Action Alert: Another Amnesty Bill Introduced

[romacox]

Our chief House opponent, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), has introduced a bill that is much, much more radical than any Amnesty bill ever introduced.
I'm going to give a super-condensed summary of the two-page bill. Some features are so outrageous you may think we are making them up. But it's all true!

•The bill outlaws all state and local laws against illegal immigration. It overthrows laws like those in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Georgia that punish companies for hiring illegal aliens.
•It eliminates the 287(g) program in which local law enforcement helps identify and detect illegal aliens for the feds.
•Job verification would no longer be possible, because this bill would ELIMINATE E-Verify! All our gains in verification over the last decade would be destroyed if this bill were to become law.
•All Illegal Aliens in U.S. as of day-before-yesterday will be given immediate Amnesty.•The only ones not given the Amnesty are those who've committed a "serious crime." BUT, if the criminal is above 65 years old, no problem--they get the amnesty. (New industry--older criminals smuggled into U.S. to escape punishment in home countries?)
•Importation of foreign-workers or permanent immigrants will be GREATLY increased.

The good news is that NumbersUSA, with all our members, has stopped every previous Illegal Alien Amnesty of the past decade. Don't let this be the one that un-does us!

Actions to perform TODAY to kill this worst Amnesty EVER:

1.Read this blog on NumbersUSA to get the details of just how terrible this bill is. Believe me, it's much, much worse than you can imagine.

2.Arm yourself with full info on the Amnesty by reading this point-by-point analysis of the entire bill. If you care about this issue like I think you do, this analysis with our commentary will make your head explode. Ok, got all the info now? Time to act!

3.Go to your Action Board and send the faxes to Congress you will see there. (Take some time with this! Add your P.S. and make the language you own.)

From: Jim Robb NumbersUSA.com (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/)

[torchbearer]

ZOMG! THe MEXICANS! THE MEXiCANS!
THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!@

[sofia]

ZOMG! THe MEXICANS! THE MEXiCANS!
THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!@

10 million new Obama voters will guarantee a communist-democrat majority forever.

That's the problem.

[torchbearer]

10 million new Obama voters will guarantee a communist-democrat majority forever.

That's the problem.

The system will collapse- the sooner the better.
That is not a problem.

[Blueskies]

Dey took our jebs!

[roho76]

YouTube - they took our jobs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI)

[AuH20]

ZOMG! THe MEXICANS! THE MEXiCANS!
THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!@

It goes much deeper than this. I could care less about the jobs. They're creating a permanent underclass dependent on the state. Keep the serfs chained to the bottom rail of the socio-economic ladder, detached from educational opportunity, thanks largely to a language disconnect & you have a perfect slave class.

[Happy Fishing]

Better keep an eye on this and plan a VERY strong response. See today's Miami Herald.

Immigrant advocates plan walk from Miami to Washington
Similar stories:
•New immigration reform bill filed in U.S. House
New immigration reform bill filed in U.S. House
Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., on Tuesday filed the first comprehensive immigration reform bill in the current Congress, giving renewed hope to millions of undocumented immigrants in South Florida and around the country.

But the prospects for passage remain as uncertain as ever.

``This is a great thing for everyone,'' said Walter Lara, a 23-year-old former Miami Dade College student from Argentina who almost got deported in July after immigration officers discovered he had no papers. ``If this passes, this is the type of change President Obama has been talking about. It will make the United States a more welcoming country.''

•Immigration reform bill filed in House but passage is uncertain
Immigration reform bill filed in House but passage is uncertain
Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., on Tuesday filed the first comprehensive immigration reform bill in the current Congress, giving renewed hope to millions of undocumented immigrants in South Florida and around the country.

But the prospects for passage remain as uncertain as ever.

"This is a great thing for everyone," said Walter Lara, a 23-year-old former Miami Dade College student from Argentina who almost got deported in July after immigration officers discovered he had no papers. "If this passes, this is the type of change President Obama has been talking about. It will make the United States a more welcoming country."

•Bill would give undocumented legal status
Bill would give undocumented legal status
Hispanic, black, Asian and other House lawmakers backing immigration overhaul called Tuesday for legalizing illegal immigrants in the U.S., despite a weakened economy and joblessness.

The coalition of lawmakers said Tuesday immigration reform can protect American workers as well as bring into the mainstream economy productive immigrant workers who have lived in the shadows because of their illegal status.

"For those who say that given the state of our economy, given the unemployment rate, this is not the time, I would say to you there is no wrong or right time. There is a moral obligation," said Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

•Shout draws focus to illegal-immigrant issue
Shout draws focus to illegal-immigrant issue
Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shout of ``You lie!'' during President Obama's speech Wednesday night brought renewed attention to swirling questions about whether Democratic healthcare legislation would extend coverage to illegal immigrants. Although the answer is more complicated than reform proponents acknowledge, it also does not square with the dark warnings of opponents who say the proposals would bring waves of undocumented immigrants into taxpayer-funded plans.

To counter claims that universal healthcare would cover illegal immigrants, Democrats and independent arbiters have pointed to language in the House legislation that says the federal subsidies, or ``affordability credits,'' that would be the main avenue to expanding coverage would not be available to illegal immigrants.

This language does not assuage the bill's critics, who say the proposals lack the verification tools needed to assure that illegal immigrants do not gain coverage either through federal credits or the expanded Medicaid

•Soldiers sworn in as U.S. citizens
Soldiers sworn in as U.S. citizens
Fabian Prado was seven when he, his eight-year-old brother and their mother crossed the U.S-Mexico border without papers in 1987 -- among the first Cuban refugees to flee to the United States via Mexico.

On Monday, Prado was one of 19 foreign-born soldiers -- seven from Cuba -- who became U.S. citizens during a special ceremony in Kendall before they deploy overseas.

The ceremony comes on the eve of when the Congress is set to introduce the latest bill to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants who have been unable to obtain immigration status after illegally crossing the border or overstaying a visa.
BY HERALD STAFF
dadenews@MiamiHerald.com
A coalition of local immigrant advocacy groups will take part next month in a 2,000-mile walk from Miami to Washington, D.C., to urge passage of legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to become legalized U.S. residents and citizens.

Called the ``Trail of DREAMS,'' the organizations are trying to build momentum for the latest immigration reform bill that was introduced this week in Congress.

Organizers said the walk, to begin Jan. 1, is a project of Students Working for Equal Rights (SWER), a Miami-based organization affiliated with the Florida Immigrant Coalition.

Among those expected to join the walk are undocumented immigrants who would benefit from passage of the legislation.

The groups have scheduled a news conference Friday to talk about their plans.

The lobbying effort follows the introduction of the first comprehensive immigration reform bill in the current Congress. The bill is sponsored by a group of Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.

Prospects for passage remain as uncertain as ever.

Provisions in the Gutierrez legislation -- Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 -- are somewhat similar to those in prior bills.

Undocumented immigrants in the United States prior to Dec. 15 would be encouraged to come forward and register with the government in exchange for a future path to residency and citizenship.

Certain immigrants in deportation proceedings, facing removal or ordered to depart would be able to apply for legalization under Gutierrez's bill. Applicants would pay a $500 fine -- lower than the thousands of dollars sought in prior bills -- and must have clean criminal records. If approved, applicants would receive a six-year visa, which eventually could be replaced by a green card -- the path to possible citizenship.

The bill also incorporates provisions of the DREAM Act, separate legislation filed earlier that would provide green cards to children of undocumented parents who are in high school or college and were brought to the United States as minors.

Similar bills in recent years have failed because of fierce opposition by conservative and anti-immigrant forces. Whether the political climate has changed is difficult to say, but most experts say debate on immigration reform will be as emotional and polarizing as the healthcare reform debate.

President Obama has signaled he will push immigration reform, but not until healthcare reform is out of the way.

Long-standing opponents have vehemently criticized Gutierrez's bill.

``The bill proposes to reduce illegal immigration by making all illegal immigrants legal,'' Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, a longtime legalization opponent, said in a statement.

[torchbearer]

It goes much deeper than this. I could care less about the jobs. They're creating a permanent underclass dependent on the state. Keep the serfs chained to the bottom rail of the socio-economic ladder, detached from educational opportunity, thanks to a language disconnect & you have a perfect slave class.

really? then the solution would be to have a free market of healthy businesses, and allow these people to make good money.
They may be more inclined to vote against spending increases if the taxes are coming from their work pay.
Keep them poor and illegal- and they pay no taxes. So they will want the hand-outs.
the problem isn't people wanting to come here- its the xenophobia.

[stu2002]

10 million new Obama voters will guarantee a communist-democrat majority forever.

That's the problem.

EXACTLY

FIRE UP THE FAXES:

http://www.NumbersUSA.com

[torchbearer]

Think about this- the super-majority of canadians are flaming socialist with government healthcare, etc.
We aren't freakin' out about canadians coming here and turning the US into canada.
well, for one- they are white- and to the anglo in us- they are subconciously seen as the same and not threatening.

all the mexicans i know in louisiana are here solely to work for a few dollars an hour to make their children's lives better than their own. nothing wrong with that at all.
we don't have any crime issues with the mexican workers in louisiana- in fact, you want to hire someone who will always show up on time- hire a mexican. he's hungry.

all the nurseries in central louisiana are worked by mexicans. its work that no one else really wants to do- its a job not really worth minimum wage- so its a perfect fit.
get rid of minimum wage may add more competition for those jobs, but then again- maybe not.

[AuH20]

really? then the solution would be to have a free market of healthy businesses, and allow these people to make good money.
They may be more inclined to vote against spending increases if the taxes are coming from their work pay.
Keep them poor and illegal- and they pay no taxes. So they will want the hand-outs.
the problem isn't people wanting to come here- its the xenophobia.


It's an educational and cultural issue. We do not have the proper mechanisms in place to take in 30+ million people and seamlessly integrate them into our broken system. It isn't 1905. Xenophobia does exist but it's oversimplified as the main reason for opposition, when it's much more complicated than simply "not liking brown people." Immigration quotas were set up for a reason, due to limited resources and integration concerns. You just don't take a huge block of largely poor foreign nationals and throw them into the middle of a distinct nation. Imagine if we took the denizens of Detroit and dropped them in the middle of France with no cultural awareness or communication skills? What do you think would happen? These same problems would arise.

[torchbearer]

It's an educational and cultural issue. We do not have the proper mechanisms in place to take in 30+ million people and seamlessly integrate them into system. It isn't 1905. Xenophobia does exist but it's oversimplified as the main reason for opposition, when it's much more complicated than simply "not liking brown people." Immigration quotas were set up for a reason, due to limited resources and integration concerns. You just don't take a block on largely poor foreign nationals and throw them into the middle of a sovereign. Imagine if we took the denizens of Detroit and dropped them in the middle of France with no cultural awareness or communication skills? What do you think would happen?

they are already here- they are integrating themselves. no effort is required on your part or the governments.
voluntary movement of people.

my ancestors came here and couldn't speak any english either. it didn't take a program to teach them english. they weren't educated, they were identured servants turned share croppers.

[AuH20]

they are already here- they are integrating themselves. no effort is required on your part or the governments.
voluntary movement of people.

my ancestors came here and couldn't speak any english either. it didn't take a program to teach them english. they weren't educated, they were identured servants turned share croppers.

I can safely assume that your ancestors never had food stamps, access to medicare, access to social security, bilingual resources at their disposal, access to ethnic media, sanctuary city law protection and a phalanx of trial lawyers at their beckon & call? It's like comparing night and day. There is no impetus to learn english or be active in day-to-day civic activities of this nation. Let's be frank. It's Hotel America, and that's what the elites prefer.

[torchbearer]

I can safely assume that your ancestors never had food stamps, access to medicare, access to social security, bilingual resources at their disposal, access to ethnic media. It's like comparing night and day. There is no impetus to learn english or be active in day-to-day civic activities of this nation. Let's be frank. It's Hotel America, and that's what the elites prefer.

then the problem is government interventions like food stamps and welfare programs- it isn't the people coming here.
Ron even stated this in a primary debate. His sole reason to oppose amnesty is the welfare state.
How about we focus on ridding ourselves of the welfare state and stop attacking poor people who are trying to make a living for their families.
They aren't our enemies, the power elite is our enemy.

[AuH20]

then the problem is government interventions like food stamps and welfare programs- it isn't the people coming here.
Ron even stated this in a primary debate. His sole reason to oppose amnesty is the welfare state.
How about we focus on ridding ourselves of the welfare state and stop attacking poor people who are trying to make a living for their families.
They aren't our enemies, the power elite is our enemy.

Immigrants are ultimately victims being used as a weapon against the natives. There's nothing wrong with attempting to improve one's life and provide for one's family. Many of them are good people. But at the end of the day, it's a numbers game. We can't save the world, when we're bleeding from within.

[torchbearer]

Immigrants are ultimately victims being used as a weapon against the natives. There's nothing wrong with attempting to improve one's life and providing for one's family. Many of them are good people. But at the end of the day, it's a numbers game. We can't save the world, when we're bleeding from within.

we will need these people to help rebuild after the system fails. they are apart of the louisiana economy. you remove them- you remove production in our economy.
i'm sure there are welfare queens in their numbers- but i haven't seen any myself.
all the mexicans i've met here work for their pay and provide cheaper products for you as the end product.

[AuH20]

we will need these people to help rebuild after the system fails. they are apart of the louisiana economy. you remove them- you remove production in our economy.
i'm sure there are welfare queens in their numbers- but i haven't seen any myself.
all the mexicans i've met here work for their pay and provide cheaper products for you as the end product.

My idea. Naturalize the 30 million and close the border down. It's a fair compromise.

[Happy Fishing]

No, you are wrong.

This recent influx of the past eight years is more akin to an invasion, unlike the successful assimilation experienced by your forebears.

This time there has been no attempt to guide an orderly transition and integration of these peoples to assume thier places in the perpetuation of our established and highly successful way of life in which all strive for the highest standards which in turn enriches all the with a an exceptionally high standard of living.

Rather there has been considerable effort in breaking down our here-to-fore successful blueprint of national enrichment, with the goal of devolving us eventually to a bannana-republic status.

Remember, there is no free lunch. To profit from our system one must be prepared for hard work and sacrifice in making contributions that enrich our overall capital. social, and cultural ethos from which we all benefit.

No coming here to "work the system' and bleed us dry, then laugh at us and insult us and denigrate the American systems of beliefs and values.

[torchbearer]

My idea. Naturalize the 30 million and close the border down. It's a fair compromise.

i'd go for that and even go for using our military to secure the borders until welfare state is repealed.
bring them back from overseas and lockdown until we clean this mess up.

[romacox]

Ron Paul apposes Amnesty;

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3985423&page=1

[torchbearer]

Ron Paul apposes Amnesty;

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3985423&page=1

i'm queue up the youtube that has him explaining why-

[angelatc]

Romacox, If I were you, I'd email a mod and ask them to split the arguments for illegal immigration into another thread. I'm happy to work on the issue in an activist thread, but I have no interest in debating the issue in that same thread.

I am absolutely against amnesty and illegal immigation. There is nothing that anybody can say that will change my mind about it, and vice-versa.

Amnesty for the people already here is exactly what brought them here. Reagan tried that. Once we kowtowed to them, they came here in greater numbers, now with that entitlement chip on their shoulder. If they're here illegally, they should lose the opportunity to ever get citizenship. Rewarding the scofflaws in favor of the millions of people who actually tried to play by the rules isn't a compromise, it's a sell out.

Yes, we'd all be riding unicorns if the government just demolished the welfare state, but even Ron Paul says that won't happen in a single generation.

Since the odds are slim and none that we rever going to be free again, we have to try to put some sort of a cap on spending. If the ilegal aliens were gone, unemployment would go down and wages would go up. It's that freaking simple. The whole reason they're here is because business doesn't want wages to rise.

[constituent]

What, suddenly it's ok to abandon the constitution in times of emergency?

[AuH20]

Ron Paul apposes Amnesty;

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3985423&page=1

If we were offered a legitimate guarantee that this amnesty would be a one-time deal, and would be contingent upon a fierce lockdown of the borders, I really believe the good doctor would agree with it. However, given the dire state of affairs and the current political alignment (i.e. La Raza actually being consulted when they were constructing the amnesty bill that failed 2 years ago), we all know this is pie in the sky hopes. Amnesty, as currently constructed, is a poison pill for this nation.

[constituent]

If the ilegal aliens were gone, unemployment would go down and wages would go up. It's that freaking simple.

If it's "that freaking simple," then it should be easy to prove your statement with historical evidence.

[angelatc]

What, suddenly it's ok to abandon the constitution in times of emergency?

Again, this crap should be split.

[torchbearer]

starts at 4:45 in this video
YouTube - Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJKGfAWQUo&feature=PlayList&p=4264AF1EB2060C9B&index=20)

[constituent]

If we were offered a legitimate guarantee that this amnesty would be a one-time deal, and would be contingent upon a fierce lockdown of the borders, I really believe the good doctor would agree with it. However, given the dire state of affairs and the current political alignment (i.e. La Raza actually being consulted when they were constructing the amnesty bill that failed 2 years ago), we all know this is pie in the sky hopes. Amnesty, as currently constructed, is a poison pill for this nation.

You frighten me. I know I've said this before, but you need reminding...

You would trust a government "one-time deal?" You would trust that the same government is working in your best interest with a "fierce lockdown of the borders?"

C'mon.

[constituent]

Again, this crap should be split.

lol, you're one to call "crap."


Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this forum is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

[angelatc]

If it's "that freaking simple," then it should be easy to prove your statement with historical evidence.

Look back at the early '90's. Fast food joints were paying $10.00 an hour with a 500 signing bonus if you'd stay 6 months. And that's not adjusted for inflation. UPS was running shuttle services into the inner city to bring workers to and from their hubs.

Then 40 million Mexicans showed up.

Look at the construction industry for christs sakes. Simple economics dictate that when demand goes up, wages should rise. Yet while the late 90's and early 2k's were at the height of a building boom, wages in construction sank like rocks, because 40 million Mexicans showed up.

I don't know how old you are, but there was a time when construction jobs actually came with benefits. Unfettered immigration ruined all that.

[AuH20]

You frighten me. I know I've said this before, but you need reminding...

You would trust a government "one-time deal?" You would trust that the same government is working in your best interest with a "fierce lockdown of the borders?"

C'mon.

The government tried (still is?) to subvert the sovereignty of the nation with the creation of the NAU. Their track record is poor to say the least. With that said, Eisenhower took the right steps in 1954 when faced with a humanitarian crisis on the Southwestern border.

[angelatc]

lol, you're one to call "crap."

The Congress has Constitutional authority to set immigration policy. But I suppose you want to argue about that, too.

[constituent]

Look back at the early '90's. Fast food joints were paying $10.00 an hour with a 500 signing bonus if you'd stay 6 months. And that's not adjusted for inflation. UPS was running shuttle services into the inner city to bring workers to and from their hubs.

Then 40 million Mexicans showed up.

Look at the construction industry for christs sakes. Simple economics dictate that when demand goes up, wages should rise. Yet while the late 90's and early 2k's were at the height of a building boom, wages in construction sank like rocks, because 40 million Mexicans showed up.

I don't know how old you are, but there was a time when construction jobs actually came with benefits. Unfettered immigration ruined all that.

Sorry, you've not proven your statement. You've made a series of blanket claims w/ nothing to back them up, that didn't even manage to address the question asked...

And you accuse me of bringing up "crap." :o:rolleyes:

[constituent]

The Congress has Constitutional authority to set immigration policy. But I suppose you want to argue about that, too.

Show it to me. Should be easy...

[angelatc]

Show it to me. Should be easy...

I'll go look it up, buti in the meantime - why are you even in this thread? Did you see the title and think..."OOOH! I have to run over there and explain why immigration law is wrong! If I only explain it right they;ll agree with me! ANd at best, I can derail an activist thread!"

Does it ever occur to you that people don't care what you think about it? We're gown ups and we've already made up our minds?

Why are you here, in this thread, if not to obstruct the goal of the OP? Will you ever be mature enough to say "Gee, I don't support that agenda. I am not going to work on that issue with them," and move along to another thread?

[paulpwns]

I have ZERO sympathy for illegals.

They don't even pay taxes. They send the majority of the money back to Mexico and don't reinvest in the economy.

I take you guys don't live in a city like Atlanta. This city has been RUINED by illegal immigration. There are no low/middle income jobs. Crime is insane. Mexican gangs run wild, the police can't control shit. Drugs are everywhere. Shit I can't even go into the gas station in the morning without 10 mexicans ordering hot dogs for breakfast. Takes 10 minutes to get coffee at a "quicktrip". It's overcrowded, they don't speak english, they send their kids to public school, they don't have health insurance, they don't contribute to society AT ALL.

Live in Atlanta for a few years then talk to me about Amnesty.

I have no problem with Mexican people in general. I don't care that they have a different skin color. I am not racist. I can tell you though, this state was MUCH better off before 3 million ILLEGAL ALIEN Mexicans showed up.

Did I mention they all drive uninsured? If one of them hits you, you are screwed.

[bobbyw24]

Immigration

The Constitution never mentions immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas from countries, are set by the federal government and not be the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration. It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

[constituent]

I'll go look it up, buti in the meantime - why are you even in this thread? Did you see the title and think..."OOOH! I have to run over there and explain why immigration law is wrong! If I only explain it right they;ll agree with me! ANd at best, I can derail an activist thread!"

Does it ever occur to you that people don't care what you think about it? We're gown ups and we've already made up our minds?

Why are you here, in this thread, if not to obstruct the goal of the OP? Will you ever be mature enough to say "Gee, I don't support that agenda. I am not going to work on that issue with them," and move along to another thread?

yawn...

when all else fails...

That said, I actually oppose the bill. You probably couldn't figure out why...

and why are you here? You think anyone cares what you think about it?

[torchbearer]

Immigration

The Constitution never mentions immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas from countries, are set by the federal government and not be the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration. It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

that sounds like a logic that turns the interstate commerce clause from meaning to make trade regular between the states- to regulate trade or even prevent it between the states.

[AuH20]

Remember what Thomas Jefferson said? "Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”


Jefferson was a realist.

[bobbyw24]

You think anyone cares what you think about it?

I care about what she thinks. Why are you trying to dissuade a range of opinions on this issue?

[torchbearer]

Remember what Thomas Jefferson said? "Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”


Jefferson was a realist.

how many foreigners did the U.S. take on with the Louisiana purchase?
Louisiana was mostly french settlers with a few spanish speakers. A whole foreign state admitted to the union. it didn't spell doom.

[constituent]

I care about what she thinks. Why are you trying to dissuade a range of opinions on this issue?

In fact, the situation is the other way around. I was merely repeating back what she'd said to me... Context, bobby.

Also, I would be interested in the case you've used in formulating your previous argument.

Additionally, care to apply your logic concerning the spectrum of immigration -> naturalization -> citizenship to the following cases and opinions as well?


We have in our political system a Government of the United
States** and a government of each of the several States. Each
one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each
has citizens of its own ....
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]
[(1875) emphasis added]


One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the
United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter,
48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;
In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.
[McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]
[(1883) underlines added]


A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a
citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a
person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen
of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to
the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right
to declare who are its citizens.

[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]


The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal
Constitution made negroes citizens of the United States**, and
citizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby created
two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other
of the state.
[4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11]


There are, then, under our republican form of government, two
classes of citizens, one of the United States** and one of the
state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without
the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of
Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person.

[Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]
[48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]

[paulpwns]

how many foreigners did the U.S. take on with the Louisiana purchase?
Louisiana was mostly french settlers with a few spanish speakers. A whole foreign state admitted to the union. it didn't spell doom.

I guess you have never been to Louisiana.
:D

[angelatc]

Article I, Section 8:
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration."

I am certainly not convinced that the monstrosity they've created is an example of uniformity, but it's clear to anybody who believes in the Constitution that they have the right to create it.

[angelatc]

yawn...

when all else fails...

That said, I actually oppose the bill. You probably couldn't figure out why...

and why are you here? You think anyone cares what you think about it?

I came here to see if there was a link to a petition to sign. Duh.

[paulpwns]

Answer this question.

How do illegal immigrants further The Republic or the liberty movement?

[constituent]

that sounds like a logic that turns the interstate commerce clause from meaning to make trade regular between the states- to regulate trade or even prevent it between the states.

spot on.

[angelatc]

how many foreigners did the U.S. take on with the Louisiana purchase?
Louisiana was mostly french settlers with a few spanish speakers. A whole foreign state admitted to the union. it didn't spell doom.

Apples to Oranges.

No welfare state existed then, and more than half of the immigrants who came to America in those days couldn't cut it and went back home.

[constituent]

Article I, Section 8:
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration."
.

naturalization ≠ immigration

immigration ≠ naturalization


Don't make me pull a truthwarrior, freedictionary, smiley post...

[angelatc]

Answer this question.

How do illegal immigrants further The Republic or the liberty movement?

You're wasting your breath. They'll start yammering on about Free Markets, which is a sweet concept, but we don't have a free market system.

[constituent]

No welfare state existed then, and more than half of the immigrants who came to America in those days couldn't cut it and went back home.

Which brings us back to the heart of the problem. Do "emergency" circumstances make it ok to selectively scrap the constitution?

And if so, why is it ok for us to scrap the constitution when we holler "emergency," but not ok when anyone else does it?

[YumYum]

Hey Senor! We may have lost the war, but we are winning the battle. Get used to it, Amigo!

[angelatc]

naturalization ≠ immigration

immigration ≠ naturalization


Don't make me pull a truthwarrior, freedictionary, smiley post...

Without really caring what any of those folks have to say, you may be confusing what it should mean with what it does mean. SCOTUS says I am right, so I win.

So why are you here? Just to derail an activist thread? You never did answer.

[bobbyw24]

Liberty Forest does not like much free speech on the immigration issue--wie schade

[angelatc]

Which brings us back to the heart of the problem. Do "emergency" circumstances make it ok to selectively scrap the constitution?

And if so, why is it ok for us to scrap the constitution when we holler "emergency," but not ok when anyone else does it?

YOu seem to think there were no immigration laws in those days. You'd be wrong about that, too. Ships were turned away all the time.

[YumYum]

Without really caring what any of those folks have to say, you may be confusing what it should mean with what it does mean. SCOTUS says I am right, so I win.

So why are you here? Just to derail an activist thread? You never did answer.

Why is anybody here? Why are you here?

[erowe1]

Our chief House opponent, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL

Huh? Since when is this guy "our chief House opponent"? I didn't even know we had a single chief House opponent? In fact, I didn't even know that we belonged in some kind of monolithic collectivist group like that where one single politician could be the same chief opponent for all of us. Did I not get a memo?

[constituent]

SCOTUS says I am right, so I win.


Got a citation on that one?

[YumYum]

Huh? Since when is this guy "our chief House opponent"? I didn't even know we had a single chief House opponent? In fact, I didn't even know that we belonged in some kind of monolithic collectivist group like that where one single politician could be the same chief opponent for all of us. Did I not get a memo?

No, but if you disagree, you could get an infraction.:D

[erowe1]

SCOTUS says I am right, so I win.


Since when are we obligated to accept SCOTUS as the final word on anything? SCOTUS is often wrong, and when they are, we should say so.

[paulpwns]

Since when are we obligated to accept SCOTUS as the final word on anything? SCOTUS is often wrong, and when they are, we should say so.

I have to agree with this, although I am still very much a supporter of more " traditional" immigration compared to 2 million a year.

[bobbyw24]

Since when are we obligated to accept SCOTUS as the final word on anything? SCOTUS is often wrong, and when they are, we should say so.

Since 1803

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/Supreme_Court/landmark/marbury.html

[paulpwns]

Since 1803

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/Supreme_Court/landmark/marbury.html

Lol. I take it you never studied the supreme court too much.
After the 4 horseman left the court, it all went to shambles.

So you agree with Kilo Vs New London? :mad:

You agree with Raich Vs Gonzales? :eek:

[bobbyw24]

Lol. I take it you never studied the supreme court too much.
After the 4 horseman left the court, it all went to shambles.

So you agree with Kilo Vs New London? :mad:

You agree with Raich Vs Gonzales? :eek:

I don't know much about the supreme court but I rarely agree with those 9 unelected judges.

No, I don't agree with Justice Ginsburg's Kelo opinion or the majority opinion in Gonzales v. Raich

What do you think about

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

[angelatc]

Lol. I take it you never studied the supreme court too much.
After the 4 horseman left the court, it all went to shambles.

So you agree with Kilo Vs New London? :mad:

You agree with Raich Vs Gonzales? :eek:

It's Kelo. No I do not agree with it, but I understand their logic and concede that one could read it that way.

As for the Commerce Clause, I don't agree with any of their decisions on that.

But the solution is then to amend the Constitution, not just crab that they're wrong.

What I really don't like are their rulings that even if a law is not constitutional, it can still be allowed to stand in the name of the publc good. That's the real :eek: .

[paulpwns]

Wong Kim Ark case is a serious problem IMHO.

I know its Kelo, just was in a rush.

I totally agree about the public good thing. what a :eek::mad::confused:

commerce clause is totally abused!

That is the problem with being a constitutionalists these days. The constitution says the SCOTUS can interpret it.

So we have to support the things that we don't like, as well as the rights and freedoms that we do.

I HATE IT. What a CF, and Catch 22.

[angelatc]

Got a citation on that one?


Google: Plenary Power Doctrine

[erowe1]

Since 1803

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/Supreme_Court/landmark/marbury.html

So we're obligated to agree with them because they say we are?

Do I get to give myself that kind of authority as well?

That reminds me of the old canard I often hear from atheists as a caricature of arguments they think Christians make, where they put in words in the mouth of believers that go something like this: "The Bible is the inerrant word of God. I know this to be the case because the Bible says so."

[bobbyw24]

So we're obligated to agree with them because they say we are?

I din say that or that I agree with Marbury v Madison

[angelatc]

commerce clause is totally abused!

That is the problem with being a constitutionalists these days. The constitution says the SCOTUS can interpret it.

So we have to support the things that we don't like, as well as the rights and freedoms that we do.

I HATE IT. What a CF, and Catch 22.

The Constitution doesn't define the role of the SCOTUS at all. It only creates it.

That's a big problem for individual rights.

The Commerce Clause shouldn't even be in the Constitution. It was really just a leftover from a bunch of ideas that failed to make it into the final draft. But it's there, and nobody is powerful enough to orchestrate changing it any more.

[constituent]

Google: Plenary Power Doctrine

still not cutting the mustard...

[erowe1]

I din say that or that I agree with Marbury v Madison

Oh, OK. Well, that was the question I was asking, which you appeared to be giving an answer to in your reference to Marbury v. Madison. If you do disagree with that, then I'm glad to know it.

[angelatc]

still not cutting the mustard...

So, go away then. My first post said that nothing anybody said in this thread would change anybody's mind.

I was right about that, too.

[paulpwns]

The Constitution doesn't define the role of the SCOTUS at all. It only creates it.

That's a big problem for individual rights.

The Commerce Clause shouldn't even be in the Constitution. It was really just a leftover from a bunch of ideas that failed to make it into the final draft. But it's there, and nobody is powerful enough to orchestrate changing it any more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

[angelatc]

Oh, OK. Well, that was the question I was asking, which you appeared to be giving an answer to in your reference to Marbury v. Madison. If you do disagree with that, then I'm glad to know it.

I think he is saying that even though he disagrees with the decision, it does exist and therefore is a political and legal reality.

[constituent]

So, go away then.

lol.



My first post said that nothing anybody said in this thread would change anybody's mind.

I was right about that, too.

Yea, you're right. Sometimes I forget how emotionally invested folks become in maintaining their own ignorance. :o

[angelatc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

That's what I said.
Article III, section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court," and such inferior courts as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision, though, for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.

It was a mistake to allow Congress to create a body that would oversee Congress, IMHO.

[angelatc]

Yea, you're right. Sometimes I forget how emotionally invested folks become in maintaining their own ignorance. :o

Here comes more of the liberal position! When all else fails, call the opposition names.

Because obviously everybody who disagrees with you is ignorant, and if they would just listen to you and understand what you're trying to say, they'd agree with you. And if they still don't, ridicule and repeat.

[constituent]

Here comes more of the liberal position! When all else fails, call the opposition names.

She says without the slightest sense of irony...


Because obviously everybody who disagrees with you is ignorant.

...or a "liberal."

lol.

Thanks for playing. ;) :)

[erowe1]

I think he is saying that even though he disagrees with the decision, it does exist and therefore is a political and legal reality.

Yeah, but all SCOTUS rulings exist and are political and legal reality, including the ones that overturn former ones. And I can't see any logical way to give Marbury v. Madison some super-authority that's higher than the authority of every other ruling, where it alone is untouchable.

The judicial branch still only as authoritative as we and the other branches of government let them be. If, at some point, any of these other parties decided to stand up to SCOTUS and start impeaching judges for legislating from the bench (which is what Hamilton predicted in the Federalist Papers would happen if the judicial branch ever began to overstep its authority), then that too would be a new political and legal reality. Likewise, if states simply asserted themselves against SCOTUS and nullified Roe v. Wade or any other ruling that claims to bind them, or if Congress ever passed something like Ron Paul's We the People Act.

[constituent]

The judicial branch still only as authoritative as we and the other branches of government let them be. If, at some point, any of these other parties decided to stand up to SCOTUS and start impeaching judges for legislating from the bench (which is what Hamilton predicted in the Federalist Papers would happen if the judicial branch ever began to overstep its authority), then that too would be a new political and legal reality. Likewise, if states simply asserted themselves against SCOTUS and nullified Roe v. Wade or any other ruling that claims to bind them, or if Congress ever passed something like Ron Paul's We the People Act.

Yea, but that is neither quick nor easy. Hell, it required a little thought just to read about it.

You're asking too much, no one will be changed...

[angelatc]

She says
...or a "liberal."

lol.

Thanks for playing. ;) :)

Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, the liberal position is indeed one of open borders.

Like it or not, Congress has been writing immigration law since at least 1790.

All other issues adide, waxing poetically about whether they have the right to do so is the fodder suitable for smoke-filled college dorm rooms. The unstoned cold reality is that they do so, and have always done so, and will in all probability always do so.

[AuH20]

Here comes more of the liberal position! When all else fails, call the opposition names.

Because obviously everybody who disagrees with you is ignorant, and if they would just listen to you and understand what you're trying to say, they'd agree with you. And if they still don't, ridicule and repeat.

I'm fairly confident that he's not a liberal. Constituent is certainly on our side, but he's more of an idealist. I can respect that, though I disagree with him on this subject.

[angelatc]

Yeah, but all SCOTUS rulings exist and are political and legal reality, including the ones that overturn former ones. And I can't see any logical way to give Marbury v. Madison some super-authority that's higher than the authority of every other ruling, where it alone is untouchable.

Until it is actually overturned, that's a moot point, especially in the simple context of the conversation.

[angelatc]

I'm fairly confident that he's not a liberal. Constituent is certainly on our side, but he's more of an idealist. I can respect that, though I disagree with him on this subject.

Open borders is the liberal position. It's the neocon / big business position in the GOP ranks, but I count that as liberal.

[SevenEyedJeff]

•Job verification would no longer be possible, because this bill would ELIMINATE E-Verify! All our gains in verification over the last decade would be destroyed if this bill were to become law.

Oh, but how do we know we're not hiring terrorists? Ohhhhhhh, where's the outcry? Protect our children from those terrorists. Waaaaahhhhhh!!

[bobbyw24]

Open borders is the liberal position. It's the neocon / big business position in the GOP ranks, but I count that as liberal.

Precisely:

Dems want open borders since a huge majority of new immigrants vote for Dems

Reps want open borders so that immigrants can provide cheap labor

[erowe1]

Yea, but that is neither quick nor easy. Hell, it required a little thought just to read about it.

You're asking too much, no one will be changed...


Until it is actually overturned, that's a moot point, especially in the simple context of the conversation.

I guess the way I look at is is that we wouldn't be Ron Paul supporters if we based the demands we placed on politicians on what is the norm or the prevailing opinion or what we thought they would be likely to follow, rather than what we believe they ought to do based on absolute principles whether popular or not.

When we insist that the politicians we support honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution, we shouldn't settle for them breaking those oaths and falling back on the excuse that SCOTUS said they could. If we did that, then the whole taking of oaths on the part of Congress would be irrelevant. They didn't take oaths to follow what SCOTUS interprets the Constitution to mean even when SCOTUS is wrong, they took oaths to uphold the Constitution itself, even when that puts them at odds with SCOTUS. I see no reason for us to let the court come between us and our demanding that our legislators not pass laws that arrogate to themselves unenumerated powers.

[erowe1]

Reps want open borders so that immigrants can provide cheap labor

This is a good thing. Right?

[bobbyw24]

This is a good thing. Right?

Not as an absolute

[paulpwns]

Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, the liberal position is indeed one of open borders.

Like it or not, Congress has been writing immigration law since at least 1790.

All other issues adide, waxing poetically about whether they have the right to do so is the fodder suitable for smoke-filled college dorm rooms. The unstoned cold reality is that they do so, and have always done so, and will in all probability always do so.

Hey hey, don't bring weed into this. It didn't do anything.
haha

[constituent]

I see no reason for us to let the court come between us and our demanding that our legislators not pass laws that arrogate to themselves unenumerated powers.

Exactly. Well said.


Hey hey, don't bring weed into this. It didn't do anything.
haha

I know, right.

[Lord Xar]

Funny how those who contribute very little to the liberty movement all of a sudden have a sense of entitlement when it comes to legalizing 20+million illegals, most mexicans.

Break the law, cost tax payers billions of dollars, and then get rewarded.. oh, and if you don't agree, you are a nativist, racist or against the "poor little mexicans".

What is the most ironic twist here is that they "lovers of amnesty" who have no issue with rewarding law breakers by using "free market open border apologist arguments, not constitutional" will forever see their version of liberty and freedom shutter itself away even further as 20+million more leftist voting dependents are created...... and their relatives via chain migration.

You open border apologists have absolutely NO argument against the fact that if we give these tens of millions amnesty, you pretty much destroyed any last vestige of hope for the liberty movement. If you do not see this, you are either an ignoramous or a tool, perhaps both. They will vote left, vote big government, more unions, more corruptions...... and all the while you all can "dream" of no borders in which goods freely move..... and you would be wrong.

A bunch of lamebrains. Many of you call yourselfs "libertarians", but you spite your foot by cutting off your leg. Use your head and get some tactics, friggin numbskulls.

oh, and this little known tidbit from Ron Paul, you "subsidize something, you get more of it...".. This will not end. Another 10yrs we'll have to "give amnesty to the poor folk again..."

[AuH20]

Funny how those who contribute very little to the liberty movement all of a sudden have a sense of entitlement when it comes to legalizing 20+million illegals, most mexicans.

Break the law, cost tax payers billions of dollars, and then get rewarded.. oh, and if you don't agree, you are a nativist, racist or against the "poor little mexicans".

What is the most ironic twist here is that they "lovers of amnesty" who have no issue with rewarding law breakers by using "free market open border apologist arguments" will forever see their version of liberty and freedom shutter itself away even further as 20+million more leftist voting dependents are created...... and their relatives via chain migration.

You open border apologists have absolutely NO argument against the fact that if we give these tens of millions amnesty, you pretty much destroyed any last vestige of hope for the liberty movement. If you do not see this, you are either an ignoramous or a tool, perhaps both. They will vote left, vote big government, more unions, more corruptions...... and all the while you all can "dream" of no borders in which goods freely move..... and you would be wrong.

A bunch of lamebrains. Many of you call yourselfs "libertarians", but you spite your foot by cutting off your leg. Use your head and get some tactics, friggin numbskulls.

I think you're overlooking their argument. They're solely focused on the individual, republic be damned. The concerns of the individual is paramount & any restraint on the individual, even if each adds up to tens of millions serfs in the end, is viewed as "tyranny." They're idealists. I don't think it's productive to slam them as liberals or with other unfavorable labels, but you have to understand where they're coming from. I certainly think that this near-sightedness is more akin to well-intended madness, but we can't all agree. Some people shouldn't take these arguments so personally. I certainly don't.

[Lord Xar]

I think you're overlooking their argument. They're solely focused on the individual, republic be damned. The concerns of the individual is paramount & any restraint on the individual, even if each adds up to tens of millions serfs in the end, is viewed as "tyranny." They're idealists. I don't think it's productive to slam them as liberals or with other unfavorable labels, but you have to understand where they're coming from.

That is my point. Perhaps I wasn't succinct enough in my tirade :-)
Their "ideals", in this respect, will actually create the opposite outcome in that which they seek. That was my reference to "use tactic".

Liberty must not live in ignorance to save itself.

[paulpwns]

Funny how those who contribute very little to the liberty movement all of a sudden have a sense of entitlement when it comes to legalizing 20+million illegals, most mexicans.

Break the law, cost tax payers billions of dollars, and then get rewarded.. oh, and if you don't agree, you are a nativist, racist or against the "poor little mexicans".

What is the most ironic twist here is that they "lovers of amnesty" who have no issue with rewarding law breakers by using "free market open border apologist arguments, not constitutional" will forever see their version of liberty and freedom shutter itself away even further as 20+million more leftist voting dependents are created...... and their relatives via chain migration.

You open border apologists have absolutely NO argument against the fact that if we give these tens of millions amnesty, you pretty much destroyed any last vestige of hope for the liberty movement. If you do not see this, you are either an ignoramous or a tool, perhaps both. They will vote left, vote big government, more unions, more corruptions...... and all the while you all can "dream" of no borders in which goods freely move..... and you would be wrong.

A bunch of lamebrains. Many of you call yourselfs "libertarians", but you spite your foot by cutting off your leg. Use your head and get some tactics, friggin numbskulls.

oh, and this little known tidbit from Ron Paul, you "subsidize something, you get more of it...".. This will not end. Another 10yrs we'll have to "give amnesty to the poor folk again..."

THIS. ^_^

Complete WIN

[AuH20]

That is my point. Perhaps I wasn't succinct enough in my tirade :-)
Their "ideals", in this respect, will actually create the opposite outcome in that which they seek. That was my reference to "use tactic".

Liberty must not live in ignorance to save itself.

If you become a captive to your emotions, liberty will slowly die. The preeminent function of law is to insure fairness and justice. In theory, law is supposed to be blind and devoid of partiality. The enforcers of the law should not penalize Haitians for arriving on the shores of Miami Beach, while letting hordes of Mexican illegals roam the U.S. mainland as they wish. If you're an illegal Mexican or OTM, you're guaranteed trans-national status in this nation, while the illegal Haitian is hastily snatched up like a criminal and shipped back to his island of bondage. The most equitable solution is to errect a fair playing field with no preferences, which the quota system is supposed to provide. These mandated illegalities have created a host of complex problems that will not be easy to rectify.

[libertygrl]

how many foreigners did the U.S. take on with the Louisiana purchase?
Louisiana was mostly french settlers with a few spanish speakers. A whole foreign state admitted to the union. it didn't spell doom.

Maybe they were at least willing to assimilate.

[erowe1]

You open border apologists have absolutely NO argument against the fact that if we give these tens of millions amnesty, you pretty much destroyed any last vestige of hope for the liberty movement.

Anybody who supports laws that tell employers they cannot hire people or property owners that they cannot rent their property out or sell it to people, whenever the government classifies those people as "illegal immigrants," might want to refrain from refering to any movement they belong to as a "liberty movement."

[paulpwns]

Anybody who supports laws that tell employers they cannot hire people or property owners that they cannot rent their property out or sell it to people, whenever the government classifies those people as "illegal immigrants," has no business refering to any movement they belong to as a "liberty movement."

That's a complete fallacy and a distortion. Nothing more than blind idealism.
You are building up a straw man and then breaking him down. The issue isn't about hiring "illegals", or supporting laws. It's obvious that most of us don't support most of these laws. The issue is about Illegal Immigration completely ruining this country.

I will ask AGAIN since no one answered. Where do you live?
Do you live in an area ruined by illegal immigration?
I sure as shit do.

[erowe1]

That's a complete fallacy and a distortion. Nothing more than blind idealism.
You are building up a straw man and then breaking him down. The issue isn't about hiring "illegals", or supporting laws. It's obvious that most of us don't support most of these laws. The issue is about Illegal Immigration completely ruining this country.


I never claimed any particular person in this forum supported those laws. If you don't, then I'm glad to know it. I hope you're right that everyone here is agreed in opposing them.

But I'm not sure whom I was distorting, what fallacy I committed, or what my straw man was. There exist such laws now. And there also exists a burgeoning movement among anti-illegal immigration groups in support of strengthening those laws and requiring that employers use of technology to verify that someone is not an illegal immigrant before hiring them or else suffer various penatlies. This is not a straw man.

[bobbyw24]

As I stated in another thread on this issue, the bottom line with Immigration is whether or not lax immigration policies are in our national interest at this time of a terrible economy, lack of jobs, and a strained welfare system.

[paulpwns]

I never claimed any particular person in this forum supported those laws. If you don't, then I'm glad to know it. I hope you're right that everyone here is agreed in opposing them.

Sorry if I insinuated that, it was not my intention. :p

[erowe1]

As I stated in another thread on this issue, the bottom line with Immigration is whether or not lax immigration policies are in our national interest at this time of a terrible economy, lack of jobs, and a strained welfare system.

I much prefer that we each be allowed to decide for ourselves what is in our own individual interest and to act accordingly than to let politicians decide that for us and enact laws attempting to centrally manage the economy that they claim are for our own good.

[bobbyw24]

I much prefer that we each be allowed to decide for ourselves what is in our own individual interest and to act accordingly than to let politicians decide that for us and enact laws attempting to centrally manage the economy that they claim are for our own good.


I am sure you will call me a Collectivist very soon now

[paulpwns]

I much prefer that we each be allowed to decide for ourselves what is in our own individual interest and to act accordingly than to let politicians decide that for us and enact laws attempting to centrally manage the economy that they claim are for our own good.

OK so its good for my self interest, to round up each one of these unarmed invaders, back them into a truck and drive them back home?

I can't! If i do that I'll be put in jail, but is def. in my self interest.
I don't have that power, only government does.

[erowe1]

OK so its good for my self interest, to round up each one of these unarmed invaders, back them into a truck and drive them back home?

I can't! If i do that I'll be put in jail, but is def. in my self interest.
I don't have that power, only government does.

If you don't have the right to do that, then you can't delegate that right to someone else, such as the government. Your rights to pursue your own self interest extend out infinitely until they bump into someone else's.

[erowe1]

I am sure you will call me a Collectivist very soon now

You might be. But that's not a term I use. I'm not as keen on individualism as many libertarians are.

[AuH20]

I propose a hypothetical scenario. Imagine no immigration laws and free movement of peoples, irrespective of boundaries. There are approximately 1 billion on this planet that live in extreme poverty. I suspect many would seriously contemplate cutting off an appendage, in order to to gain access to this country's opportunities. Let's say a quarter of these impoverished billion, move to our shores, roughly 250 million individuals. Do we alter our beleagured infrastructure system and social welfare net? Revise our tax system? Create more federal and state departments that will assist this new workforce in developing 21st century job skills?

Secondly, we have the looming issue of finite resources and land. Faced with providing living requirements for so many new citizens, do we start to ration resources and redistribute them? Morover, the concept of private property certainly becomes open for debate, if living quarters are deemed scarce. I don't think many of the opposition has thought this through. At face value, it's commendable to wish good will to your fellow man, but only to a realistic degree.

[bobbyw24]

You might be. But that's not a term I use. I'm not as keen on individualism as many libertarians are.

Sorry about that--I had you confused with another member whose screen name starts with and "e" an often labels me a collectivist since I am not an extreme libertarian.

[ChaosControl]

Ugh, horrible.

I'm not as big of an opponent to the immigration thing as I once was, but that bill is absolutely atrocious.

[libertygrl]

Funny how those who contribute very little to the liberty movement all of a sudden have a sense of entitlement when it comes to legalizing 20+million illegals, most mexicans.

Break the law, cost tax payers billions of dollars, and then get rewarded.. oh, and if you don't agree, you are a nativist, racist or against the "poor little mexicans".

What is the most ironic twist here is that they "lovers of amnesty" who have no issue with rewarding law breakers by using "free market open border apologist arguments, not constitutional" will forever see their version of liberty and freedom shutter itself away even further as 20+million more leftist voting dependents are created...... and their relatives via chain migration.

You open border apologists have absolutely NO argument against the fact that if we give these tens of millions amnesty, you pretty much destroyed any last vestige of hope for the liberty movement. If you do not see this, you are either an ignoramous or a tool, perhaps both. They will vote left, vote big government, more unions, more corruptions...... and all the while you all can "dream" of no borders in which goods freely move..... and you would be wrong.

A bunch of lamebrains. Many of you call yourselfs "libertarians", but you spite your foot by cutting off your leg. Use your head and get some tactics, friggin numbskulls.

oh, and this little known tidbit from Ron Paul, you "subsidize something, you get more of it...".. This will not end. Another 10yrs we'll have to "give amnesty to the poor folk again..."

THANK YOU!

I think the main point people should keep focused on is that this has all been premeditated and planned for years. It's part of the larger picture just like Healthcare, Climategate, etc. You think our Government allows this to continue because they really care about these people? They are intentionally pitting us against these poor undocumented. They want us to give these people Amnesty. They want to confuse the issue between legal and illegal immigrants. They want to squash legitimate debate by labeling Americans who want our laws enforced as racist. They want to divide Americans on this issue just like they divide us on all the other issues. And we fall for it every time! We have to remain united against all of the Globalist plans.

I don't believe we can seriously deport millions of these people. But if we dry up their opportunities for work they will leave on their own. We have plenty of poor Americans with limited education that could use these jobs. If we are concerned about helping the poor foreigners, give to charities. I sponsor a poor kid in the Philippines. Just my opinion...

[paulpwns]

If you don't have the right to do that, then you can't delegate that right to someone else, such as the government. Your rights to pursue your own self interest extend out infinitely until they bump into someone else's.

They have no rights. Well maybe in Mexico.

[erowe1]

They have no rights. Well maybe in Mexico.

Sure they do. I have a right to sell my land to them, since it's mine, and since I have property rights. And once I do that, it becomes theirs. They are the sovereign over that land, of higher authority than the federal government. Nobody has any right to go into their property and kidnap them.

[KenInMontiMN]

The globalists of both parties keep bringing this up, and Americans keep responding with an overwhelmingly resounding no! every time, from both major party's constituents. What's up with the talk of one-time? One-time happened in 1987 already, and was a disaster - the floodgates were thrown open from there. Fresh waves of illegals displace Americans in the economy, including recent immigrants. Massive numbers of immigrants, well beyond economic demand, enables huge standing armies deployed overseas and mass incarceration of Americans. If you want to push for another amnesty, JohnMcCainforums.com is the place to seek out the like-minded. Here we organize to kill this legislation.

[YumYum]

The globalists of both parties keep bringing this up, and Americans keep responding with an overwhelmingly resounding no! every time, from both major party's constituents. What's up with the talk of one-time? One-time happened in 1987 already, and was a disaster - the floodgates were thrown open from there. Fresh waves of illegals displace Americans in the economy, including recent immigrants. Massive numbers of immigrants, well beyond economic demand, enables huge standing armies deployed overseas and mass incarceration of Americans. If you want to push for another amnesty, JohnMcCainforums.com is the place to seek out the like-minded. Here we organize to kill this legislation.

We can't get rid of them. They are everywhere. I found some under my bed this morning. How are we going to expell 30 million illegals?

[erowe1]

I propose a hypothetical scenario. Imagine no immigration laws and free movement of peoples, irrespective of boundaries. There are approximately 1 billion on this planet that live in extreme poverty. I suspect many would seriously contemplate cutting off an appendage, in order to to gain access to this country's opportunities. Let's say a quarter of these impoverished billion, move to our shores, roughly 250 million individuals. Do we alter our beleagured infrastructure system and social welfare net? Revise our tax system? Create more federal and state departments that will assist this new workforce in developing 21st century job skills?

Secondly, we have the looming issue of finite resources and land. Faced with providing living requirements for so many new citizens, do we start to ration resources and redistribute them? Morover, the concept of private property certainly becomes open for debate, if living quarters are deemed scarce. I don't think many of the opposition has thought this through. At face value, it's commendable to wish good will to your fellow man, but only to a realistic degree.

We could easily fit billions of people in our land. So overcrowding is not an issue. And if and when it became an issue, that in itself would be prohibitive to additional immigration.

But as for your other questions, yes, of course we get the government out of the business of social welfare and job training. That needs to be done regardless of any imigration laws. And if openning the flood gates makes that happen sooner, then all the better.

[nbhadja]

Look back at the early '90's. Fast food joints were paying $10.00 an hour with a 500 signing bonus if you'd stay 6 months. And that's not adjusted for inflation. UPS was running shuttle services into the inner city to bring workers to and from their hubs.

Then 40 million Mexicans showed up.

Look at the construction industry for christs sakes. Simple economics dictate that when demand goes up, wages should rise. Yet while the late 90's and early 2k's were at the height of a building boom, wages in construction sank like rocks, because 40 million Mexicans showed up.

I don't know how old you are, but there was a time when construction jobs actually came with benefits. Unfettered immigration ruined all that.


+1

But my problem isn't with the jobs, it is with the welfare, crime, and subsidization the illegal Mexicans recieve. Not to mention the fact that they are usually uneducated and never use condoms so they have a billion kids.

The last thing we need are more poor uneducated people on welfare who benefit from subsidization and recieve alot more in tax benefits than they pay (which is barely anything).

Plus they send their money back to Mexico and they hate "gringos."

If I were president I would cut every single benefit for illegals including no hospital and school for them. They would leave by themselves quickly.

Also they usually vote liberal.

[paulpwns]

Sure they do. I have a right to sell my land to them, since it's mine, and since I have property rights. And once I do that, it becomes theirs. They are the sovereign over that land, of higher authority than the federal government. Nobody has any right to go into their property and kidnap them.

But they have the right to illegally invade our land, show no regard for heritage/culture, and basically bleed us dry so they can send cash back to Mexico?

[erowe1]

But they have the right to illegally invade our land, show no regard for heritage/culture, and basically bleed us dry so they can send cash back to Mexico?

If by "our land" you mean land that you own, then no they don't have that right. You have the right to keep them off land that you own. You just don't have the right to keep them off land that anyone else owns.

[nbhadja]

We can't get rid of them. They are everywhere. I found some under my bed this morning. How are we going to expell 30 million illegals?

Cut their benefits. They will leave by themselves guarenteed.

[erowe1]

Cut their benefits. They will leave by themselves guarenteed.

Exactly. And if they don't, then it won't be a problem because they'll either be paying their own way or living off people who support them voluntarily rather than by coercion.

We don't need all this ridiculous e-verify crap.

[constituent]

But they have the right to illegally invade our land, show no regard for heritage/culture, and basically bleed us dry so they can send cash back to Mexico?

Talk about no regard for heritage/culture, ever heard of public education?

You're going to have a hard time blaming that one on the mexicans...

[nbhadja]

If by "our land" you mean land that you own, then no they don't have that right. You have the right to keep them off land that you own. You just don't have the right to keep them off land that anyone else owns.

But illegals have no right to be moochers off of MY tax money.

I hate subsidization and welfare and the fact is that illegals, whether they remain illegal or are granted citizenship through amnesty, are much more likely to be welfare freeloading moochers.

The last thing we need is more people like that.

[erowe1]

But illegals have no right to be moochers off of MY tax money.

Of course illegal immigrants don't have that right. Natural born citizens don't have that right either.

[KenInMontiMN]

We can't get rid of them. They are everywhere. I found some under my bed this morning. How are we going to expel 30 million illegals?

It's already happening, some voluntarily due to opportunities drying up due to the collapse, others through deportation actions, yet more because of more stringent verification requirements. And the 30m figure is out there, usually you see estimates more similar to pew's, or census/DHS numbers, which peaked at 12.5 million in '07 and are now at ~11 million or less - but estimates are estimates, who knows exactly.

Stricter mandatory employer verification with heavy penalty for noncompliance, along with zero govt benefits are the best way to end the demand and the reward for the undocumented. Bringing all of the troops back home and an end to using federal revenues to pay for the similar number of private defense contractor personnel deployed, along with an end to victimless incarceration would really have a great effect on drying up any remaining demand as well, and create a political climate with even less place for massive undocumented presence. Our unemployment figures, high as they are, would look to be a whole lot higher if govt wasn't borrowing massive sums to artificially deflate those figures to around 10%, and that is a very twisted means to make things seem brighter than they are.

[erowe1]

Stricter mandatory employer verification with heavy penalty for noncompliance...are the best way to end the demand and the reward for the undocumented.

This is what I was talking about above, which I thought Bobby was implying nobody here supported. And apparently at least one person does.

Seriously, what right does the government have to require employers to verify their employees' immigration status? For that matter, what right does the government have even to know who is employing anyone at all, or whom they are employing?

[nbhadja]

Of course illegal immigrants don't have that right. Natural born citizens don't have that right either.

I agree.

But if we grant amnesty to the 20 million illegals in America we will essentially be adding about 20 million more welfare bums that will be mooching off the hard working citizen's tax money.

I for one do not want that at all.

[erowe1]

I agree.

But if we grant amnesty to the 20 million illegals in America we will essentially be adding about 20 million more welfare bums that will be mooching off the hard working citizen's tax money.

I for one do not want that at all.

I don't support amnesty. But I do support eliminating all immigration quotas.

If the real problem is welfare (which, I agree it is), and if that's a problem with or without immigration, and if the only reason increased immigration is supposed to be a problem is that it will exacerbate this other problem of welfare that's already wrong to begin with, then let's attack the real problem, which is the welfare.

Frankly, if we're going to throw up our hands and give up on fighting the real battle where it counts, which is the welfare state, then rather than get diverted to this side issue of trying to save tax dollars by letting in fewer immigrants to mooch off of those programs, I would just as soon say that we should just let the whole population of the planet mooch off of our welfare programs and declare bankruptcy now to get it over with.

[nbhadja]

I don't support amnesty. But I do support eliminating all immigration quotas.

If the real problem is welfare (which, I agree it is), and if that's a problem with or without immigration, and if the only reason increased immigration is supposed to be a problem is that it will exacerbate this other problem of welfare that's already wrong to begin with, then let's attack the real problem, which is the welfare.

Frankly, if we're going to throw up our hands and give up on fighting the real battle where it counts, which is the welfare state, then rather than get diverted to this side issue of trying to save tax dollars by letting in fewer immigrants to mooch off of those programs, I would just as soon say that we should just let the whole population of the planet mooch off of our welfare programs and declare bankruptcy now to get it over with.

We should attack the real problem welfare, but I just think it should be a different order.

If the 20 million illegals are allowed to become citizens, they will grow rapidly like they always do and their voting power will become immense.

As America becomes bankrupt and a revolution happens, they will almost all be on the "the rich people and free market caused this disaster, we want a new strong communist government" side.

Another way to look at it- We are adding 20 million people who support welfare, big government, and hate free markets.

It will be much harder to attack welfare if 20 million illegals (welfare users) are added to the country.

[erowe1]

Another way to look at it- We are adding 20 million people who support welfare, big government, and hate free markets.

It will be much harder to attack welfare if 20 million illegals (welfare users) are added to the country.

Now we're getting down to something that has little to do with whether these immigrants came here legally or illegally. If you mean to suggest that we should empower our government to limit who can immigrate here legally according to what their political views are (or are deemed likely to be), then I can't possibly agree with that.

That's actually a kind of frightening idea to me. For, if the government is to have the say over what makes for acceptable and unacceptable political views, and is supposed to manipulate the makeup of the voting population to favor the views it declares right over those it declares wrong, then I don't think the results would go in a direction that would benefit those whose political views favor the disintigration of power weilded by that very same government.

[nbhadja]

Now we're getting down to something that has little to do with whether these immigrants came here legally or illegally. If you mean to suggest that we should empower our government to limit who can immigrate here legally according to what their political views are (or are deemed likely to be), then I can't possibly agree with that.

That's actually a kind of frightening idea to me. For, if the government is to have the say over what makes for acceptable and unacceptable political views, and is supposed to manipulate the makeup of the voting population to favor the views it declares right over those it declares wrong, then I don't think the results would go in a direction that would benefit those whose political views favor the disintigration of power weilded by that very same government.

Well it's not according to their political views, but the government (in this current system) should be able to add immigrants based on what they would offer or take from this country.

Currently, it makes perfect sense for America to take educated immigrants over poor immigrants that will increase the bankruptcy of America through subsidization and welfare.

It is simply wise economic planning for a government to deny citizenships to 20 million rule breakers who will live on welfare when America is already massively bankrupt.

Also amnesty in the past has never worked. As RP said himself, it only encourages rule breakers and future illegal immigrants.

Idealy I would love to see America with no taxes, an extremlely small government, no welfare. In that situation I would not care about illegals since they would be paying for themselves.

But currently we are far from that.

[torchbearer]

I guess you have never been to Louisiana.
:D

I've lived here all my life. You can even understand the cajuns.

[erowe1]

Well it's not according to their political views, but the government (in this current system) should be able to add immigrants based on what they would offer or take from this country.


And who gets to decide what those potential immigrants would offer or take? And what means should they have to find out?

If all immigrants are going to be expected to pay their own way or rely on the aid of those who provide it voluntarily and not by coercion, then there would be no need for some single central manager to decide the allocation of all these immigrants over this enormous swath of land that the US occupies. These determinations of what each of these individual immigrants would promise to offer would be made on a case by case basis by the same individual people who would be interacting with them, hiring them, selling to them, etc.

[nbhadja]

And who gets to decide what those potential immigrants would offer or take? And what means should they have to find out?

If all immigrants are going to be expected to pay their own way or rely on the aid of those who provide it voluntarily and not by coercion, then there would be no need for some single central manager to decide the allocation of all these immigrants over this enormous swath of land that the US occupies. These determinations of what each of these individual immigrants would promise to offer would be made on a case by case basis by the same individual people who would be interacting with them, hiring them, selling to them, etc.

I agree but that is in the future. Right now they will not be expected to pay their own way and they will be handed welfare. So until that day comes I would rather take educated immigrants over uneducated ones.

And how can they find out? It's easy. If the immigrant has no criminal background and is educated they should have preference over uneducated immigrants.

I would rather take a college graduate immigrant than a uneducated immigrant who can't even speak english.

[torchbearer]

Maybe they were at least willing to assimilate.

Louisiana citizens remained louisiana citizens until they were conquered by the war of northern aggression.

[Dunedain]

We need to stop all immigration until the mess we've created can be sorted out. The country has immigration indigestion. We're abosbing almost a million people per year. What is the rush? Can't we at least be allowed to digest what we've got without stuffing millions more down our throat? For God's sake WE'RE FULL! No vacancy! We're got 300 million mouths to feed and 10% unemployment.

If politicans want to destory the country just say so. Quit all this beating around the bush.

[torchbearer]

We need to stop all immigration until the mess we've created can be sorted out.

what do we do with the people who are working and producing in our society right now??
You want to tend plants in Forest Hill?

[KenInMontiMN]

This is what I was talking about above, which I thought Bobby was implying nobody here supported. And apparently at least one person does.

Seriously, what right does the government have to require employers to verify their employees' immigration status? For that matter, what right does the government have even to know who is employing anyone at all, or whom they are employing?

The Federal govt has every right by our constitution to repel and eject foreign invasion for any purpose.

[erowe1]

I would rather take a college graduate immigrant than a uneducated immigrant who can't even speak english.

You might rather that, and when the time comes for you to hire an immigrant, it's your prerogative to have that preference. Not every exchange between every two parties will be the same and involve people having the same preferences as you. But what you're advocating is that a central government in Washington DC make a one-size-fits-all decision for all employers over the entire US, rather than simply letting these decisions get made case by case within a free market.

[Dunedain]

what do we do with the people who are working and producing in our society right now??
You want to tend plants in Forest Hill?

Some of the 10% unemployed can tend the plants. Just take them off unemployment and welfare. They'll work for cheap after that, trust me. People need to eat.

Anyone who is here illegally should be immediately removed from the country. It's the law, and it needs to be enforced. Unfortunately, we have traitors in office and those that support them....many of them on this board.

[torchbearer]

Some of the 10% unemployed can tend the plants. Just take them off unemployment and welfare. They'll work for cheap after that, trust me. People need to eat.

Anyone who is here illegally should be immediately removed from the country. It's the law, and it should be enforced.

they could tend those plants right now if they will work for $3 an hour. NO one is stopping them from taking the jobs- and they would be prefered because they are legal.

[erowe1]

The Federal govt has every right by our constitution to repel and eject foreign invasion for any purpose.

First of all, if the federal government doesn't have a right to do something, then simply having the Constitution declare that it does have that right won't make it so.

Second of all, I never said anything about foreign invasion. I said that the federal government has no right to know who is employing other people, whom they are employing, what they are employing them to do, or what they are paying them to do it. So anything at all like e-verify is totally unacceptable.

And for that matter, filing for income taxes and use of social security numbers should be done away with too.

[Dunedain]

they could tend those plants right now if they will work for $3 an hour. NO one is stopping them from taking the jobs- and they would be prefered because they are legal.

Kick out the illegals. Employers will pay more than $3 as the cost of labor rises due to the shortage.

[Dunedain]

First of all, if the federal government doesn't have a right to do something, then simply having the Constitution declare that it does have that right won't make it so.

Second of all, I never said anything about foreign invasion. I said that the federal government has no right to know who is employing other people, whom they are employing, what they are employing them to do, or what they are paying them to do it. So anything at all like e-verify is totally unacceptable.

And for that matter, filing for income taxes and use of social security numbers should be done away with too.

The Federal Government must protect the country from invasion. Illegal immigration is invasion. The federal government shirks it's duty and you support them...for shame.

[torchbearer]

Kick out the illegals. Employers will pay more than $3 as the cost of labor rises due to the shortage.

no they won't because you aren't going to pay $500 for a rose bush.

[tremendoustie]

I haven't read anything but the first page and the last couple posts. Based on that I'm with torchbearer.

[erowe1]

The Federal Government must protect the country from invasion. Illegal immigration is invasion. The federal government shirks it's duty and you support them...for shame.

I gather that somewhere in this syllogism I'm supposed to see where it is within the federal government's purview to monitor who in the country is employing other people, whom they are employing, what they are employing them to do, and how much they are paying them. I fail to see that.

[torchbearer]

hell people don't want to pay $30 for a rose bush. paying people minimum wage to tend a nursery wouldn't be economical.

[Dunedain]

no they won't because you aren't going to pay $500 for a rose bush.

Then I don't need a rose bush. I don't need anything their $3 per hour pathetic labor creates. They supply $3 labor and take $300 hour hospital fees from the public sysytem with the babies they push out. Kick them the hell out before every single family member immigrates and causes the same problems over and over again and bankrupts the nation we we're born in.

Do you even care about the nation? You are in favor of amnesty, yes?

[torchbearer]

Then I don't need a rose bush. I don't need anything their $3 per hour pathetic labor creates. Kick them the hell out before every single family member immigrates.

You are in favor of amnesty, yes?

i'm in favor of human freedom and self-ownership.
you don't have the right to tell me where i can live unless its on your property.

[Dunedain]

i'm in favor of human freedom and self-ownership.
you don't have the right to tell me where i can live unless its on your property.

As long as your pet illegal immigrants don't use any public roads, waterways, welfare offices, airspace, public schools, unemployment offices, government offices or anything else my tax dollars touch. As long as they don't visit any DMVs or cross any public bridges or cross any of our borders you are free to magically teleport them to your own house to feed them, clothe them and do with them what you will. Just don't expect my tax dollars to take care of your pet illegal immgrants. That's YOUR responsibility my liberal compatriate. I recommend a big check to Mexico payable to your own personal bank account.

When you do teleport them back home, after you are done with them make sure the don't use any public roads, waterways, welfare offices, airspace, public schools, unemployment offices, government offices or anything else my tax dollars touch......

[apropos]

i'm in favor of human freedom and self-ownership.
you don't have the right to tell me where i can live unless its on your property.

So with this talk of human freedom and self-ownership, I take it you don't pay/refuse to pay federal taxes?

[KenInMontiMN]

i'm in favor of human freedom and self-ownership.
you don't have the right to tell me where i can live unless its on your property.

True as long as you enjoy citizenship in a sovereign nation that doesn't usurp those rights. If you don't have citizenship, then you are there illegally and there at your own risk. You may be allowed certain considerations despite your illegal status, at the whim of the citizens, or you may not.

[torchbearer]

So with this talk of human freedom and self-ownership, I take it you don't pay/refuse to pay federal taxes?

i'd rather not be made a witness against myself.

[erowe1]

I don't need anything their $3 per hour pathetic labor creates.

I have a feeling that if we were to call your bluff and take inventory of the things you purchase, we would find that you routinely do take advantage of that cheap labor. But even if not, nobody here is saying that you should have to. If you want to pay extra for stuff because you think it would benefit the people you want it to benefit on the basis of what language they speak and how much melanin they have, that's your right. You just don't have the right to demand that everyone else follow the same rules with how they spend their own money.

[apropos]

i'd rather not be made a witness against myself.

Then I will assume that you do pay federal taxes. It's alright...it's what people have to do. Of course, that reality significantly undermines your statement about self-ownership and human freedom. It simply isn't the real world.

[torchbearer]

Then I will assume that you do pay federal taxes. It's alright...it's what people have to do. Of course, that reality significantly undermines your statement about self-ownership and human freedom. It simply isn't the real world.

your assumption is the opposite.
if i don't want to be made a witness against myself, why would i file anything with the government?
i think you missed the meat of the prior statement.

[Lord Xar]

i'm in favor of human freedom and self-ownership.
you don't have the right to tell me where i can live unless its on your property.

If your kicking about on my street, making a mess - costing 'our' street to pay for street cleaning - you don't pitch in. If you and your kids are over-burdening the local care unit at the end of the street, and I have to pick up the difference.. if your kids are taking teachers time away from my kids, and I have to subsidize your kids to be there.. you better believe I should tell you were you can and cannot live. If you were sucking at my tit, you better believe you'd be tossed on your ass.

[apropos]

i think you missed the meat of prior statement.

It's a cryptic remark that can be interpreted in several ways.

[torchbearer]

It's a cryptic remark that can be interpreted in several ways.

well, i told you the most logical translation of refusing to be made a witness against myself.
i think you now understand what i mean without me having to say anything more.
If they want my body, they will have to kill me.

[erowe1]

If your kicking about on my street, making a mess - costing 'our' street to pay for street cleaning - you don't pitch in. If you and your kids are over-burdening the local care unit at the end of the street, and I have to pick up the difference.. if your kids are taking teachers time away from my kids, and I have to subsidize your kids to be there.. you better believe I should tell you were you can and cannot live. If you were sucking at my tit, you better believe you'd be tossed on your ass.

Everything you just said is just as true if the perpetrators are natural born citizens as it is if they are illegal immigrants.

[romacox]

I think Lord Xar agrees with you erowe1...get rid of all welfare.

As a business owner I not only have to compete with those who pay lower wages to illegal workers (Alien and American born), I also have to subsidize those low wages with my tax money via food stamps, and other welfare programs (and so do you).

Note: hiring illegally means one not only pays 1/3 to 1/2 the appropriate wage, one also does not pay Social Security, workman's comp, liability insurance. etc.

An illegal employer can also mean someone who can not obtain a drivers license, liability insurance and workman's comp because they have A DWI. I was offered $1000.00 per week to hide some of these illegal companies (who hired illegally) under me, and was told I would not have to do anything...not even payroll. When I refused the large international window supplier stopped the work we had been doing for 8 years, and found another company that agreed to do it.. Of course if they got caught it was 6 months in jail, and a 20,000 fine. But the window supplier got off scott free looking squeaky clean. And too many small business owners are hungry, and not realizing the consequences to themselves, and to this Country go for it. That is why I am also for prosecuting the illegal employer.

[paulpwns]

As long as your pet illegal immigrants don't use any public roads, waterways, welfare offices, airspace, public schools, unemployment offices, government offices or anything else my tax dollars touch. As long as they don't visit any DMVs or cross any public bridges or cross any of our borders you are free to magically teleport them to your own house to feed them, clothe them and do with them what you will. Just don't expect my tax dollars to take care of your pet illegal immgrants. That's YOUR responsibility my liberal compatriate. I recommend a big check to Mexico payable to your own personal bank account.

When you do teleport them back home, after you are done with them make sure the don't use any public roads, waterways, welfare offices, airspace, public schools, unemployment offices, government offices or anything else my tax dollars touch......

^This is the issue. ^I actually really encourage people to make a better life for themselves. We are all forced into this shit system. My problem is they want everything for nothing. I see it daily; Every single day. The area I work in is like 90% Mexican, with about 75% illegals, maybe more.

They LEECH off the public system in so many ways. I could list a few thousand for you if you want me too. You sit idly by being a purist in your belief system. The blind idealist is my personification for it. Your state doesn't suffer from this problem I take it? If you saw it every day significantly changing the quality of life in this country, maybe your blind idealism would die.

The sad thing is Atlanta used to be a really cool city, with really cool people. Now it's completely overcrowded, the traffic is a complete nightmare only comparing with LA, and crime is through the roof. 600 murders in 06. 718 murders in 07. White flight has taken anyone with money far north away from the city away from all the public transportation. It's actually pretty sad.

http://www.earthfrisk.com/uploads_user/1000/2/699.jpg

[erowe1]

Note: hiring illegally means one not only pays 1/3 to 1/2 the appropriate wage, one also does not pay Social Security, workman's comp, liability insurance.

I would reword that.

Current government intervention in the market forces employers to pay citizens 50-100% more than the appropriate wage (as indicated by the fact that the illegal immigrants are getting paid the actual appropriate wages at rates of 1/3-1/2 less), as well as unjustly having to fund SS, workman's comp, and liability insurance.

I have to admit, there's a part of me that really appreciates those who operate in black markets, shunning the attempts of the government to control their enterprises.

[erowe1]

They LEECH off the public system in so many ways.

Of course many do. The very existence of government instituted redistribution of wealth creates a moral hazard that practically guarantees this. This problem didn't start with Reagan's amnesty bill. It started with LBJ's war on poverty.

[romacox]

True story. We owned a business in the construction Industry installing windows and sliding glass doors. For many years the slab layers, roofers and framers were skilled workers which meant they did their work properly so we simply properly did our job. Suddenly slabs and frames (and roofs) were improperly done making corrections needed before we could install.

My top installer returned 3 times complaining that he kept explaining to this one slab layer what he needed to do to correct the problem. The slab layer shook his head in agreement, but each time my crew returned unable to install (that cost us in gas and wages). Finally we discovered the man spoke no English, and could not read blue prints.

The large companies are promoting this stuff, not just in the building industry. Commercial air line mechanics are saying the same thing...They are giving illegals licenses to repair airplanes yet they cannot read the manuals.

[paulpwns]

True story. We owned a business in the construction Industry installing windows and sliding glass doors. For many years the slab layers, roofers and framers were skilled workers which meant they did their work properly so we simply properly did our job. Suddenly slabs and frames (and roofs) were improperly done making corrections needed before we could install.

My top installer returned 3 times complaining that he kept explaining to this one slab layer what he needed to do to correct the problem. The slab layer shook his head in agreement, but each time my workers returned unable to install (that cost us in gas and wages). Finally we discovered the man spoke no English, and could not read blue prints.

The large companies are promoting this stuff, not just in the building industry. Commercial air line mechanics are saying the same thing...


wow, that part of about the commercial airline mechanics makes me feel real safe.:confused: If you guys want to be idealists about the issue that's fine, just realize you are selling us into the third world which is basically serfdom.

[erowe1]

True story. We owned a business in the construction Industry installing windows and sliding glass doors. For many years the slab layers, roofers and framers were skilled workers which meant they did their work properly so we simply properly did our job. Suddenly slabs and frames (and roofs) were improperly done making corrections needed before we could install.

My top installer returned 3 times complaining that he kept explaining to this one slab layer what he needed to do to correct the problem. The slab layer shook his head in agreement, but each time my crew returned unable to install (that cost us in gas and wages). Finally we discovered the man spoke no English, and could not read blue prints.

The large companies are promoting this stuff, not just in the building industry. Commercial air line mechanics are saying the same thing...They are giving illegals licenses to repair airplanes yet they cannot read the manuals.

One of two things must explain that. Either that contractor who hired the non-English speaker and delivered that inferior product found it profitable to do so, or else it was not profitable, in which case he wouldn't be able to go on very long doing it.

The way you tell the story makes it sound as though it was profitable because he wasn't bearing the cost for his own employees' poor work, but you (or the general contractor, or the owner, or somebody else) were. If this is the case, then it seems to me like a failure in the quality control. There should, and easily could, be measures taken to ensure each contractor provides precisely the contracted product as specified in the blueprints and specifications, and that the cost of repairing any failure to do so falls on them. This could (and should) be done within a free market without any government mandate for hiring the necessary inspectors. And if this were done, then we would get back to the original two possibilities. Either that contractor would find it profitable to hire those non-English speakers even after factoring the extra quality control cost, in which case he would keep hiring them, or else he would not find it profitable once that extra cost is factored in, in which case he would not be able to keep doing it. In either case, the market could regulate itself without the government telling him whom he can and can't hire.

[erowe1]

wow, that part of about the commercial airline mechanics makes me feel real safe.:confused: If you guys want to be idealists about the issue that's fine, just realize you are selling us into the third world which is basically serfdom.

Ahhh yes. The familiar old line about some horrible threat that faces us and will surely conquer us unless we give the government more power to regulate our lives and economy. If it isn't Russians, it's Muslims. If it isn't Muslims, it's greedy capitalists. If it isn't greedy capitalists, it's global warming. If it isn't global warming, it's Mexicans.

Sorry, I'm just not buying that being too free will make us into a third world country.

[Southron]

Ahhh yes. The familiar old line about some horrible threat that faces us and will surely conquer us unless we give the government more power to regulate our lives and economy. If it isn't Russians, it's Muslims. If it isn't Muslims, it's greedy capitalists. If it isn't greedy capitalists, it's global warming. If it isn't global warming, it's Mexicans.

Sorry, I'm just not buying that being too free will make us into a third world country.

Until you can prevent all those immigrants from voting away my rights I can never support open immigration. The sad fact is by giving a Statist the right to vote these days you are, in effect, giving them power over your life.

I would support importing more freedom lovers but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be what is happening.

[constituent]

The sad fact is by giving a Statist the right to vote these days you are, in effect, giving them power over your life.

I'm assuming, of course, that you include yourself in this number...



I would support importing more freedom lovers but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be what is happening.

Ahhh.... nevermind.

[constituent]

If you don't have citizenship, then you are there illegally and there at your own risk.

You're kidding, right?

Tell me, KenInMontiMN, when one visits Germany, must they necessarily become a German citizen?

[Southron]

I'm assuming, of course, that you include yourself in this number...
.

I don't want to control anyone's life. I don't want your money. I really want freedom.

Preferably I'd like to let the States decide who they want as citizens of their respective states.

[constituent]

I don't want to control anyone's life. I don't want your money. I really want freedom.

Preferably I'd like to let the States decide who they want as citizens of their respective states.

Well G* damn if we're not in agreement on that one!

I guess my point is that pretty much everyone is a "statist" to someone else.

Enjoy your weekend.

:)

[erowe1]

Until you can prevent all those immigrants from voting away my rights I can never support open immigration. The sad fact is by giving a Statist the right to vote these days you are, in effect, giving them power over your life.

I would support importing more freedom lovers but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be what is happening.

I can sympathize. But voting your rights away is endemic to democracy. It's not just immigrants, or Democrats, or liberals. Even if we only counted votes cast by white anglo-saxon protestants, the Republican politicians they would elect are still overwhelmingly ones who happily enact policies that over time increasingly erode your rights. The fact that they may be of a more corporatist and less communist variety than the immigrants you're excluding should be of little consolation.

[stu2002]

By Donald A. Collins

You have got to be kidding, Democrats!

Nearly half of my party members in Congress joined with Treason Lobby Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill) to introduce the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP) on December 15, 2009.

Just in time for Christmas, they have let the 25 million Americans who are either unemployed or relegated to part-time work know that the elected elites in my party simply don't care about them.

According to the language of this piece of treasonous perfidy, amnesty would be offered to every illegal alien now here. That number is in dispute, but probably some 12 million and likely many more would come out of the woodwork if this abomination were to somehow slither through. And we know that President Obama would be willing to sign such legislation—based on his past statements and his appointment of an open border Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.

Folks, we are talking equity here. In a high tech era, where China, India and others are racing forward to surpass us in promising areas such as environmental controls (China) and high grade engineering education (India) and many others where we have sold our technology cheap, now is obviously not the time to increase future flows of low-skilled, low-wage immigrants.

Last time I looked, we were running a huge federal deficit, with projections of same running far into the future. In the opinion of many analysts the USA is actually bankrupt, issuing dollars which the world is taking with less and less enthusiasm.

But then there is no really good time for legislation such as this. It simply shows how far out of touch these elites are with real folks who are suffering real deprivations as this recession stretches into what many believe will be years of flat or worse job opportunities.

The bill specifically offers these law breaker aliens a fix-up-your-immigration-status-price of $500. Imagine. I can't even rent a low price car for a week on that amount. But I say that no price is high enough for keeping our Rule of Law intact.

The Obama Administration has shown no real capacity to enforce our borders and ports. This bill would weaken even the present situation. I bet the immigration lawyers will find the bill most helpful in expanding their capacity to protect those presently here illegally. And we the taxpayers will pay the bill.

While many of the states—including Georgia, where one of my children lives—are getting tougher on enforcement, a new amnesty bill will undermine and override such efforts.

At a time when there are vast legitimate concerns about who is coming here, based on reports of terrorism in Europe and home-grown jihadists here, are we anxious to keep the flood gates open?

Or is this the moment when a responsible Congressional leadership and Administration would use their present power to enact an immigration moratorium, which could allow unemployed Americans the chance to find jobs?

I suspect that come the midterm elections, if long past history is a guide, the Democrats will lose some 30 seats in the House. But they could lose many more, if they try to ram this obscene CIR ASAP down the throats of Americans.

In fact, if another amnesty passes, I am going to change parties, vote Independent, and pray we can find a candidate who represents our country—not these politicians who have the chutzpah to attack America when it is in its present vulnerable condition.

Who are these people? They must be crazy or feckless or probably most likely in the pocket of the same business interests and ethnic/ideological advocacy groups whose efforts so far have allowed over 50 million newcomers, most in the last 12 years, to invade America.

How Gutierrez and the other Democrats in Congress who joined him can go home to their states for Christmas and face their constituents I simply cannot fathom.

Donald A. Collins [email him] is a freelance writer living in Washington DC, and is Co-Chair of the Federation for American Immigration Reform's (FAIR) National Advisory Board. His view are his own.

[torchbearer]

If your kicking about on my street, making a mess - costing 'our' street to pay for street cleaning - you don't pitch in. If you and your kids are over-burdening the local care unit at the end of the street, and I have to pick up the difference.. if your kids are taking teachers time away from my kids, and I have to subsidize your kids to be there.. you better believe I should tell you were you can and cannot live. If you were sucking at my tit, you better believe you'd be tossed on your ass.

if anyone is disrespectful to your property, they should be dealt with regardless of who they are-