Senator Reid starts new push for amnesty legislation

[Pepsi]

In spite of the recession and soaring unemployment, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has introduced S 9, the Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act, as a placeholder bill for amnesty legislation.

It is never too early to let your Senators know that you oppose any form of amnesty, especially during this economic crisis.

The bill currently calls for "reforming and rationalizing avenues for legal immigration," code for amnesty and immigration increases that will be added to the bill later. By placing this bill among the first ten introduced in the new Congress, Reid is indicating his intention to press ahead with some form of amnesty regardless of the crises facing American workers.

ACTION NEEDED

Tell your Senators that Americans want jobs for American workers, not Senator Reid's amnesty proposal. Send a fax or an e-mail

http://capwiz.com/caps/issues/alert/?alertid=12438046

[Pepsi]

The House of Representatives has passed an expanded version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and made it easier for illegal aliens to access the program's benefits.

HR 2, the new version of SCHIP, weakens verification requirements. Those who enroll will be required to show only an easily forged Social Security card -- not secure documents proving U.S. citizenship. The legislation also extends benefits to non-citizen children of legal immigrants.

The SCHIP bill is designed to provide health coverage to low-income children, a laudable goal, but in these tough economic times, we cannot afford to spend scarce dollars on illegal aliens. That simply means fewer funds will be available for poor Americans.

ACTION NEEDED


Ask your Senators to amend the legislation to prevent benefits from going to illegal aliens. Send a fax or an e-mail

http://capwiz.com/caps/issues/alert/?alertid=12446501

[nodope0695]

The senate's new lapel pin should be this:
http://www.ihlow.de/fileadmin/user_upload/RIZ/images/Logo_Scumbag.gif

[Paulite]

i dont have a problem with illegal children getting hfree healthcare.

i like ron paul believe there are wayy too many bigger problems to worry about .

[ToyBoat]

i dont have a problem with illegal children getting hfree healthcare.

i like ron paul believe there are wayy too many bigger problems to worry about .
Ya, we have bigger things to worry about, but why shouldn't legal children get free health as well?

Stop Reid's BS amnesty bill!

[paulitics]

They are deadset on running this country into the ground. They think they have a mandate to impose every big gvt polcy on America and forget about the consequences. Of course the mandate given was to end the neocon foreign policy, but of course they will opt to continue it.

[Jodi]

i dont have a problem with illegal children getting hfree healthcare.

i like ron paul believe there are wayy too many bigger problems to worry about .

Why don't you just foot the health care bills for the illegal children out of your own pocket?

[Jodi's mom]

i dont have a problem with illegal children getting hfree healthcare.

i like ron paul believe there are wayy too many bigger problems to worry about .


This is part of the bigger problems. There is a small group of people whose aim has been for years to destroy America and this is just one of their ploys.

Free healthcare is not free. Someone has to pay for it. And guess who that might be? You, me and all others who pay taxes.

I can't afford health insurance, but yet some people, yourself included, think it's okay for me to pay in more taxes so someone else who shouldn't even be here!! can have "free" healthcare.

Nothing in life is "free". No one is entitled...to healthcare, education, housing or food. We are, however, entitled to the pursuit of happiness. This means you are entitled to work for whatever you want...as long as it is legal and you aren't imposing on someone else's rights.

When you suggest that someone else's child "deserves" "free" healthcare, remember that there are taxpayers who would have to foot that bill that cannot afford to buy their own insurance. Some of these people never had children.

The generation since 1970 seem to have this sense of entitlement....that is that everyone is entitled to this or that. Moreover, this is not the American way. If you are part of this generation, I suggest that you talk to your grandparents or parents about how life was when they were growing up. Better hurry, though, as many of them are dying off. Go to a resthome, visit with the elderly there, take a notebook with you. Find out how the "real" America was before it disappears forever.

Illegal children need to go home with their parents. I know that sounds heartless and cruel but the churches can take care of them in Mexico or wherever else they hail from. We're already broke from supporting the whole world.

Blessings.

[dr. hfn]

i don't have a position on immigration. ron paul is for enforcing the border and immigration law, but aren't libertarians supposed to be opposed to borders? if we had an economy in good shape and no gov't programs that illegals could sap life from, wouldn't it be okay to have open borders?

[powerofreason]

i don't have a position on immigration. ron paul is for enforcing the border and immigration law, but aren't libertarians supposed to be opposed to borders? if we had an economy in good shape and no gov't programs that illegals could sap life from, wouldn't it be okay to have open borders?

We ought to have open borders now. It would accelerate the collapse of the federal government, and besides that is the correct moral position to take.

[Jodi's mom]

So...Power of Reason, you are for a one world government without sovereign rights? How did you determine it is "moral" to be without borders? What is your logic there?

[powerofreason]

So...Power of Reason, you are for a one world government without sovereign rights? How did you determine it is "moral" to be without borders? What is your logic there?

I am for no government. No government= No borders. Sorry if thats too extreme for you. It is a moral position.



What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist

by N. Stephan Kinsella

Butler Shaffer’s recent LRC article, What is Anarchy?, prompted discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas I’ve also had along these lines.

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression – the initiation of force against innocent victims – is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved – I for one don’t think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.

Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.

Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone could voluntarily choose to respect others’ rights. Then there would be no crime. It’s easy to imagine. But given our experience with human nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere to reply, "but that’s an impractical view" or "but that won’t work," "since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be crime – that not everyone will voluntarily respect others’ rights – does not mean that it’s "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the proposition that crime is wrong.

Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won’t work" or is "impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur."1 The view that the state is unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors’ rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified.2

Other utilitarian replies like "but we need a state" do not contradict the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims – i.e., he shares the criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else – making sure certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost – but not peace and cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the same – innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the stomach for this; others are more civilized – libertarian, one might say – and prefer peace over violent struggle.

As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. After all, the state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.

It’s time for libertarians to take a stand. Are you for aggression, or against it?

Notes

1. Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply don't care much about.
2. Though the case for anarchy does not depend on its likelihood or "feasibility," any more than the case against private crime depends on there never being any acts of crime, anarchy is clearly possible. There is anarchy among nations, for example. There is also anarchy within government, as pointed out in the seminal and neglected JLS article by Alfred G. Cuzán, "Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?" Cuzán argues that even the government itself is in anarchy, internally – the President does not literally force others in government to obey his comments, after all; they obey them voluntarily, due to a recognized, hierarchical structure. Government's (political) anarchy is not a good anarchy, but it demonstrates anarchy is possible – indeed, that we never really get out of it. And Shaffer makes the insightful point that we are in "anarchy" with our neighbors. If most people did not already have the character to voluntarily respect most of their neighbors’ rights, society and civilization would be impossible. Most people are good enough to permit civilization to occur, despite the existence of some degree of public and private crime. It is conceivable that the degree of goodness could rise – due to education or more universal economic prosperity, say – sufficient to make support for the legitimacy of states evaporate. It’s just very unlikely.

January 20, 2004
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html

[Lord Xar]

This is the real world not some make believe fairyland where open borders are of no consequence.

SHUT THE FRIGGIN BORDERS, and get rid of the illegals. Plain and simple!!!

Read the OP. Call your senators and let them know this NOT WHAT WE WANT OR NEED!

[ToyBoat]

I find that most of those who don't care about illegal immigration are those who are not effected by it. If it's not hurting you and your life-style, then you don't care.

You'll only act on something when it effects you....

[RSLudlum]

we've voiced our opinion and given the illegals the choice to go back and enter 'lawfully', lets hope it never comes to this: :(




Thai navy left hundreds of illegal migrants for dead in Indian Ocean
By MICHAEL CASEY | Associated Press Writer
1:01 AM EST, January 17, 2009

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) — Thailand's navy abandoned hundreds of illegal migrants on a barge in the Indian Ocean where about 300 desperate people with little food and water later drowned, a refugees' advocacy group said.

Thai authorities have repeatedly denied the 400 migrants were left for dead in the ocean last month. "We deport illegal immigrants, but we adhere to internationally accepted practice," Immigration police chief Lt. Gen. Chatchawal Suksomjit said.

Chris Lewa, coordinator of the Bangkok-based advocacy group Arakan Project, said Friday at least two survivors recounted their experience to her. She said they told her four illegal migrants were tied up and thrown into the ocean after the group refused to board the barge from a Thai navy vessel.

The United Nations refugee agency called for Thailand to explain what happened to the group of migrant workers from Myanmar and Bangladesh, at least 100 of whom were rescued in Indian waters in late December.



Washington-based Refugees International urged the Thai government to immediately halt its "policy of pushing refugees and migrants intercepted on boats back out to sea," which it says contravenes accepted standards of international law.

"The Thai government is taking highly vulnerable people and risking their lives," Refugees International advocate Sean Garcia said. "Pushing them back out to sea is not an effective deterrent — it just jeopardizes lives."

Reports of the Thai navy setting illegal immigrants adrift began circulating late last month after authorities rescued more than 100 workers from Bangladesh and Myanmar adrift on a vessel near India's Andaman Islands.

Thousands of Bangladeshi and Myanmar refugees leave aboard rickety boats each year in hope of finding work in neighboring countries. In the last three years, one of the most popular migration routes was by boat to Thailand and then overland to Malaysia, Lewa said. The trip costs several hundred dollars.

Lewa said these particular migrants' troubles first started in early December when authorities intercepted several boatloads approaching Thai shores.

Survivors told Lewa they were rounded up and detained on a remote Thai island in the Andaman sea, where they were bound, beaten, and given little food.

Later, the migrants were herded onto a navy boat that was towing a barge, Lewa said. After several hours at sea, the Thai navy then ordered the migrants to board the barge.

"When the navy asked them to move to the barge, they refused. The navy tried to intimidate them by pointing guns at them. But they still refused to move," Lewa said, recounting her interviews with survivors.

"Then they tied the legs of some of them and threw four overboard. So when the rest of the people saw that, they moved onto the barge," she said.

Survivors said the Thai sailors left them with only two barrels of water and four bags of rice, according to Lewa.

The barge drifted for days before many of the desperate migrants jumped overboard, thinking they were close to shore. Only 10 of their bodies have been found by Indian authorities who began searching after finding the barge adrift.

The United Nations asked Thailand's government Friday to clarify the reports, said Kitty McKinsey, Asia spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commissioner of Refugees.

"We requested the Thai government take all measures necessary to ensure the lives of the boat people are not put at risk and that they are treated humanely in accordance with international humanitarian standards," McKinsey said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-as-thailand-missing-migrants,0,4792585.story