More Claptrap From Cato On Immigration

[bobbyw24]

Why is Cato pushing the globalist agenda of unchecked illegal immigration?

[lynnf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

this probably explains that - their donor list (from Wikipedia):

Cato received support from 20 corporations in 2007[61] including:

Altria Corporate Services Inc. (Formerly Philip Morris)
American Petroleum Institute
Comcast Corporation
Fedex Corporation
Microsoft
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Visa USA INC.
WalMart Stores Inc.
A number of foreign and domestic car companies

[bobbyw24]

Cheap Labor

[lynnf]

we know what the Ford Foundation is after......


The Cato Institute has been supported by dozens of foundations [61] including:

Atlantic Philanthropies
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation, founded by Jeremiah Milbank
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Castle Rock Foundation (formerly known as The Coors Foundation)
Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
Ford Foundation
Ploughshares Fund
Marijuana Policy Project

[FindLiberty]

S-t-a-t-o

[fisharmor]

Wait, what's the tone here? Stop making insinuations and say something.
From my perspective, the Cato institute proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are more interested in pursuing a strict construction of the 2nd Amendment than the NRA. Everything else I've read from them I've generally been in complete agreement with.

If socialists like Bill Gates want to help push that agenda, I'm not going to complain. If you can prove that he sets the agenda, that's something else.

Back OT, though.... here's how I see it.

If we completely ended the war on drugs, and got rid of all federal laws pertaining to the use of drugs, then it would not make sense to continue to punish those who are doing time for dealing right now.

If we reversed all gun control in this country, including NFA '34, it would not make sense to continue to punish people who got caught with full autos before the change.

Likewise, if we were to completely overhaul immigration, and do what the Cato institute would suggest (like allow it), then it would not make sense to punish people who broke laws that were no longer on the books.

So the amnesty thing... kind of makes sense, if we're going to change the laws.

Regarding the economics of it... this Rubenstein guy makes it sound like mechanization HAS to happen in California. I disagree. Who cares if people pick the fruit? The work gets done, and people get paid for their labor. He's not making a convincing case that we have to better the conditions of the people doing the work - on the contrary, he's talking about removing the people from the labor pool, consigning them to live in other countries where the standard of living is significantly worse.

[erowe1]

Hmmm. Cato? Or VDare? Which point of view to trust? Liberty? Or White nationalism?

[bobbyw24]

Hmmm. Cato? Or VDare? Which point of view to trust? Liberty? Or White nationalism?

Sorry for the original post. Just wanted to see if people here had diverse opinions on immigration or if they blindly follow Cato's globalist position.

[erowe1]

Sorry for the original post. Just wanted to see if people here had diverse opinions on immigration or if they blindly follow Cato's globalist position.

I don't follow a globalist position. But I do approve of having no limits on how many people can come to this country. I don't have a problem with monitoring our borders and keeping out people like fugitives from the law and terrorists. I'm also not for having taxpayers fund welfare, health care, or education of anyone no matter what country they were born in. But I'm all for letting in as many people who will come here and pay their own way as want to, and to accept the lower cost of labor that results as a very good thing. I'm not for illegal immigration. But the immigration of these people should never have been made illegal to begin with. And whatever impediments exist that make coming here legally difficult enough that they find it easier to come illegally should be lifted.

[bobbyw24]

I don't follow a globalist position. But I do approve of having no limits on how many people can come to this country. I don't have a problem with monitoring our borders and keeping out people like fugitives from the law and terrorists. I'm also not for having taxpayers fund welfare, health care, or education of anyone no matter what country they were born in. But I'm all for letting in as many people who will come here and pay their own way as want to, and to accept the lower cost of labor that results as a very good thing. I'm not for illegal immigration. But the immigration of these people should never have been made illegal to begin with. And whatever impediments exist that make coming here legally difficult enough that they find it easier to come illegally should be lifted.

I agree with everything you just said

[Agnapostate]

Sorry for the original post. Just wanted to see if people here had diverse opinions on immigration or if they blindly follow Cato's globalist position.

Oh. So being pro-immigration and anti-trade liberalization would suffice?

[Mahkato]

If you don't have a welfare state, immigrants are an asset, not a liability. How do you think the United States became so great?

[bobbyw24]

If you don't have a welfare state, immigrants are an asset, not a liability. How do you think the United States became so great?

That is true--immigration problems came huge after the 1965 changes in immigration and welfare laws

[Flash]

Hmmm. Cato? Or VDare? Which point of view to trust? Liberty? Or White nationalism?

How are Liberty & White Nationalism opposite from each other? You do realize Pat Buchanan technically would be considered a white nationalist for speaking out against unchecked mass amounts of immigration. I would like for a real rebuttle to WN'ism rather than just emotionalist dribble.

Now I'm no WN myself, but I find it hard to believe allowing millions of Latin Americans in will somehow advance the cause of liberty. As they will quickly vote for the big-government leaders who promise them handouts.

[Flash]

That is true--immigration problems came huge after the 1965 changes in immigration and welfare laws

Who were the ethnicities that pushed for welfare laws? Relatively new immigrants themselves. Ted Kennedy, Irish Catholic ethnic group, was one of them.

[erowe1]

How are Liberty & White Nationalism opposite from each other? You do realize Pat Buchanan technically would be considered a white nationalist for speaking out against unchecked mass amounts of immigration. I would like for a real rebuttle to WN'ism rather than just emotionalist dribble.

Now I'm no WN myself, but I find it hard to believe allowing millions of Latin Americans in will somehow advance the cause of liberty. As they will quickly vote for the big-government leaders who promise them handouts.

I don't know if Buchanan would be considered "technically" a white nationalist, by whatever "technical" definition you have in mind when you say that. I wouldn't call him one. But he's wrong on trade and immigration, and he's also anti-liberty in those areas, as are white nationalists. Yes, liberty and white nationalism are mutually exclusive.

[erowe1]

Ted Kennedy, Irish Catholic ethnic group, was one of them.

Don't forget to count Pat Buchanan in that group.

[bobbyw24]

Who were the ethnicities that pushed for welfare laws? Relatively new immigrants themselves. Ted Kennedy, Irish Catholic ethnic group, was one of them.

La Raza is pushing health care now . . .

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213468

[NYgs23]

I don't believe in govt border controls. It's true that the overburdened welfare state presents big problems in this regard, but it presents big problems anyway. We don't prevent people from moving to New York because of the burden they place on NY's welfare programs. We don't prevent people from driving from state to state despite the burdens they place on the govt's roads. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I don't trust the govt to control the borders any more equitably than it does anything else. We should work on correcting the "problem" of immigration by correcting the actual problems--welfarism, public services, international mercantilism, and international drug prohibitions--without compounding it with more govt as a temporary "fix."