian, it just isnt Anarcho capitalism. That is all.

[Maverick]

The point I'm trying to make is that calling someone a racist based on one word is not helpful to the discussion and will just start to unnecessarily raise tensions between different camps. Truth be told, you didn't help either by just saying that people who disagree with you on this issue are from bizarro-world.


I did not try to imply that anyone on the other side of the issue was from bizzaro-world, only that their arguments were inverted from the usual consensus on most other topics here. I was just surprised to see some of the supporters of property rights in other threads arguing for the forced seizure of property by the government in this thread.

[Agent Chameleon]

I did not try to imply that anyone on the other side of the issue was from bizzaro-world, only that their arguments were inverted from the usual consensus on most other topics here. I was just surprised to see some of the supporters of property rights in other threads arguing for the forced seizure of property by the government in this thread.

Well that is much more clear. Thank you for clarifying. :)

[Maverick]

Well that is much more clear. Thank you for clarifying. :)

I'm glad we could come to an agreement then.

Back on the topic though, I hope Deborah is able to come back and comment sometime now that I've posted some examples of people opposed to the fence who own part of the property in question.

[pdavis]

Why do prisons have perimeter fences?

Their intended purpose is to keep people IN, not out.

[Agent Chameleon]

Their intended purpose is to keep people IN, not out.

Do we have to continue to use prison analogies or could it be possible to see how a country can have both security and people would still have the option of leaving the country if they so desired.

Defense along the border does not necessarily equal imprisoning Americans. Granted, I do not trust the DHS, and I think they are only bumbling this project just to make pro-border security arguments look bad and persuade people to embrace the globalist agenda.

[SeanEdwards]

Their intended purpose is to keep people IN, not out.

But if fences don't work, as so many in this thread have claimed, then why do they bother to put a fence around prisons? Surely the inmates will just dig under, climb over, or go through, just like is claimed for illegal immigrants facing a similar obstruction.

[KenInMontiMN]

If you want to put a guard turret every 200 feet, keep the spotlights burning and man them 24/7 shooting to kill, then fences can work. But only where the fences are, and if the fence ever completely encircles us then who exactly is in the cage? Much more cost effective to get after the problem employer where it hurts the most- hit 'em right smack in the wallet and very, very hard- no appeal. Dry up the opportunity for the undocumented and the flow stops dead as well, even reverses. The amnesty a couple decades ago was a huge mistake that really opened the floodgates, and another will do the same again fence or no fence. The Mexican border is by no means the only point of entry. Plus that puts tremendous pressure on the demand for legal, documented immigration, done right and done at the borders only. That pressure's not a bad thing, that's what's needed to help rebalance the increasingly dismal reward for labor here.

[Agent Chameleon]

If you want to put a guard turret every 200 feet, keep the spotlights burning and man them 24/7 shooting to kill, then fences can work. But only where the fences are, and if the fence ever completely encircles us then who exactly is in the cage? Much more cost effective to get after the problem employer where it hurts the most- hit 'em right smack in the wallet and very, very hard- no appeal. Dry up the opportunity for the undocumented and the flow stops dead as well, even reverses. The amnesty a couple decades ago was a huge mistake that really opened the floodgates, and another will do the same again fence or no fence. The Mexican border is by no means the only point of entry. Plus that puts tremendous pressure on the demand for legal, documented immigration, done right and done at the borders only. That pressure's not a bad thing, that's what's needed to help rebalance the increasingly dismal reward for labor here.

I agree that punishing employers is a very effective strategy, however, it is also true that not all illegals come here for purely economic reasons. Some that do come here are reconquista nutjobs who think the Mexican War is still ongoing. They are the Mexico-flag waving types that will keep coming even if they don't have any job opportunities.

That's why I think multiple strategies will work, and I believe they all need to be carried out, such as military on the borders, punishing employers of illegals, no public benefits, deport all illegals that are arrested for any crime, as well as ending the drug war, which will end the incentive for criminal gangs to get involved in drug dealing. Oh yeah, and also ending birthright citizenship, an unfortunate result of the poorly worded 14th Amendment.

[driller80545]

How so? If you put fences around your property, install alarms or cameras, are you imprisoning yourself?

Yep

[Agent Chameleon]

Yep

How?

[revolutionary8]

Description:

Politically motivated intellectual Scott Mullins has studied and compiled ground breaking reasons why you should vote for John McCain in 2008. Revealed in this book is the true essence of John’s views about: The Iraq War, Education, Global Warming, Health Care, The War on Terror, Immigration, Taxes, and MORE! Make sure to check the "book preview" to view 10 pages taken directly from this book, allowing you to see what it is all about! You can use the book as a journal or if you can seriously think of an...
:D

[driller80545]

How?

Self explanatory.

Why is illegal immigration not a problem at the Canadian border? Why is all the focus on Mexico. Is it because of the Canadian economy? Is it because most Canadians speak English? If our economy was better, would illegal immigration still be an issue?

Are we building a fence along the Canadian border also?

Because people are raised speaking Spanish, does that mean they are trying to take over America?

I think the whole issue is reliant on a lousy economy. If the economy were booming, we would be crying for labor. Just like in the past.

[driller80545]

description:

Politically motivated intellectual scott mullins has studied and compiled ground breaking reasons why you should vote for john mccain in 2008. Revealed in this book is the true essence of john’s views about: The iraq war, education, global warming, health care, the war on terror, immigration, taxes, and more! Make sure to check the "book preview" to view 10 pages taken directly from this book, allowing you to see what it is all about! You can use the book as a journal or if you can seriously think of an...
:d

:D

[revolutionary8]

:d:d:d

:D
esplain that.
:D

[Agent Chameleon]

Description:

Politically motivated intellectual Scott Mullins has studied and compiled ground breaking reasons why you should vote for John McCain in 2008. Revealed in this book is the true essence of John’s views about: The Iraq War, Education, Global Warming, Health Care, The War on Terror, Immigration, Taxes, and MORE! Make sure to check the "book preview" to view 10 pages taken directly from this book, allowing you to see what it is all about! You can use the book as a journal or if you can seriously think of an...
:D

??????

[driller80545]

:D
esplain that.
:D

That damn handbasket

[revolutionary8]

That damn handbasket
We are all going to hell.
:D
edit:
Description:

Politically motivated intellectual Scott Mullins has studied and compiled ground breaking reasons why you should vote for John McCain in 2008. Revealed in this book is the true essence of John’s views about: The Iraq War, Education, Global Warming, Health Care, The War on Terror, Immigration, Taxes, and MORE! Make sure to check the "book preview" to view 10 pages taken directly from this book, allowing you to see what it is all about! You can use the book as a journal or if you can seriously think of an

psst. I didn't write that, contrary to "chatroom" belief.

[Agent Chameleon]

Self explanatory.

Why is illegal immigration not a problem at the Canadian border? Why is all the focus on Mexico. Is it because of the Canadian economy? Is it because most Canadians speak English? If our economy was better, would illegal immigration still be an issue?

Are we building a fence along the Canadian border also?

Because people are raised speaking Spanish, does that mean they are trying to take over America?

I think the whole issue is reliant on a lousy economy. If the economy were booming, we would be crying for labor. Just like in the past.

Ummm... illegal immigration was a major issue even before the economy tanked. I fail to see your point here. In fact, illegal immigration seems to be decreasing partly because of the economy.

Illegal immigration is not much of a problem along the Canadian border because they have no desire to come here. There is no real historical animosity between America and Canada other than the War of 1812 which the Canadians do not seem to have a grudge over. Plus Canada is a fairly wealthy nation. If Mexico can turn around, then that would be be for the best.

Also the issue goes beyond mere language. When you have people raising Mexican flags over our schools and proclaim this land to be a part of a greater Mexico, that's a problem.

[qh4dotcom]

Would you mind citing some sources for this, because I live near the border and everyone I know wants the fence, especially the ranchers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKF3Cl9deAI

Here you go...the University of Texas at Brownsville did not want a fence on its campus and had to fight DHS in court to prevent that

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives2/2008/08/012175.html

[driller80545]

Ummm... illegal immigration was a major issue even before the economy tanked. I fail to see your point here. In fact, illegal immigration seems to be decreasing partly because of the economy.

Illegal immigration is not much of a problem along the Canadian border because they have no desire to come here. There is no real historical animosity between America and Canada other than the War of 1812 which the Canadians do not seem to have a grudge over. Plus Canada is a fairly wealthy nation. If Mexico can turn around, then that would be be for the best.

Also the issue goes beyond mere language. When you have people raising Mexican flags over our schools and proclaim this land to be a part of a greater Mexico, that's a problem.

You ever heard the story of the six flags over Texas?

[qh4dotcom]

I agree that punishing employers is a very effective strategy, however, it is also true that not all illegals come here for purely economic reasons. Some that do come here are reconquista nutjobs who think the Mexican War is still ongoing. They are the Mexico-flag waving types that will keep coming even if they don't have any job opportunities.

That's why I think multiple strategies will work, and I believe they all need to be carried out, such as military on the borders, punishing employers of illegals, no public benefits, deport all illegals that are arrested for any crime, as well as ending the drug war, which will end the incentive for criminal gangs to get involved in drug dealing. Oh yeah, and also ending birthright citizenship, an unfortunate result of the poorly worded 14th Amendment.

Employers are keeping the illegals well behaved and prevent them from having to resort to crime as a way to survive. When was the last time you heard about an illegal immigrant commiting a crime during work hours while he's performing his agricultural job?
Would you rather let the illegal immigrants keep their jobs or have more criminals out on the streets?

[driller80545]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=149154

[LibertiORDeth]

i think the fences are to keep us in

My fear exactly.

[Agent Chameleon]

You ever heard the story of the six flags over Texas?

Yes I have, but Texas is a part of America and has been a part of America since the 1800's.

[Agent Chameleon]

Employers are keeping the illegals well behaved and prevent them from having to resort to crime as a way to survive. When was the last time you heard about an illegal immigrant commiting a crime during work hours while he's performing his agricultural job?
Would you rather let the illegal immigrants keep their jobs or have more criminals out on the streets?

I'd rather just get rid of them.

[Zolah]

My fear exactly.

I'd be more concerned about the Mexican army, guns drawn, not wanting millions of American illegal immigrants crossing their border when the SHTF.

[Agent Chameleon]

I'd be more concerned about the Mexican army, guns drawn, not wanting millions of American illegal immigrants crossing their border when the SHTF.

I'd honestly wish that we took immigration as seriously as the Mexicans do. They don't tolerate any illegal immigration bs coming from Central America. Good for them!

[Flash]

This is stupid. So we are suppose to let millions of illegal mexicans that don't share our Western values to flood our country and inner-citys? I never understood this Libertarian policy.

Funny how all the European immigrants that came into America worked hard and respected the culture. Yet these Mexican 'immigrants' feel that everyone has to treat them specially and they leach off of welfare. And when someone points out how they're hurting America the excuse is, "YEAH BUT YOUS WHITE PEOPLE STOLE OUR CONTINENT", even though most illegals are Mesitzos not amerindians.



I'd honestly wish that we took immigration as seriously as the Mexicans do. They don't tolerate any illegal immigration bs coming from Central America. Good for them!

Wheres the PC crowds demanding equality in this situation? Oh yeah Mexicans are doing it to other Central Americans. It isn't white people doing it so its not racist.

[Agent Chameleon]

This is stupid. So we are suppose to let millions of illegal mexicans that don't share our Western values to flood our country and inner-citys? I never understood this Libertarian policy.

Funny how all the European immigrants that came into America worked hard and respected the culture. Yet these Mexican 'immigrants' feel that everyone has to treat them specially and they leach off of welfare. And when someone points out how they're hurting America the excuse is, "YEAH BUT YOUS WHITE PEOPLE STOLE OUR CONTINENT", even though most illegals are Mesitzos not amerindians.




Wheres the PC crowds demanding equality in this situation? Oh yeah Mexicans are doing it to other Central Americans. It isn't white people doing it so its not racist.

Mexicans have ZERO claim to our country, despite their Myth of Aztlan. They have more claim to Spain than America since many of them are descended from Spanish Conquistadors.

[Agent Chameleon]

Wheres the PC crowds demanding equality in this situation? Oh yeah Mexicans are doing it to other Central Americans. It isn't white people doing it so its not racist.

Countries with Caucasian-majorities aren't allowed to control their immigration policies. Didn't you get the memo from the Bilderberg. ;)

[Sir VotesALot]

Countries with Caucasian-majorities aren't allowed to control their immigration policies. Didn't you get the memo from the Bilderberg. ;)

So very true. This will become more and more of an issue in the next ten years and hopefully these double standards will wake up a lot of libertarians.

[The_Orlonater]

I agree.

The border fence is a terrible idea.

+1

It's easy to get past a border fence.

[SeanEdwards]

Mexicans have ZERO claim to our country, despite their Myth of Aztlan. They have more claim to Spain than America since many of them are descended from Spanish Conquistadors.

It cracks me up when that these folks try to reclaim their Aztec "heritage". They should be freakin grateful that the conquistadors showed up and eradicated that fiendish society of cannibals.

[driller80545]

Back in the 1800's it was the Irish immigrants that everyone hated

[Agent Chameleon]

Back in the 1800's it was the Irish immigrants that everyone hated

Yeah but at least they came to this country legally and they assimilated.

Big difference.

[Flash]

The amount of latinos coming in will make it impossible to assimilate. Its legal and illegal ones pouring through the country.

[Deborah K]

Ask Tony Rancich, owner of 1,700 acres which partially buffers up along the Texas-Mexico border:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/071007dntxranchers.3c2ef15.html

Or restaurateur Jeff Reed, or farmer Fermin Leal, or rancher Micheal Vickers, who all own property on the border, and worry they will be cut off from access to the Rio Grande:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102700844_2.html

Or talk to Bill Moody, another rancher with property bordering the river, who calls the fence "a big expense, a big problem, ugly as hell and unfriendly to Mexico."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003789954_fence15.html

These are all people who will have their property taken away from them, by force, if the border fence project goes through as planned. Surely someone here must agree that we cannot rob these people of their legitimate property just because the majority wills it?


Actually, after having read your articles, it became clear that these are mostly people who most likely use illegal labor, and that is really the crux of why they don't want the fence.

As to Eminent domain, it is in the Constitution, like it or not. I'm not saying I do, just saying it's a fact.

[Deborah K]

A fence won't stop anything. They will go over it, under it, and through it. It is just another throw money at the problem fix. If the economy were fixed, immigrants would be welcome just as they used to be. So violate some more property rights, waste some more taxpayer money. that ought to do it.

You're wrong about this. Rep. Duncan Hunter (my rep) had a fence built in San Diego around 15 years ago and it cut crossings by 95% in that area. It's already a proven fact that a fence is a substantial aid in stopping illegal crossings.

Look, philosophically speaking, I hate the idea of a fence. I hate it. And if we had a thriving, robust economy, I could care less about mexicans and canadians freely cossing over to work in our country, but since I don't live in LA-LA Land, and instead, live in a border town, and actually patrol the border once a month, and witness first hand what is being done to our country - I want that freakin fence and I want it NOW!!

[auctionguy10]

I think the real focus needs to be on removing all the entitlement programs we have and the minimum wage laws. Once that was done- the only complaint people will have about illegal immigrants is the color of their skin and the language they speak(which isn't a valid reason).

We need to get rid of the fundamental problems in this country- a fence is only necessary if we want to continue dealing with current government laws.

Who the hell cares if people who want to come to this country share our "Western values" or not. If you people gave a damn about individual freedom then you won't care if someone has different values than whatever you hold. As of now- western values seem to involve imposing our will on others through force- not something I want others to emulate. There's no reason for anyone to "assimilate" into this country- that is nonsense. If someone wants to speak spanish all their life- well that's their own choice.

[auctionguy10]

Yeah but at least they came to this country legally and they assimilated.

Big difference.

Since when is "assimilation" necessary? As long as no one is aggressing against another- what complaint do you have? If I choose to only speak arabic- and only dress in arabic style dress all my life- am I not allowed? do I have to assimilate and wear a suit and tie/t-shirt and jeans and only speak english?

[Maverick]

Since when is "assimilation" necessary? As long as no one is aggressing against another- what complaint do you have? If I choose to only speak arabic- and only dress in arabic style dress all my life- am I not allowed? do I have to assimilate and wear a suit and tie/t-shirt and jeans and only speak english?

No. You're not allowed. If you move here, you have to turn yourself in Whitey McWhiterson like the Good Lord intended for our great God-fearing Anglo nation.

[/Sarcasm]

[Agent Chameleon]

Since when is "assimilation" necessary? As long as no one is aggressing against another- what complaint do you have? If I choose to only speak arabic- and only dress in arabic style dress all my life- am I not allowed? do I have to assimilate and wear a suit and tie/t-shirt and jeans and only speak english?

There is no need for laws that require assimilation once you're a citizen. But every nation has a right to decide who and who can't come into the country, and it is within a country's interests to have immigrants that assimilate.

It's how immigration has worked in the past.

[Agent Chameleon]

No. You're not allowed. If you move here, you have to turn yourself in Whitey McWhiterson like the Good Lord intended for our great God-fearing Anglo nation.

[/Sarcasm]

Yeah... because it totally makes sense to have a completely fragmented country with people speaking different languages and not relating to each other in any way. Worked so well for Yugoslavia! ^_^

[torchbearer]

Yeah... because it totally makes sense to have a completely fragmented country with people speaking different languages and not relating to each other in any way. Worked so well for Yugoslavia! ^_^

I concede that a valid sociological point has been made. + 1 internets.

[The_Orlonater]

Has anybody seen the Penn and Teller episode on immigration? It shows how the fence is easily passable. I don't think we should build a fence just yet, border security is just fine for now. It'd cost a lot of money too, and we don't have that money. Maybe we might need more people, who knows? A country has a right to say who can get in or out. These new "latino" immigrants flooding the country are good people, but a lot of them are also really annoying. You know they were considering Spanish to be the official 2nd language? What the fuck, I have to learn Spanish just because a large group of spanish speaking immmigrants coming into MY country? I'm Polish and I don't force anybody to speak fucking polish just because there is a huge polish population in Chicago.(And yes there is)

[Agent Chameleon]

Has anybody seen the Penn and Teller episode on immigration? It shows how the fence is easily passable. I don't think we should build a fence just yet, border security is just fine for now. It'd cost a lot of money too, and we don't have that money. Maybe we might need more people, who knows? A country has a right to say who can get in or out. These new "latino" immigrants flooding the country are good people, but a lot of them are also really annoying. You know they were considering Spanish to be the official 2nd language? What the fuck, I have to learn Spanish just because a large group of spanish speaking immmigrants coming into MY country? I'm Polish and I don't force anybody to speak fucking polish just because there is a huge polish population in Chicago.(And yes there is)

Money is indeed a problem.

But if we can withdraw our forces from all over the world and drastically reduce the size of our imperial legions then I think border defense will be able to be squeezed into the budget.

Besides, I think defending our borders will be a lot cheaper than occupying over 100 countries around the world.

[Deborah K]

Has anybody seen the Penn and Teller episode on immigration? It shows how the fence is easily passable. I don't think we should build a fence just yet, border security is just fine for now. It'd cost a lot of money too, and we don't have that money. Maybe we might need more people, who knows? A country has a right to say who can get in or out. These new "latino" immigrants flooding the country are good people, but a lot of them are also really annoying. You know they were considering Spanish to be the official 2nd language? What the fuck, I have to learn Spanish just because a large group of spanish speaking immmigrants coming into MY country? I'm Polish and I don't force anybody to speak fucking polish just because there is a huge polish population in Chicago.(And yes there is)


I've seen the episode. It's complete crap! Just my opinion. :rolleyes:

[Feenix566]

I'm not surprised that my border fence thread has grown to 15 pages so far. There's just something about them damn Mexicans that gets people all hoopin' and hollerin' mad! :)

[Agent Chameleon]

I'm not surprised that my border fence thread has grown to 15 pages so far. There's just something about them damn Mexicans that gets people all hoopin' and hollerin' mad! :)

Not just Mexicans but illegals from any country.

It's just that a sizable majority of illegals do come from Mexico. >.>

[Dr.3D]

I'm not surprised that my border fence thread has grown to 15 pages so far. There's just something about them damn Mexicans that gets people all hoopin' and hollerin' mad! :)

Isn't it bad enough to have so many people who actually are citizens of this country living on welfare? It is even worse when people who are not citizens come into this country and also live on welfare. Just why should the working people of this country support those who came into this country illegally? Heck, the majority of those who are here illegally don't even pay taxes to help support those who are on welfare.

[The_Orlonater]

I've seen the episode. It's complete crap! Just my opinion. :rolleyes:

Why do you think so? Yeah it was very "pro" immigration, but the example I'm looking at his the fence example and it's pretty damn good.

[libertea]

When emotion goes up, intelligence goes down.

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

The one Orwell left off is
Hate is Love

[libertea]

Isn't it bad enough to have so many people who actually are citizens of this country living on welfare? It is even worse when people who are not citizens come into this country and also live on welfare. Just why should the working people of this country support those who came into this country illegally? Heck, the majority of those who are here illegally don't even pay taxes to help support those who are on welfare.

Sounds like welfare is the real issue? The majority don't even pay taxes?

[Agent Chameleon]

When emotion goes up, intelligence goes down.

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

The one Orwell left off is
Hate is Love

Great... now they are resorting to insults. :(

[Agent Chameleon]

Sounds like welfare is the real issue? The majority don't even pay taxes?

They don't pay income taxes since they are paid under the table.

[libertea]

They don't pay income taxes since they are paid under the table.

That is an assumption
Google the phrase
illegal immigrants pay taxes

[Agent Chameleon]

That is an assumption
Google the phrase
illegal immigrants pay taxes

Uh... no they don't. Not income taxes at any rate.

[revolutionary8]

Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Border patrol agent held at gunpoint
Jerry Seper

A U.S. Border Patrol agent was held at gunpoint Sunday night by members of the Mexican military who had crossed the border into Arizona, but the soldiers returned to Mexico without incident when backup agents responded to assist.

Agents assigned to the Border Patrol station at Ajo, Ariz., said the Mexican soldiers crossed the international border in an isolated area about 100 miles southwest of Tucson and pointed rifles at the agent, who was not identified.

It was unclear what the soldiers were doing in the United States, but U.S. law enforcement authorities have long said that current and former Mexican military personnel have been hired to protect drug and migrant smugglers.

"Unfortunately, this sort of behavior by Mexican military personnel has been going on for years," union Local 2544 of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) said on its Web page. "They are never held accountable, and the United States government will undoubtedly brush this off as another case of 'Oh well, they didn't know they were in the United States.'

"It is fortunate that this incident didn't end in a very ugly gunfight," said the local's posting.

The NBPC represents all nonsupervisory personnel among the agency's 16,000 agents.

Border Patrol spokesman Michael Friel did not return calls for comment Tuesday.

State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson said Tuesday that the department had no information on the incident, and referred further questions to the Border Patrol. "It is not an incident that we are aware of," she said.

Ricardo Alday, spokesman at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, said Tuesday that Mexico and the United States are engaged in "an all-out struggle to deter criminal organizations from operating on both sides of our common border."

"Law enforcement operations have led, from time to time, to innocent incursions by both U.S. and Mexican law enforcement personnel and military units into the territory of both nations, and in particular along non-demarcated areas of our border," he said.

"We always try to solve these incidents in a cooperative fashion, and as acknowledged by the Border Patrol, this was the case in the episode at Ajo," he said.

Since 1996, there have been more than 200 confirmed incursions by the Mexican military into the United States.

Local 2544, the largest in the NBPC, is headed by veteran Border Patrol agent Edward "Bud" Tuffly II. He noted on the Web page that the local's leadership would "withhold further comment on this incident until we see how our leaders handle it."

"We don't have much confidence in most of them," the local's posting said.

Sunday night's incident bears similarities to other incursions by armed men in Mexican military gear in recent years:

cThe incident occurred in the same area where heavily armed Mexican soldiers riding in a Humvee shot at a Border Patrol agent in 2002. A .50-caliber bullet ripped through the agent's rear window as he sped away.

Mexican officials denied at the time that the shooters were Mexican soldiers, saying they were criminals using military uniforms. It is a position they steadfastly have maintained.

But the agent who reported encountering the gunfire was certain he saw soldiers, said Mr. Tuffly. He said at the time that the agent was able to identify their attire "down to a T, and it matched exactly what they [Mexican soldiers] wear."

That purported incursion began after a Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation police ranger reported being chased by men in a Humvee.

cA year ago, U.S. law enforcement authorities were confronted by gunfire from automatic weapons as they chased and caught a drug-smuggling suspect in Texas trying to flee back into Mexico, the Hudspeth County (Texas) Sheriff's Office said.

No one was hurt in that incident, and the gunmen were not identified, although the area has been the scene of similar incidents over several months, including a confrontation in January 2007, when heavily armed men in Mexican military uniforms fired on Texas officers with a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on a camouflaged Humvee.

The men were identified at the time by Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West as "soldiers."

In that incident, Hudspeth County deputies pursued three sport utility vehicles back to Mexico after spotting them driving north from the Rio Grande. The pursuit ended on the U.S. side of the border when the deputies encountered 10 heavily armed men in what they described as battle-dress uniforms.

At that time, deputies found 1,400 pounds of marijuana in one of the vehicles abandoned after it blew a tire early in the pursuit. Another made it into Mexico and a third got stuck in the Rio Grande and was burned by the "soldiers" after it was unloaded.

cIn November 2007, the Border Patrol chased a dump truck full of marijuana in the same area when it also got stuck in the river while trying to return to Mexico. While agents sought to unload 3 tons of marijuana, the driver - who had fled - returned with a heavily armed group of men wearing Mexican military uniforms and carrying military-style weapons.

The soldiers backed the agents away and bulldozed the truck back into Mexico.

"Nothing was ever done," Local 2544 said. "Nobody was ever held accountable. Particularly galling is the fact that the Mexican military often pulls these stunts in Humvees donated to them by the American taxpayers. We note that Border Patrol agents have historically driven worn-out, junk vehicles."

A coalition of Texas border sheriffs has demanded that the U.S. and Mexican governments investigate incursions into the United States by heavily armed drug escorts dressed in Mexican military uniforms "before someone gets killed."

Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr. of Zapata County, Texas, who founded the coalition, said a growing number of suspected incursions and violence aimed at the area's law enforcement officers is making the border "a pretty dangerous place."

Sheriff Gonzalez said three of his deputies in 2006 spotted 25 men dressed in military uniforms in the U.S. during a late-night patrol. He said the men marched two abreast and carried duffel bags and automatic weapons, and that his "outmanned and outgunned deputies" were forced to retreat.

"The only thing you can do in that kind of situation is seek cover," Sheriff Gonzalez said. "I'm not going to lose someone in an unfair fight."

The State Department on Tuesday also confirmed a separate case in which two California police officers were arrested at the border Friday on charges of attempting to smuggle guns, ammunition and training materials into Mexico.

A Mexican court is expected to decide Wednesday whether the two Monterey County officers will remain in jail or be released on bail.

The U.S. Consulate in Tijuana said Mexico holds the largest population of U.S. prisoners outside the United States.

# David R. Sands contributed to this report.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/06/soldiers-cross-into-us-hold-guns-to-agent/
This is outrageous!
I am of the opinion that a border fence would ultimately be used for land grabs, and to keep us in, but if property owners want to build a fence, they should be given that freedom. Like LE said, Mexico has done more harm to this country than Iraq.

[Agent Chameleon]

That is an assumption
Google the phrase
illegal immigrants pay taxes

That's an assumption as well....




*

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

*

Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

*

With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

*

On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.

*

Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.

*

If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

*

Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.

*

Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.

*

The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

*

The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.

*

The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.


more @ http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

[Agent Chameleon]

Estimated Tax Payments
Payroll Taxes. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the estimated tax payments and services used by illegal alien-headed households. (More details about illegals' payment of specific taxes and use of specific programs use can be found in the Appendix on p. 39.) In terms of tax payments, the table shows very large differences between illegal households and other residents. The largest difference is in federal income taxes. Illegal households pay only about one-fifth as much as other households. This is not surprising given their much lower incomes and larger family size. By design, households with modest incomes and large size are supposed to pay relatively little in taxes. This, coupled with the fact that only a little over half of illegals make payroll contributions, is the reason their payments are very low relative to other taxpayers. For taxes other than income tax, the difference between illegal households and all others is not quite as large. Because Medicare and unemployment are more regressive in nature than federal income tax, the contribution of illegals for these two taxes is about 37 percent that of other households' contributions. And for Social Security, which is even more regressive, illegals pay 40 percent of the average household's contribution.

It must be remembered that tax payments in the table are based on the assumption that only 55 percent of illegals pay payroll taxes, comprised of income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. If all of their income were subjected to taxation, illegals' tax payments would rise significantly. Of course, if they paid all of their payroll tax liability, this would imply that they have legal status, which would also dramatically increase use of public services. This issue will be discussed later in this report.


http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalfindings.html#Estimated

Sorry, but 55% doesn't cut it. Not too mention the public costs.

[libertea]

*

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

*

Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

*

With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

*

On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.

*

Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.

*

If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

*

Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.

*

Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.

*

The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

*

The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.

*

The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.


So you agree with me that the real issue is welfare?

[Agent Chameleon]

So you agree with me that the real issue is welfare?

Nope, it's only a part of the problem.

[libertea]

Uh... no they don't. Not income taxes at any rate.

I, like most on this forum, am in favor of eliminating the income tax. Your argument for closing the border is "they don't pay income tax".

I, like most on this forum, am for free market.
I, like most on this forum, do not want the government interfering in the market
Immigrants come here for one reason and one reason only, economic. Labor is part of this equation. When it comes to labor, it is ok for the government to interfere? They should not interfere by imposing a minimum wage or by restricting the labor force. The market forces will decide when it is time to limit immigration.
Go to mises.org and see what they have to say.

I, unlike most on this group, am in favor of open borders.
I live in Texas. It borders 8 states. 4 US states and 4 Mexican states. There is no trouble on the borders with neighboring US states which are open. All the problems are on the Mexican border which is not open. Texas used to be part of Mexico. People are so afraid of Mexicans driving down our life style. If that were the case, Texas would be more like Mexico rather than being like the US. Let the market work and everybody wins.

I, like most on this forum, am opposed to welfare
that seems like the real issue.

Aside from the welfare argument, how do immigrants harm you?

I send you only love Agent, I am sorry if I insulted you in any way.

[Agent Chameleon]

I, like most on this forum, am in favor of eliminating the income tax. Your argument for closing the border is "they don't pay income tax".

I, like most on this forum, am for free market.
I, like most on this forum, do not want the government interfering in the market
Immigrants come here for one reason and one reason only, economic. Labor is part of this equation. When it comes to labor, it is ok for the government to interfere? They should not interfere by imposing a minimum wage or by restricting the labor force. The market forces will decide when it is time to limit immigration.
Go to mises.org and see what they have to say.

I, unlike most on this group, am in favor of open borders.
I live in Texas. It borders 8 states. 4 US states and 4 Mexican states. There is no trouble on the borders with neighboring US states which are open. All the problems are on the Mexican border which is not open. Texas used to be part of Mexico. People are so afraid of Mexicans driving down our life style. If that were the case, Texas would be more like Mexico rather than being like the US. Let the market work and everybody wins.

I, like most on this forum, am opposed to welfare
that seems like the real issue.

Aside from the welfare argument, how do immigrants harm you?

I send you only love Agent, I am sorry if I insulted you in any way.

I may have taken that Orwell quotation the wrong way. It's all good. ^_^

Now back to the debate,

Like you, I am also pro-free market. I oppose excessive taxation and would also like to see the income tax as well as minimum wage abolished. I'm also against the welfare state (as well as the warfare state).

However, I am also a patriot. I love my country. And the reason why I'm so opposed to illegal immigration is because I see them as a threat to the survival of our nation.

Now, just to get the race issue over with, I have no problem with people of different skin colors becoming Americans. Hell, I don't even believe in the existences of races. But I do believe in the existence of countries.

And I firmly believe that it does no good for our nation to have people come in who have no respect for our laws or customs. I believe that if illegal immigration continues then we will have large pockets of non-Americans who have no allegiance to our culture or way of life and cause strife. It will also guarantee the collapse of our republic when we have people who don't give a damn about our values.

I believe that its within the interests of countries to decide who can come in and who can't. And I believe that it is wise for a nation to reject those who have contempt for its laws. Mexico adheres to this principle, as should the USA.

It's much like college admission standards, you try to admit those that you think will be a benefit for the country. Such as highly skilled people from around the world.

I believe in assimilation which is something my Irish, Russian, Polish, Italian, and French-Canadian ancestors had to do in order to get along (and I would never exist if they didn't assimilate :( ). Assimilation is key to social cohesion, and helps to reduce strife. Note all the tensions in multicultural regions like the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, even China. While diversity is great, and I don't expect everyone to be the same, there still needs to be a common thread that unites us all as Americans. Else our nation will collapse and the dreams of the Founding Fathers will be for naught.

Now anarcho-capitalists will disagree with me because they view countries as collectives and therefore all countries must be dissolved in order to have freedom. I disagree, and if you are of the anarcho-capitalist persuasion, then we will be at an impasse due to differences in fundamental beliefs that go beyond illegal immigration. Oh well. The Ron Paul Revolution isn't monolithic.

[libertea]

However, I am also a patriot. I love my country. And the reason why I'm so opposed to illegal immigration is because I see them as a threat to the survival of our nation.

I am not in favor of illegal immigration. I am in favor allowing immigrants to come here legally without restriction. The market forces will do a better job than the government at controlling immigration.



I believe that its within the interests of countries to decide who can come in and who can't. And I believe that it is wise for a nation to reject those who have contempt for its laws. Mexico adheres to this principle, as should the USA.



Is it in the interests of the states to decide who can come into the state?




Now anarcho-capitalists will disagree with me because they view countries as collectives and therefore all countries must be dissolved in order to have freedom. I disagree, and if you are of the anarcho-capitalist persuasion, then we will be at an impasse due to differences in fundamental beliefs that go beyond illegal immigration. Oh well. The Ron Paul Revolution isn't monolithic.

Capitalist, yes. Anarchist, close but not completely.

What kind of agent are you anyway?

[revolutionary8]

I, like most on this forum, am in favor of eliminating the income tax. Your argument for closing the border is "they don't pay income tax".

I, like most on this forum, am for free market.
I, like most on this forum, do not want the government interfering in the market
Immigrants come here for one reason and one reason only, economic. Labor is part of this equation. When it comes to labor, it is ok for the government to interfere? They should not interfere by imposing a minimum wage or by restricting the labor force. The market forces will decide when it is time to limit immigration.
Go to mises.org and see what they have to say.

I, unlike most on this group, am in favor of open borders.
I live in Texas. It borders 8 states. 4 US states and 4 Mexican states. There is no trouble on the borders with neighboring US states which are open. All the problems are on the Mexican border which is not open. Texas used to be part of Mexico. People are so afraid of Mexicans driving down our life style. If that were the case, Texas would be more like Mexico rather than being like the US. Let the market work and everybody wins.

I, like most on this forum, am opposed to welfare
that seems like the real issue.

Aside from the welfare argument, how do immigrants harm you?

I send you only love Agent, I am sorry if I insulted you in any way.
Are you saying we need to open the borders so Mexican Military Police won't have to escort the Drug Cartels over the border?

My number one issue is the invasion.
Where the heck are you from? lol

I missed this-

Texas used to be part of Mexico
Mexico sold America the lands for $20 million. Please don't try to imply that we "stole" anything by saying something to the effect of "that land used to be theirs, boo hoo".
Mexico LAID CLAIM to the lands which means didley squat. So did England and France, and Spain- they FAILED.

People are so afraid of Mexicans driving down our life style. If that were the case, Texas would be more like Mexico rather than being like the US.
Mexico has one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. Yes I am afraid of too many people who accept corruption in their own governments, then protest our form of government, after they flee theirs. I am not sure how handy they will be when it comes time... Texas is now 45% Mexican. When that number reaches 51%, will that change anything?

[Agent Chameleon]

I am not in favor of illegal immigration. I am in favor allowing immigrants to come here legally without restriction. The market forces will do a better job than the government at controlling immigration.



Is it in the interests of the states to decide who can come into the state?


I'm unclear on the question. If you are referring to the individual states, then no. All of the states are part of the United States of America, and each state resident is an American. Besides, the Constitution grants the right to travel within the States.



Capitalist, yes. Anarchist, close but not completely.


Made a wild guess. ;) You linked to the Mises Institute where a lot of its writers are of the anarcho-capitalist persuasion.



What kind of agent are you anyway?

I'm sorry I'm unclear as to what you mean.

[libertea]

Mexico sold America the lands for $20 million. Please don't try to imply that we "stole" anything by saying something to the effect of "that land used to be theirs, boo hoo".
Mexico LAID CLAIM to the lands which means didley squat. So did England and France, and Spain- they FAILED.



I am not implying anything other than that the Texas economy improved by opening it's borders with the rest of the US. Texas, along with other formerly Mexican States, did not drag the US down to Mexico's economic level.

[libertea]

I'm unclear on the question. If you are referring to the individual states, then no. All of the states are part of the United States of America, and each state resident is an American. Besides, the Constitution grants the right to travel within the States.


I am questioning as to why it is beneficial for a country to control who can enter. Why would the same logic not apply to individual states. For example, following the same logic, it should be also beneficial for Texas to decide who can come from Oklahoma.

[Dr.3D]

Mexico has one of the most corrupt governments on the planet.

Actually, the Mexican government is a bit more above board when it comes to the corruption you are talking about. Out government tries to hide the corruption so we don't see as much of it.

[LibertyOfOne]

Innocence is collectivism.

But in all seriousness an invader is not an 'innocent.' Especially if he's defecating on my crops or assaulting my daughter. All you non-Southwesterners PLEASE stop smugly advocating open borders. Mexcians do not care about your individualism or Austrian economics--they want "their" land "back" and will use your tax dollars (and extreme gullibility) to take it away.

The irony in your post is so great. Putting people into groups like you just did is a form of collectivist thinking.

[Agent Chameleon]

I am questioning as to why it is beneficial for a country to control who can enter. Why would the same logic not apply to individual states. For example, following the same logic, it should be also beneficial for Texas to decide who can come from Oklahoma.

Like I said, all the states are part of America. Both Texans and Oklahomans are Americans.

Mexicans, Chinese, Dutch, Turks, and Nigerians are not Americans. They have different cultural values. Regulated immigration (I'm not advocating zero immigration) is the best way to allow immigrants into the country without creating strife that will inevitably arise between natives and large contingents of foreigners.

[Deborah K]

Actually, the Mexican government is a bit more above board when it comes to the corruption you are talking about. Out government tries to hide the corruption so we don't see as much of it.

You are more right than you may even realize. In a few days I'm going to post an article that was written in a Tijuana, Mexico paper yesterday. It's about 2 SWAT team cops who got caught by the federalies down in mexico with a massive load of arms. Can't seem to find it in any San Diego news, radio, TV, paper????? WTF?!

[LibertyEagle]

The irony in your post is so great. Putting people into groups like you just did is a form of collectivist thinking.

If they entered our country illegally, then they're ILLEGAL ALIENS and not welcome. Call it what you will, but that is the truth.

[LibertyOfOne]

I was thinking more along the lines of a high current, high voltage electric fence along the border. Let em fry themselves and the others who would follow would get the message.

That is just great. People are fucking starving to death and they cross the fucking border in order to work for pennies on the dollar to be able to live a dirt poor life because there is no opportunity in Mexico. A government by the way that is corrupted to the core thanks to U.S monetary interests. Damn those people for wanting to help their people back home and finding a place to eat and live. How dare they want to send money back home to help their families!! <Sarcasm>

Our government helped to fuck over the Mexican government with NAFTA. Most of the officials there don't even live in Mexico. They reside here in the U.S.

That is real Christian of you.

[libertea]

Like I said, all the states are part of America. Both Texans and Oklahomans are Americans.

Mexicans, Chinese, Dutch, Turks, and Nigerians are not Americans. They have different cultural values. Regulated immigration (I'm not advocating zero immigration) is the best way to allow immigrants into the country without creating strife that will inevitably arise between natives and large contingents of foreigners.

OK, maybe I should have used Louisiana as an example. Can't have the Cajuns coming with their different culture.

I retire now. You see the government as the regulator and I prefer the market. I hope the best will come whether it be your philosophy or mine that is correct.

Peace Agent, and keep up the fight for freedom, whichever form it needs to take.

[Dr.3D]

That is just great. People are fucking starving to death and they cross the fucking border in order to work for pennies on the dollar to be able to live a dirt poor life because there is no opportunity in Mexico. A government by the way that is corrupted to the core thanks to U.S monetary interests. Damn those people for wanting to help their people back home and finding a place to eat and live. How dare they want to send money back home to help their families!! <Sarcasm>

Our government helped to fuck over the Mexican government with NAFTA. Most of the officials there don't even live in Mexico. They reside here in the U.S.

That is real Christian of you.

Thanks. :)

As I recall, those people who come across the border without papers are doing so illegally. They should know that doing so may have severe consequences.

What part of illegal don't you understand?

[LibertyOfOne]

A free society cannot exist without borders, strong defense, and sovereignty.

Sorry, but it's the truth.

Show me one "region" that has survived with completely open borders, no military, and no sense of identity either. I can't think of any.

The simple truth is that the outside world doesn't care at all about Austrian economics, federalism, and low taxes. To them, a defenseless America is just a large land full of resources ripe for the taking.

Well America. We have had open borders for the entire history of the nation. Sure some spots are fenced, but the rest is just a line in the sand.

[LibertyOfOne]

Thanks. :)

As I recall, those people who come across the border without papers are doing so illegally. They should know that doing so may have severe consequences.

What part of illegal don't you understand?

I don't care if something is illegal or not. Back in the day it was illegal to do what Harriet Tubman did. It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus. Just because some dumb law is written down on paper does not make said law just. Nor is that justification for stupid behavior. Some drugs are illegal. Does that make a person who breaks those laws a true criminal? No, because there is no victim.

[Dr.3D]

I don't care if something is illegal or not. Back in the day it was illegal to do what Harriet Tubman did. It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus. Just because some dumb law is written down on paper does not make said law just. Nor is that justification for stupid behavior. Some drugs are illegal. Does that make a person who breaks those laws is a true criminal? No, because there is no victim.

Just keep thinking along those lines and perhaps you will find yourself in prison.

[LibertyOfOne]

Just keep thinking along those lines and perhaps you will find yourself in prison.

The only crimes are those in which someone is harmed. Saying because it's the law is no argument for the law. That is circular reasoning. Using your logic slavery is perfectly fine and should not be questioned because "It's the law1!! dur dur". If that was the level of argument in 16th century we sure have not progressed much.

[Agent Chameleon]

OK, maybe I should have used Louisiana as an example. Can't have the Cajuns coming with their different culture.

I retire now. You see the government as the regulator and I prefer the market. I hope the best will come whether it be your philosophy or mine that is correct.

Peace Agent, and keep up the fight for freedom, whichever form it needs to take.

I do acknowledge that there are differences amongst Americans, like the Cajuns or American Indians which predate the establishment of the USA.

But they are still Americans as well as those whose ancestors arrived on these shores only a century ago (like myself).

Let's look at the Cajuns. They have a unique cultural heritage that binds them as a community. But I believe that they are a part of the greater American nation, as they have a shared common history with other Americans. They've been Americans ever since Louisiana was acquired by Thomas Jefferson.

Foreigners do not share that common bond. It is true that we are all humans, but humans have spread across the globe and have created various tribes and empires, all with different histories and identities.

America is unique as its a nation founded upon the principles of liberty. No other country has that identity. And that's why I love this country so much, and believe that maintaining the American identity is key to keeping alive a country with libertarian ideals. If we allow the American identity to fade away and embrace the "global citizen" thinking, then we will inevitably be absorbed by a tyrannical one-world government, which I believe our leaders are buttering us up for.

And what of individualism? Yes I am an individualist as well as an American, as I do not see a contradiction. If anything they are harmonious as one known attribute of Americans is our love of individualism. I am not a pure individuals like anarcho-capitalists and others of similar points of view, but I do not believe that anarchy will work (although I respect anarchist thinking). And the best way to keep a nation of individualists alive is to uphold and defend the American identity.

Yes, I believe that government should regulate immigration; I believe that should be one of the very few roles of the government, along with defense (I view immigration and defense to be similar issues), foreign policy, highways, and maybe the post office (although I like Japan's plan to privatize the post office).

I certainly hope you keep fighting the good fight as well. Illegal immigration is a very important issue for me, but I do realize that sometimes I let it distract me from the bigger picture. I hope that the illegal immigration debate doesn't divide the Ron Paul Revolution. We need to stick together in these troubled times.

[Dr.3D]

The only crimes are those in which someone is harmed. Saying because it's the law is no argument for the law. That is circular reasoning. Using your logic slavery is perfectly fine and should not be question because "It's the law1!! dur dur".

Well then, twist one up and light it and then go into the police department smoking it and see how they react.

[Agent Chameleon]

Well America. We have had open borders for the entire history of the nation. Sure some spots are fenced, but the rest is just a line in the sand.

Yes we had open borders in the literal sense but back then it was much more dangerous to travel through wide open desert.

We had regulated immigration. You better believe it. My ancestors had to go through Ellis Island.

[LibertyOfOne]

Well then, twist one up and light it and then go into the police department smoking it and see how they react.

You totally missed my point.

[LibertyOfOne]

Yes we had open borders in the literal sense but back then it was much more dangerous to travel through wide open desert.

We had regulated immigration. You better believe it. My ancestors had to go through Ellis Island.

Yeah where they check you out for diseases, screw up your name, then let you go on your way. These days it's a bureaucratic nightmare to come here legally. Back then the regulation was a cake walk compared to today.

[Agent Chameleon]

Yeah where they check you out for diseases and screw up name then let you go on your way. These days it's a bureaucratic nightmare to come here legally. Back then the regulation was a cake walk compared to today.

It was a little bit more strict than that. They would regularly turn back people who they felt didn't belong. Sometimes the reasons were unjust, but oh well that's history.

America of the 1800's certainly wouldn't have tolerated the kind of illegal immigration nonsense that's going on today.

[Agent Chameleon]

Also America had a need for more massive amounts of immigrants back then.

We don't need that anymore.

We're at 300 million, the third largest population in the world.

Our need for immigrants is much smaller, as such, higher standards is the best course of action.

[LibertyOfOne]

Also America had a need for more massive amounts of immigrants back then.

We don't need that anymore.

We're at 300 million, the third largest population in the world.

Our need for immigrants is much smaller, as such, higher standards is the best course of action.

Well I hope you will enjoy the police state that will be needed in order to make sure businesses won't hire them. Because you do know that the fence in the end won't stop them. Hell they don't even have to cross the fence when smugglers will dangle a years worth of salary in front of the faces of the border patrol in order to meet the demands of the few hundred or so that want to cross. It will end up just like the war on drugs. Because when there is a demand for something the black market always walks around whatever obstacles that are in the way. Sure you might stop the super poor from crossing, but those with a little money will have no troubles. Hell illegals that come here from China have a several thousand mile ocean to cross and that doesn't stop them.

What will you do about the main incentive the business? What, pass tyrannical legislation demanding the people be screened by the government before hire? Have DEA like raids on business to make sure they are not hiring illegals? Have random show me your papers visits in order to make sure that no illegals have employment? Yeah that sure will work out well. I'm sure business will love that garbage. What next a national ID card to make sure people who are stopped by police for a driving infraction are a U.S citizen? How far will you be willing to up the police state to stop those who want to come here for work? Becuase a border fence sure will get the job done all on its lonesome.

[Agent Chameleon]

Well I hope you will enjoy the police state that will be needed in order to make sure businesses won't hire them. Because you do know that the fence in the end won't stop them. Hell they don't even have to cross the fence when smugglers will dangle a years worth of salary in front of the faces of the border patrol in order to meet the demands of the few hundred or so that want to cross. It will end up just like the war on drugs. Because when there is a demand for something the black market always walks around whatever obstacles that are in the way. Sure you might stop the super poor from crossing, but those with a little money will have no troubles. Hell illegals that come here from China have a several thousand mile ocean to cross and that doesn't stop them.

What will you do about the main incentive the business? What, pass tyrannical legislation demanding the people be screened by the government before hire? Have DEA like raids on business to make sure they are not hiring illegals? Have random show me your papers visits in order to make sure that no illegals have employment? Yeah that sure will work out well. I'm sure business will love that garbage. What next a national ID card to make sure people who are stopped by police for a driving infraction are a U.S citizen? How far will you be willing to up the police state to stop those who want to come here for work? Becuase a border fence sure will get the job done all on its lonesome.

A police state is not needed.

As I've said before, all we need to do is deploy our military along both borders and have tight airport security for foreigners. It's not bullet-proof, but it'll sure be a hell of lot more effective than what we have now.

[Agent Chameleon]

As far as enforcement with illegals already here; the states are doing a fine enough job with that. Oklahoma comes to mind.

[LibertyOfOne]

A police state is not needed.

As I've said before, all we need to do is deploy our military along both borders and have tight airport security for foreigners. It's not bullet-proof, but it'll sure be a hell of lot more effective than what we have now.

Sounds like another big government program. Seriously you could but all the resources you can find into such a project. Black market demand will always find a way around it.

[Agent Chameleon]

Sounds like another big government program. Seriously you could but all the resources you can find into such a project. Black market demand will always find a way around it.

If the one government function would be defense of the country I'd be a happy man.

Like I said, not bullet-proof. But it can put a halt to mass influx of illegals. It'd be very difficult to smuggle in people when have you daily military patrols along both borders. Plus the potential use of lethal force will be a deterrent.

If you think this project will be too expensive, again like I said in an earlier post, if we drastically cut the size of government and reduce our military from being an imperial-sized force to a defensive force, we'll have more than enough money to cover it while having low taxes and paying off our national debt.

I mean we do need a standing army, and if we're not occupying 100+ different nations, we might as well have them on our borders.

[LibertyEagle]

As far as enforcement with illegals already here; the states are doing a fine enough job with that. Oklahoma comes to mind.

Yeah, if federal judges didn't overrule them.

[Agent Chameleon]

Yeah, if federal judges didn't overrule them.

If I remember correctly Oklahoma is challenging that verdict.

[LibertyOfOne]

As far as enforcement with illegals already here; the states are doing a fine enough job with that. Oklahoma comes to mind.

Yes, because mass round ups of people who are accused of being illegals sure is the type of America that represents the shinning beacon of liberty and freedom. What does that remind me of.....

No police state needed you say? What happens if an American gets cought up in this mess? Oh i guess it's only fair that he/she have no constitutional protections because he/she was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Sure they might find out he/she is a citizen and then later release him/her hours maybe days later. Who cares if he/she is harassed by people with guns! It's all in the name of keeping Amerika safe from those evil illegals!

[Agent Chameleon]

Yes, because mass round ups of people who are accused of being illegals sure is the type of America that represents the shinning beacon of liberty and freedom. What does that remind me of.....

No police state needed you say? What happens if an American gets cought up in this mess? Oh i guess it's only fair that he/she have no constitutional protections because he/she was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Sure they might find out he/she is a citizen and then later release him/her hours maybe days later. Who cares if he/she is harassed by people with guns! It's all in the name of keeping Amerika safe from those evil illegals!

Mistakes will inevitably happen and when those mistakes happen they must be rectified.

We can't create a perfect system, but we can do our best to come up with one that works reasonably well.

[LibertyOfOne]

I've just lost any respect I've had for your stances now that you're invoking race. Funny how open-border folks invoke the "you're a racist" smear when they run out of intellectual ammunition and are backed into a corner.

Well guess what, I could just as well accuse you of being a anti-American fifth columnist, UN-stooge, communist, or MS-13/La Raza clown, but that wouldn't prove anything or help advance the debate other than simply start a name-calling war.

Please don't waste time over the motive of posters. Leave that to the thought police. ;)

It's like any stereotype. If one person of a group is truly a racist the rest that hold the same position get blasted with the same moniker. While not fair, it does demonstrate the stupidity of the political discourse we have today.

[Agent Chameleon]

It's like any stereotype. If one person of a group is truly a racist the rest that hold the same position get blasted with the same moniker. While not fair, it does demonstrate the stupidity of the political discourse we have today.

I concur, and I wish people would grow up and move beyond such illogical pseudo-arguments.

[revolutionary8]

Actually, the Mexican government is a bit more above board when it comes to the corruption you are talking about. Out government tries to hide the corruption so we don't see as much of it.

Yes, but that is because many Mexicans can't afford TVs and newspapers. lol. That is why I said "one" of the most corrupt on the planet.

However, our Constitution and our history of fighting tyranny slays it all. ;)

[LibertyOfOne]

Isn't it bad enough to have so many people who actually are citizens of this country living on welfare? It is even worse when people who are not citizens come into this country and also live on welfare. Just why should the working people of this country support those who came into this country illegally? Heck, the majority of those who are here illegally don't even pay taxes to help support those who are on welfare.

Well it's much worse than that. I read a statistic somewhere that the government employs 50% of the workforce directly or indirectly via contracts.

[revolutionary8]

I am not implying anything other than that the Texas economy improved by opening it's borders with the rest of the US. Texas, along with other formerly Mexican States, did not drag the US down to Mexico's economic level.

Your get outta dodge card has been played. :D
I will expect answers from here on out. :D