Obama to Begin Pushing Amnesty Bill!

[He Who Pawns]

While acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult, President Obama plans to begin addressing the country’s immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/09immig.html?_r=1&hp

hahaha... I don't think this guy knows the can of whoopass he's about to open on himself. he should have asked john mccain how this is going to work out... not well for him!!

lock and load, people. we've got a nice battle brewing!!!

i'm sure the talk radio guys are already drooling over this news.

[Kludge]

Lulz. It will probably create some new large department with un-understandable code and strings which aren't worth becoming a citizen for while they continue to suck up gov't services without paying taxes.

[slacker921]

... can't wait for him to create a bi-partisan committee to work on it - led by McCain. heheh.. watch the Republicans wrestle with that.

[Lord Xar]

.... another natural disaster waiting to happen.

The heat he will get will be almost insurmountable. Hopefully, the sheeple that is the black caucus will wake up, and realize they are being sold down the river for their political support now, so they will end up being insignificant in the near future.

[AdamT]

100% predictable, no surprise here....

[qh4dotcom]

.... another natural disaster waiting to happen.

The heat he will get will be almost insurmountable. Hopefully, the sheeple that is the black caucus will wake up, and realize they are being sold down the river for their political support now, so they will end up being insignificant in the near future.


The Obama sheeple need to start learning their lesson the hard way....so I hope Obama pushes this through so that his poll numbers start going down.

Sorry guys, but the natural disaster has to happen before the sheeple will turn against their Messiah....might as well be amnesty that comes first....at least this will hurt less now than the upcoming higher taxes.

[sparebulb]

Please visit and sign up at www.numbersusa.org

These guys have been fighting this for a long time and they make it real easy to fax letters to the traitors in Washington.

[Joe3113]

I've got Lou Dobbs on a leash here. Tell me when to release.

:D

[LiveToWin]

I've got Lou Dobbs on a leash here. Tell me when to release.

:D

"Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war."

[sevin]

If all these illegals are made citizens, will they vote for Obama in 2012? Could this help him win again?

[sparebulb]

If all these illegals are made citizens, will they vote for Obama in 2012? Could this help him win again?

They may vote for candidates even further to the left than BO.

[Feenix566]

Obama to Begin Pushing Amnesty Bill!

Good.


he should have asked john mccain how this is going to work out... not well for him!!

McCain won the primary despite having the most immigrant-friendly voting record among the candidates, didn't he?

You immigrant-haters are in the minority. You're more vocal, but you're still the minority.

[Feenix566]

Oh and here's a question for the immigrant-haters: You claim that the reason you hate so-called "illegals" is because they're breaking US law by being here. If Obama changes the law and makes it legal for them to be here, they won't be breaking the law any more. So you should stop hating them at that point, right?

[TastyWheat]

Making them legal immigrants is one thing, this better not mean legal citizens. He's starting his re-election campaign early as it seems.

[Pennsylvania]

Oh and here's a question for the immigrant-haters: You claim that the reason you hate so-called "illegals" is because they're breaking US law by being here. If Obama changes the law and makes it legal for them to be here, they won't be breaking the law any more. So you should stop hating them at that point, right?

Epic pwn.

[He Who Pawns]

If you suddenly decided to embark on the moral hazard of Amnesty, you would add about 20 million new voters to the USA. Guess which party they are going to support?

If you think we have an out-of-control welfare state now, wait until those 20 million Dems are added to the voter rolls. :mad:

Liberty will be dead forever.

[Kludge]

Guess which party they are going to support?

Maybe we can "negro" them and make their votes count as 1/3 or something.

[qh4dotcom]

If you suddenly decided to embark on the moral hazard of Amnesty, you would add about 20 million new voters to the USA. Guess which party they are going to support?

If you think we have an out-of-control welfare state now, wait until those 20 million Dems are added to the voter rolls. :mad:

Liberty will be dead forever.

Not all illegals are going to get citizenship...supposing 5 million did...that's not enough to swing an election...and maybe they will start out with a green card which means no voting for several years.

[sparebulb]

Maybe we can "negro" them and make their votes count as 1/3 or something.

Maybe we can repatriate them to their country of origin so they can exercise 3/3 of their votes. We call call it a liberty movement.

[Danke]

Oh and here's a question for the immigrant-haters: You claim that the reason you hate so-called "illegals" is because they're breaking US law by being here. If Obama changes the law and makes it legal for them to be here, they won't be breaking the law any more. So you should stop hating them at that point, right?

And if Obama decrees theft to no longer be a crime, we should embrace the thief.

"immigrant-hater" I think you are on the wrong forum. We don't fall for those silly labels. You hater!!

[Deborah K]

Oh and here's a question for the immigrant-haters: You claim that the reason you hate so-called "illegals" is because they're breaking US law by being here. If Obama changes the law and makes it legal for them to be here, they won't be breaking the law any more. So you should stop hating them at that point, right?

I'm a Minuteman. I patrol the border because my gov't won't do it. I don't hate illegal aliens. I just don't want them sneaking across illegally. They cost my state alone over 5 billion dollars a year. They send back to Mexico around 30 billion dollars a year. They kill approximately 25 Americans a day. Americans that would be alive if illegals couldn't get in so easily. If their first action in our country is to break our laws then what makes you think they will be law abiding?

What is it with you pro-illegal types? Why is it okay for Mexico and other countries to enforce their immigration laws but it's not okay for us to do it?

[He Who Pawns]

Maybe we can "negro" them and make their votes count as 1/3 or something.

Maybe their votes shouldn't count at all since they are here illegally? Imagine that.

You open-borders folks don't seem to actually be considering the consequences of your ideas. Democrats will never lose another election if we grant amnesty to these law-breakers. Not only that, but you create a further moral hazard that will draw tens of millions of more social-welfare voters here.

Think about it.

[Pennsylvania]

And if Obama decrees thief to no longer be a crime, we should embrace the thieve.


No, because the thief violates property rights. Immigrants do not, at least not necessarily.

[Deborah K]

No, because the thief violates property rights. Immigrants do not, at least not necessarily.

Oh really?? Tell that to the ranchers that have to put up with this crap when illegals cross over!!

http://i43.tinypic.com/2zrq1xv.jpg

[Kludge]

We

Who?

[Pennsylvania]

I'm a Minuteman. I patrol the border because my gov't won't do it. I don't hate illegal aliens. I just don't want them sneaking across illegally.

You do not own property outside of your own.


They cost my state alone over 5 billion dollars a year. They send back to Mexico around 30 billion dollars a year. They kill approximately 25 Americans a day.

So if drug-dealers kill people, we should keep drugs illegal?



What is it with you pro-illegal types? Why is it okay for Mexico and other countries to enforce their immigration laws but it's not okay for us to do it?

It is not okay for them to do it either.

[Danke]

No, because the thief violates property rights. Immigrants do not, at least not necessarily.

Forced taxation is theft. Many illegals add in the cost of running government programs and agencies. So...

[Pennsylvania]

Oh really?? Tell that to the ranchers that have to put up with this crap when illegals cross over!!

http://i43.tinypic.com/2zrq1xv.jpg

That several immigrants violate property rights does not mean that all of them do. Thieves, by definition, always violate property rights. Do you see the collectivism involved in automatically associating immigrants with crime?

[Pennsylvania]

Forced taxation is theft. Many illegals add in the cost of running government programs and agencies. So...

So abolish taxation, not immigration.

[Danke]

... associating immigrants with crime?

Illegals. Not immigrants. I guess trespassing is not a crime in your book.

[Kludge]

Maybe their votes shouldn't count at all since they are here illegally? Imagine that.

You open-borders folks don't seem to actually be considering the consequences of your ideas. Democrats will never lose another election if we grant amnesty to these law-breakers. Not only that, but you create a further moral hazard that will draw tens of millions of more social-welfare voters here.

Think about it.

I've spoken briefly with you a couple times, and am a bit frustrated that I need to again stress that I am not in favor of open-borders.


Why are we focusing so much on immigration when that energy would be so much more beneficial being spent on fighting the Welfare system which is drawing some illegals over here and is destroying this country even if we DID put up an expensive wall and manned outposts throughout the Mexican border (the same would have to be done for Canada if you're going to fear-monger by including "prevent terrorism" in your list of reasons to secure "the border")?

As well, there is no "moral hazard". The law of the U.S. does not dictate conscience, nor "interpret" the words of God. Current U.S. immigration code is outrageous, and makes the immigration of unskilled laborers nearly impossible, and, at best, a 15-30 year wait. We have no right to deny those people the opportunity that was given to us due to luck. It's aristocracy, and very annoying to see on this forum.

[Danke]

So abolish taxation, not immigration.

I'm with you there. But stop talking about "immigrants." It is the illegal entry into the country we are discussing.

[qh4dotcom]

I'm a Minuteman. I patrol the border because my gov't won't do it. I don't hate illegal aliens. I just don't want them sneaking across illegally. They cost my state alone over 5 billion dollars a year. They send back to Mexico around 30 billion dollars a year. They kill approximately 25 Americans a day. Americans that would be alive if illegals couldn't get in so easily. If their first action in our country is to break our laws then what makes you think they will be law abiding?

What is it with you pro-illegal types? Why is it okay for Mexico and other countries to enforce their immigration laws but it's not okay for us to do it?

What do you do when you encounter an illegal alien? And how do you know if it's an illegal or not? Can you speak Spanish?

The Obama sheeple need to start learning their lesson the hard way....so I hope Obama pushes this through so that his poll numbers start going down.

Sorry but the natural disaster has to happen before the sheeple will turn against their Messiah....might as well be amnesty that comes first....at least this will hurt less now than the upcoming higher taxes.

[He Who Pawns]

Sure we'd all love to end all welfare and shrink the federal gov by 90%. But that is NOT going to happen anytime soon. So we are left with the reality of adding 20 million new voters who will vote to INCREASE government power and welfare spending, which in turn will attract tens of millions of more hoping for similar amnesty. Do you see where this is headed?????

We will never be able to shrink government if this happens. Think long and hard about that.

[Kludge]

Sure we'd all love to end all welfare and shrink the federal gov by 90%. But that is NOT going to happen anytime soon. So we are left with the reality of adding 20 million new voters who will vote to INCREASE government power and welfare spending, which in turn will attract tens of millions of more hoping for similar amnesty. Do you see where this is headed?????

We will never be able to shrink government if this happens. Think long and hard about that.

The half-ass border security has been complained about for about as long as FDR's New Deal. Welfare and awful immigration code is the root cause, illegal immigration is just a symptom.

[He Who Pawns]

The half-ass border security has been complained about for about as long as FDR's New Deal. Welfare and awful immigration code is the root cause, illegal immigration is just a symptom.

Why won't you address my main point: by granting amnesty to these law-breakers, it will create tens of millions of new pro-welfare voters, and kill ANY chance we have of shrinking the government and getting back to constitutional government. Does reality matter AT ALL to you?????

[Deborah K]

What do you do when you encounter an illegal alien? And how do you know if it's an illegal or not?



We watch them cross from Mexico in the desert- not at a legal crossing point. We call it in to our comm. center who then calls it in to the border patrol. Americans can't cross into Mexico that way either. If we did, the Federallies would throw us in jail.

[Deborah K]

You do not own property outside of your own.



So if drug-dealers kill people, we should keep drugs illegal?



It is not okay for them to do it either.

I just love it when people who have never had to live with illegal immigration pass judgement. Your first two responses don't even apply to what I said.

[Deborah K]

That several immigrants violate property rights does not mean that all of them do. Thieves, by definition, always violate property rights. Do you see the collectivism involved in automatically associating immigrants with crime?


There you go trying to blur the line between immigrants and illegal aliens. Typical. That's the only way you pro-illegals can find any semblance of an argument - by spewing disinformation. Illegal aliens start off breaking our laws by coming here illegally. They are criminals from the start.

[qh4dotcom]

Sure we'd all love to end all welfare and shrink the federal gov by 90%. But that is NOT going to happen anytime soon. So we are left with the reality of adding 20 million new voters who will vote to INCREASE government power and welfare spending, which in turn will attract tens of millions of more hoping for similar amnesty. Do you see where this is headed?????

We will never be able to shrink government if this happens. Think long and hard about that.

Where did you get that 20 million from? Like I said earlier only a fraction are going to get citizenship...not 20 million...and by the way they will likely start out with a green card which means no voting for several years...and by the time they get citizenship, China will have stopped lending money to the US...the economy will be in worse shape and experiencing hyperinflation and there will be civil unrest as Schiff (I see you have him as your avatar) is predicting....who would want to come here illegally or stay here under those conditions?

Look there's a reason why hundreds of illegals are self-deporting now...because the economy sucks.

[Kludge]

Why won't you address my main point: by granting amnesty to these law-breakers, it will create tens of millions of new pro-welfare voters, and kill ANY chance we have of shrinking the government and getting back to constitutional government. Does reality matter AT ALL to you?????

Their potential actions are of no concern to us, and we certainly don't have justification to deny them opportunity merely because they may not vote how we'd like them to. It's detrimental to our cause, but they shouldn't be hampered just because we've been failing to reform Welfare. Maybe if the GOP weren't known for it's hostility toward Latinos, there wouldn't be so much of a problem.

[He Who Pawns]

Their potential actions are of no concern to us, and we certainly don't have justification to deny them opportunity merely because they may not vote how we'd like them to. It's detrimental to our cause, but they shouldn't be hampered just because we've been failing to reform Welfare. Maybe if the GOP weren't known for it's hostility toward Latinos, there wouldn't be so much of a problem.

So, it's settled, reality is meaningless to you.

[Kludge]

So, it's settled, reality is meaningless to you.

Horseshit.

These people have feelings. They exist in reality. Our Founders stole this land from the Indians they raped and massacred, and you now tell me that we have the right to deny others the ability to immigrate because they may not vote how we'd like?

Should we send the Blacks back to Africa because they tend to vote Democrat, as well? It may not be as politically popular since they haven't broken any unjust laws, but it's something to keep us busy, at least.

[qh4dotcom]

I just love it when people who have never had to live with illegal immigration pass judgement. Your first two responses don't even apply to what I said.

I would let the Obama sheeple in your area deal with the illegal immigration problem (they voted for it, it's their problem) and I'd move away to another state where there aren't many illegal immigrants.

[Deborah K]

Horseshit.

These people have feelings. They exist in reality. Our Founders stole this land from the Indians they raped and massacred, and you now tell me that we have the right to deny others the ability to immigrate because they may not vote how we'd like?

Should we send the Blacks back to Africa because they tend to vote Democrat, as well? It may not be as politically popular, but it's something to keep us busy, at least.


Kludge, we're talking about illegal immigration NOT legal immigration. If we are a country governed by the rule of law then what really, is your issue? All countries have borders and immigration laws. That's the way it is. Violating those laws is NOT the answer.

[Deborah K]

I would let the Obama sheeple in your area deal with the illegal immigration problem (they voted for it, it's their problem) and I'd move away to another state where there aren't many illegal immigrants.

I might as well move out of the country then.

[qh4dotcom]

I might as well move out of the country then.

You don't have to...I haven't heard of Hawaii and Alaska having problems with illegal immigration.

[Kludge]

Kludge, we're talking about illegal immigration NOT legal immigration. If we are a country governed by the rule of law then what really, is your issue? All countries have borders and immigration laws. That's the way it is. Violating those laws is NOT the answer.

Illegal immigration is a symptom of outrageous immigration laws which effectively prevent unskilled laborers (who aren't related to a U.S. citizen or have other special circumstances) from immigrating into the United States.

Even skilled workers are subject to a backlog equating to a 5 year or greater wait.

Edit: A link to show some immigration waits: http://www.litwinlaw.com/CM/Articles/How-Long-Immigrate.asp

Reason Magazine published a more comprehensive study with graphics, but I don't think it will be credible enough in the eyes of those who oppose immigration reform.

[qh4dotcom]

Kludge, we're talking about illegal immigration NOT legal immigration. If we are a country governed by the rule of law then what really, is your issue? All countries have borders and immigration laws. That's the way it is. Violating those laws is NOT the answer.

The problem is that US embassies have a reputation of denying visas and poor immigrants can't afford the trip to where there is one plus the $100+ visa fee especially when they know they will be rejected.

make it easier and you'll see less illegal immigration.

[Deborah K]

The problem is that US embassies have a reputation of denying visas and poor immigrants can't afford the trip to where there is one plus the $100+ visa fee especially when they know they will be rejected.

make it easier and you'll see less illegal immigration.


Agreed. But not if they are going to come over here and sponge off of our social services the way they do now. A lot of things need to be re-vamped NOT just INS.

Edit: Do you know what they pay the coyotes to sneak them across? Around $2400.00 each. And many times the women get raped.

[constituent]

you would add about 20 million new voters to the USA...
If you think we have an out-of-control welfare state now, wait until those 20 million Dems are added to the voter rolls. :mad:


20 million? got source?

[constituent]

They kill approximately 25 Americans a day.

"They" (collectivist) kill approx 25 a day? Got source?

[constituent]

And many times the women get raped.

nice appeal to emotion. great propaganda technique.

women get raped everyday and it has nothing to do w/ coyotes or "illegal" immigration.


Edit: Do you know what they pay the coyotes to sneak them across? Around $2400.00 each.

real progress always begins with the entrepreneurs of the world.

[constituent]

Oh really?? Tell that to the ranchers that have to put up with this crap when illegals cross over!!

http://i43.tinypic.com/2zrq1xv.jpg

Then perhaps the ranchers should be better stewards of their property, you know, build their own big fence and all, patrol the land themselves or hire others to do the same.

I believe your desire is to militarize the border and confiscate land for a federal wall though, no?

[constituent]

So if drug-dealers kill people, we should keep drugs illegal?


It's a separate conversation, but DebK does believe drugs should be kept illegal.

[constituent]

Americans can't cross into Mexico that way either. If we did, the Federallies would throw us in jail.

That's an outright lie. Growing up, the family that lived next door owned adjacent properties on both sides of the border (the land claim predated the American theft of Texas and the illegitimate treaty of guadalupe hidalgo) and we crossed the rio grande all the time to hunt, fish, trap, etc.

In fact, we still do.

[qh4dotcom]

Agreed. But not if they are going to come over here and sponge off of our social services the way they do now. A lot of things need to be re-vamped NOT just INS.

Edit: Do you know what they pay the coyotes to sneak them across? Around $2400.00 each. And many times the women get raped.

Not all of them use coyotes...and sometimes the coyotes accept promises to be paid with their future US wages....but yes, it's a risk.

Where do the women get raped? In the middle of the desert?

[Deborah K]

That's an outright lie. Growing up, the family that lived next door owned adjacent properties on both sides of the border (the land claim predated the American theft of Texas and the illegitimate treaty of guadalupe hidalgo) and we crossed the rio grande all the time to hunt, fish, trap, etc.

In fact, we still do.

Here we go with the diatribe..... :rolleyes: I DARE you to try and cross the border from California into Mexico NOT at a legal crossing point! You don't know what the fuck you are talking about!!!!

[constituent]

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about!!!!

(lol, check out that mouth on that one)

No, no you don't.

So anyway, about that "kill 25 americans a day" nonsense, got source?



I DARE you to try and cross the border from California into Mexico NOT at a legal crossing point!


Why would I? I live in Texas.

[Deborah K]

Not all of them use coyotes...and sometimes the coyotes accept promises to be paid with their future US wages....but yes, it's a risk.

Where do the women get raped? In the middle of the desert?

In the desert, yes. And sometimes in the encampments. Google immigrants and rape.

[Deborah K]

No, no you don't.

So anyway, about that "kill 25 americans a day" nonsense, got source?




Why would I? I live in Texas.

Look it up yourself. You make me sick. He's accusing Ron Paul and his family of stealing money in this quote:


as an aside, and all for what? for a campaign that was never really a campaign, but rather a protracted fundraiser--a fraud in a very real sense--to pay out a bunch of friends and family of some guy I never even met, and to spend too much time warding off attacks from yourself and other members of the "lowest common denominator" for actually having the 'intestinal fortitude™" to stand up for real liberty--unpopular as it is around here--?... hell of a reward, some thanks. life wasted, lesson learned.)

This is an outrage and you should be banned.

[constituent]

lol, when all else fails shoot the messenger.

[Deborah K]

lol, when all else fails shoot the messenger.

You're no messanger. You are venom.

[constituent]

You're no messanger. You are venom.

yawn.

so to get back on topic, since off-topic posts are a violation of forum guidelines, got a source for that 25 number?

[Danke]

Let's send them all to Michigan. They need more large pro-life Catholic families and fewer nihilists up there.

[Pennsylvania]

I'll attempt to clarify my position on the issue a little further. Obviously emotions can run high on both sides of this topic and I don't intend to start or contribute to a flame war here.

Legality is irrelevant when it is not in sync with rights. For example, murder violates a person's right to life, and therefore it is acceptable for murder to be illegal. Drug use, on the other hand, does not violate anyone's rights, and therefore it is acceptable for it to be legal. This can be applied to any issue. Now the question is, what rights have "illegal" immigrants violated? If an illegal immigrant trespasses onto your property, then sure you are entitled to deal with that accordingly. But what difference does it make whether the person is "legal" or "illegal" in that he has trespassed on your property?

In other words, when you apply the term "illegal" to a person, it means that they are on property that is not necessarily yours, but belongs to a collective with which you identify. If this is not the case, then why not be concerned with individuals' property borders rather than the Mexico/U.S. border? Yet the U.S. does not have the right to own land because the U.S. is an abstraction. Even Ron Paul holds that only individuals have rights. This is the basis by which I maintain that there is no genuine difference between the processes of legal and illegal immigration.

The only way to paint "illegal" immigrants as criminals is to associate them with negative trends in human behavior: theft, killing, etc. We need to treat these things as disjoint because to do otherwise would be to fall into a collectivist mentality. If we can associate "illegals" with crime, then we can associate drug dealers, and adolescent black males with crime too.

Or better said: correlation is not causation.

Furthermore, I am not attacking the actions of border patrol. I understand that if people feel there is a genuine threat, they have no alternative but to act defensively. In that regard, I am not passing judgement. I do however ask that people consider that it is not "illegals" themselves which cause the problems, and instead, like most things, it is bad government policy which causes them.

[Pennsylvania]

Horseshit.

These people have feelings. They exist in reality. Our Founders stole this land from the Indians they raped and massacred, and you now tell me that we have the right to deny others the ability to immigrate because they may not vote how we'd like?

Should we send the Blacks back to Africa because they tend to vote Democrat, as well? It may not be as politically popular since they haven't broken any unjust laws, but it's something to keep us busy, at least.

Well said Kludge, I agree.

[Danke]

In other words, when you apply the term "illegal" to a person, it means that they are on property that is not necessarily yours, but belongs to a collective with which you identify. If this is not the case, then why not be concerned with individuals' property borders rather than the Mexico/U.S. border? Yet the U.S. does not have the right to own land because the U.S. is an abstraction. Even Ron Paul holds that only individuals have rights. This is the basis by which I maintain that there is no genuine difference between the processes of legal and illegal immigration.



And Chinese soldiers could flood across our boarders, but we really should not take any action as the United States is a collective and an "abstraction" They could be here just looking for a nice vacation.

[Pennsylvania]

And Chinese soldiers could flood across our boarders, but we really should not take any action as the United States is a collective and an "abstraction" They could be here just looking for a nice vacation.

Correct, if they do not initiate force, or the threat of force against anyone.

[Danke]

Even Ron Paul holds that only individuals have rights.

Ya, really no legitimate function for government. :rolleyes:


We The People have rights, and we form government(s) to carry out certain functions on our behalf.

Every society is a collective, as far as I can tell. Unless you live in TW's world.

[Danke]

... or the threat of force against anyone.

And that is up you to decide?

I decided illegals are a threat. So I guess I'm right about protecting the boarders then.

[Kludge]

And that is up you to decide?

I decided illegals are a threat. So I guess I'm right about protecting the boarders then.

If you (as an individual) want to shoot Mexicans dead while they try to cross the border, I won't stop you, but don't say you're doing it on my behalf, please.

[Pennsylvania]

Ya, really no legitimate function for government. :rolleyes:

Well I recognize the sarcasm, but taken seriously, I would disagree anyway. I do think there is a necessary function for government, which would be an institution which protects rights without inherently violating them, i.e. without taxation.



We The People have rights, and we form government(s) to carry out certain functions on our behalf.

Which is fine with me as long as that government does not violate rights, and in the case of taxation and national borders, it does.

[Pennsylvania]

And that is up you to decide?

I decided illegals are a threat. So I guess I'm right about protecting the boarders then.

With the same outlook, you can determine that a legless 4-year old with a lollipop is a threat to you.

And regardless, in this analogy, what you are saying here is that all legless 4-year olds as a collective are a threat, rather than just the one that initiated the force or threat of force.

[Danke]

If you (as an individual) want to shoot Mexicans dead while they try to cross the border, I won't stop you, but don't say you're doing it on my behalf, please.

Come on Kludge. You know property rights are meaningless if you can't defend them.

Or are you against property ownership too now?

[Danke]

With the same outlook, you can determine that a legless 4-year old with a lollipop is a threat to you.

And regardless, in this analogy, what you are saying here is that all legless 4-year olds as a collective are a threat, rather than just the one that initiated the force or threat of force.

No, I used your stupid statement against your argument. "threat of force" Who decides? Simple question.

[Kludge]

Come on Kludge. You know property rights are meaningless if you can't defend them.

Or are you against property ownership too now?

If you (as an individual) want to shoot Mexicans dead while they trespass on your property, I won't stop you, but don't say you're doing it on my behalf, please.

[Pennsylvania]

No, I used you stupid statement against your argument. "threat of force" Who decides? Simple question.

Have I attacked you in a way that you feel the need to attack me? If you want to continue the conversion that's fine with me, but I'm not going to pursue it if you are going to make condescending statements such as the one above.

[Lord Xar]

So abolish taxation, not immigration.

Illegal immigration is a HUGE drain on our schools, hospitals, ie.. all social services -- illegal immigration is illegal. "Deciding" to legalize them is only gonna spur more. Plus, there is a thing called "chain migration" -- which will further legalize millions more. Most will vote left, most will be government dependent.

Your open borders apologist views are well known and you argue till you are blue in the face. You can't advocate open borders and spout property rights and all that jazz, when our welfare state and political leanings via 'their votes' will only further diminish our liberties thru oppressive taxation, not abiding by the rule of law etc..

Take California and most all states with high illegal immigration - did liberty sprout up? Nope, the very thing happened that promoted MORE illegal immigration, MORE taxation, MORE corruption, MORE crime etc... advocating and promoting illegal behaviour that lends itself to the very things that smother liberty - ie, welfare state, far left agenda, taxation, collective etc.. is suicide.

You play word games to win a flawed argument. Grow up.

What I find most hilarious and somewhat telling on a posters true nature is how they advocate the very thing that will restrict and smother liberty & the constitution. It is hilarious. It is not secret that many have come here to infilitrate this site in the guise of libertarians.

Let me put it "as plain as I possible can" -- you grant amnesty to 20+million illegal immigrants. Then thru chain migration, millions more. Then the welfare state will compound the birth rate to new heights -- and will you have a complete pwnage of the political climate, to the far left.

[Lord Xar]

And Constituent AGAIN, belittles and forces conversation offtrack along with his cohorts.

Hey MODS -- what is happening to this site? It is fairly apparent it has been supplanted and nothing is done.
These posters are not libertarians, only far leftists in disguise.

I don't get it. This place is truly sucking now.

[eOs]

Correct, if they do not initiate force, or the threat of force against anyone. ^In Reference to allowing Chinese Soldiers to just cross our borders


God, I hate seeing so many people getting owned by their own ideology. The end all be all! You fail, Pennsylvania.

[Kludge]

And Constituent AGAIN, belittles and forces conversation offtrack along with his cohorts.

Hey MODS -- what is happening to this site? It is fairly apparent it has been supplanted and nothing is done.
These posters are not libertarians, only far leftists in disguise.

I don't get it. This place is truly sucking now.

Refute the arguments, if you'd like.

Since you used plural, I can only assume you believe I'm a far leftist, and if you believe that, you may be beyond hope.

[Pennsylvania]

In regards to soldiers on U.S. soil: China, with Canada's approval could amass an army of the same strength directly across the border from Michigan, complete with long range artillery, aircraft and tanks, yet technically they have not violated the border. I wonder if you would feel any less uneasy about it?

[Kludge]

In regards to soldiers on U.S. soil: China, with Canada's approval could amass an army of the same strength directly across the border from Michigan, complete with long range artillery, aircraft and tanks, yet technically they have not violated the border. I wonder if you would feel any less uneasy about?

Canadians have a culture similar to our own. Unlike the Mexicans, they don't shit on our vegetables.

[Pennsylvania]

Canadians have a culture similar to our own. Unlike the Mexicans, they don't shit on our vegetables.

Well the country in my example with whom we would share the border is not so important ;). The point is, even if we shared a border with China, China could amass its army along that border, and we would not sleep any better just because they haven't come here "illegally".

[Lord Xar]

Refute the arguments, if you'd like.

Since you used plural, I can only assume you believe I'm a far leftist, and if you believe that, you may be beyond hope.

I remember us getting into it before in which you seemed to think 'things' revolved around you. Like I said before, and I'll say it again - you ain't that important. And to be more specific, no - I wasn't talking about you. Though we disagree on most everything or its implemenation to 'get there', you are neither condescending or inappropriate.

[Kludge]

I remember us getting into it before in which you seemed to think 'things' revolved around you. Like I said before, and I'll say it again - you ain't that important. And to be more specific, no - I wasn't talking about you. Though we disagree on most everything or its implemenation to 'get there', you are neither condescending or inappropriate.

:o You did use plural, and there wasn't much defense of immigration outside of Penn and myself. I still don't know who else you were talking about, but sorry nonetheless.

[Join The Paul Side]

Oh and here's a question for the immigrant-haters: You claim that the reason you hate so-called "illegals" is because they're breaking US law by being here. If Obama changes the law and makes it legal for them to be here, they won't be breaking the law any more. So you should stop hating them at that point, right?

Sure. But why stop there? Why not change laws to make fraud legal? Might as well since there has yet to be one single arrest or prosectution of the criminals on Wallstreet that happily contributed to the financial crisis.

Why not change laws to make sex with minors legal? That way we won't have to worry about pedephiles anymore because it would be legal, right?

I hope you can determine that the above comments are sarcasm because I believe you're an [name-calling redacted by Mod]. :cool:

[Brian4Liberty]

You immigrant-haters are in the minority. You're more vocal, but you're still the minority.

Speak for yourself, not for others.

The vast majority of people who want to logically discuss immigration limits are not "immigrant-haters".

The destruction of the US middle-class was achieved via immigration of cheaper labor and outsourcing of jobs. Too much immigration all at once is a big part of our current condition. If people didn't lose jobs and have their wages reduced, the debt bubble would not have grown like it did. (And the government pushed debt too!)

Our government inflated the labor pool exactly like they have inflated the currency. Each dollar becomes worth less, each worker becomes worth less.

Legal, illegal, unskilled, highly skilled, it doesn't matter. We have taken way too many people onto this sinking boat.

Border security is a separate issue. Even if you have unlimited legal immigration, you still need to secure your borders.

[Feenix566]

Oh and here's a question for the immigrant-haters: You claim that the reason you hate so-called "illegals" is because they're breaking US law by being here. If Obama changes the law and makes it legal for them to be here, they won't be breaking the law any more. So you should stop hating them at that point, right?


And if Obama decrees theft to no longer be a crime, we should embrace the thief.

"immigrant-hater" I think you are on the wrong forum. We don't fall for those silly labels. You hater!!


I'm a Minuteman. I patrol the border because my gov't won't do it. I don't hate illegal aliens. I just don't want them sneaking across illegally. They cost my state alone over 5 billion dollars a year. They send back to Mexico around 30 billion dollars a year. They kill approximately 25 Americans a day. Americans that would be alive if illegals couldn't get in so easily. If their first action in our country is to break our laws then what makes you think they will be law abiding?

What is it with you pro-illegal types? Why is it okay for Mexico and other countries to enforce their immigration laws but it's not okay for us to do it?

Neither of you answered my question. I'm shocked!!!


I'll answer your question, Deborah. It's only okay to enforce laws that are morally correct. Just like Danke said, if Obama made it legal to steal, we wouldn't all embrace thievery. Similarily, just because some politicians have made it illegal to cross the border, that doesn't mean I need to change my moral stance to conform to the law.

Forthermore, we all agree that only just laws should be enforced. There is literally no one on the planet who thinks otherwise. So really the discussion we're having here is whether or not it's MORAL to cross a border.

The answer is that of course it's moral. It's no more immoral for a person to cross a border and compete with you for a job than it is for a person to be born in America and then compete with you for a job. It's no more immoral for a person to cross the border and commit crime than it is for a person to be born here and commit crime. If you think adding people to the population is immoral, you must conclude that an American woman giving birth to a baby here is also immoral. Are you suggesting we impose Chinese-style birth limits, to curb the number of Americans competing for jobs?

If you're going to say that it's immoral to compete with Americans for jobs, then you must also condemn every American who competes for a job. This is stupid and wrong. You can't condemn someone for taking something away from you that you never owned to begin with. Wealth is not a static resource to be divided up. It is an unlimited resource to be EARNED.

You are all engaging in double-think. When you ask the government to enforce strict anti-immigration policies, you're asking for a police state. You're asking for razor wire and watch towers along the border. You're asking for every employer in the country to become an agent of the state. You're asking for armed patrols you roam the landscape, demanding that everyone produce proof of citizenship at any arbitrary time. This is not freedom. This is not liberty. This is not the American way. It sure as hell isn't capitalism! And in the long run, it's going to hurt you, both in terms of your liberty and also in terms of your prosperity. Immigration is good for the economy. If you can't understand why that is, then you don't understand free market economics.

[Minuteman2008]

Sure we'd all love to end all welfare and shrink the federal gov by 90%. But that is NOT going to happen anytime soon. So we are left with the reality of adding 20 million new voters who will vote to INCREASE government power and welfare spending, which in turn will attract tens of millions of more hoping for similar amnesty. Do you see where this is headed?????

We will never be able to shrink government if this happens. Think long and hard about that.


20 million? Think again. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the McCain-Kennedy amnesty/immigration acceleration bill would have increased our population by over 80 million over two decades. That's right, 80 million, mostly because of chain migration. (The first version of the bill, later rewritten, would have added 120 million.)

I don't know what the Obama amnesty bill will look like (if the Dems are even stupid enough to attempt it), but the McCain-Kennedy version wasn't a mere amnesty -- the actual nation-wrecking part of it was the vastly increased immigration, nearly all of it from the third world. To be sure, it would be a winning move for the Democratic party, but for the Republican party (and traditional America) it would be The Final Solution. (Not to mention the greatly increased number of guest worker programs, even as the existing ones aren't being fully utilized.)

I don't care how many cultural Marxists, theoretical bubble Libertarians, "citizens of the world", pro-Hispanic organizations, leftists, neocons and others try to justify this and throw labels at those who oppose amnesty, it won't fly in this economic climate. The last attempt at amnesty created an uproar even when the economy was supposedly on sound footing. The last thing most folks want right now is more cheap labor when they're unemployed or underemployed. That might not jibe with some posters' loftier notions, but that's the way it is, despite what the New York Times or Reason magazine may tell you.

I hope Obama, the Dems and neocons try to sell this crap sandwich to America. The backlash is going to be a sight to behold.

[He Who Pawns]

Minuteman2008, I agree with you completely, but I am worried that good Americans with the backbone to fight this socialist takeover disguised as immigration policy are too few and far between right now. I hope we still have the will to protect liberty and uphold the laws of the land. Otherwise, if this passes, it's all over for the constitution and limited government.

Our only hope then would be to flock to a large state in the west or a group of neighboring states, and begin to defy federal laws and mandates. I could see Utah and Nevada as two such states -- the beginning of "Free America."

[Lord Xar]

You are all engaging in double-think. When you ask the government to enforce strict anti-immigration policies, you're asking for a police state. You're asking for razor wire and watch towers along the border. You're asking for every employer in the country to become an agent of the state. You're asking for armed patrols you roam the landscape, demanding that everyone produce proof of citizenship at any arbitrary time. This is not freedom. This is not liberty. This is not the American way. It sure as hell isn't capitalism! And in the long run, it's going to hurt you, both in terms of your liberty and also in terms of your prosperity. Immigration is good for the economy. If you can't understand why that is, then you don't understand free market economics.

Listen Feenix, you are extremely transparent and use extreme points to make a simple argument. The reason you do this is because your beliefs can't stand on its own. You keep waxing poetic about freedom/liberty etc... yet the very nature of your argument and support will bring about unprecedented police-state and yielding of liberty. I pointed out that all the states with high illegal immigration, are moving to an extreme left position - high taxes, high crime, lower educationatl standards and more regulation/control. You are dead wrong in your assumptions.

You can't have "lax" or "sorta" law abiding. You either have enforcement or you dno't. "Strict" enforcement means what? 100% following the law? Stop with your shennanigans. Nothing, let me repeat, NOTHING of good has come from such an extreme flow of immigrants into a country. Then because of our ridiculous laws, chain migration - citizenship to those born etc.... You might find living in a fantasy world which doesn't exist but everything else does, a fond notion. I don't.

Unchecked immigration, out of control welfare fraud, overburdening schools / hospitals/ social services and me footing the bill is NOT liberty, it is NOT the american way.

Controlled and reasonable immigration is good for the economy. But we don't have that, and you know it. You are just a leftist using leftist propaganda to ensure your argument.

Lets ask you a question. And lets see how it fits into your landscape of thought.

We have upwards of 20+million illegal immigrants. According to you, this is good and healthy for the economy. Now, lets say we legalize them and allow thru chain migration, tens of millions more. Now, this is NOT gonna stop illegal immigration, this will just encourage more. So, in lets say - 10 years... How do you think these citizens will vote? And do you think that political climate that will come about will be more or less freedom stealing? Do you think the welfare environment will still exist?

So, in reality, its your propaganda and open border philosophy that will actually bring about the fastest and surest liberty stealing & freedom destroying agenda. And coincidently, its the same agenda that is being followed by the corrupt Obama admin. and the previous Bush admin. Coincidence?

[Imperial]

All the anti-illegal immigration folks on here and the open borders people could just compromise by cutting off all welfare to illegal aliens and maintaining the status quo in all other regards.

[RonPaulCentral]

If all these illegals are made citizens, will they vote for Obama in 2012? Could this help him win again?

Now you are thinking strategy. Of course! As a matter of fact they will all probably be required to donate time to Acorn as part of the "path to citizenship." :rolleyes:

[HOLLYWOOD]

Here we go... let's play "Connect the Dots"!

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003025.html

Frankly I don't know why we don't bill the Mexican and any other government the full costs of Illegal immigrants? Why do the innocent Americans have to pay all the bills and price?

If the Foreign government doesn't pay, like mexico and others have their assets seized.

Hugo Chavez wanted out of the IMF, but was advised not to break, because of the previous Pro American puppet regimes that ran up $10's of Billions in IMF debt. Hugo's financial cabinet advised not, because the US/WB/IMF/UN will seize their assets to repay the debt (bank depoists, Citgo Oil/Gas, etc.)

So why not seize foreign assets to pay for the Billions in costs from illegal immigration?

[Jace]

...

[puppetmaster]

They better hurry up and get these immigrants to sign up for citizenship so they can help pay for our bailouts.
Soon know one will want to immigrate as we will be a banana republic, get em now obama....lol

[eduardo89]

Canadians have a culture similar to our own. Unlike the Mexicans, they don't shit on our vegetables.

Is that a figure of speech? Because I've never done that, nor do I know any other Mexicans who have...

[Danke]

What we have now in this country is not immigration, but a wholesale invasion. Historically, invasions usually do not turn out well for the host population.

The Constitution was put in place after a fight for independence and a break from a global empire. The Constitution set rules in place to protect our freedoms, but our Constitution is now being undermined by open borders advocates and "free traders" in this country.



Yep.

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. "

[Kludge]

Is that a figure of speech? Because I've never done that, nor do I know any other Mexicans who have...

Sorry. It was sarcasm referencing a ridiculous post a now-banned member made about why we need to "get tough" with illegal immigration.

Edit: I lied. I thought "Chosen" wrote the message in a different thread. He did not. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2053206&postcount=1