La Raza sues Target for requesting proof of citizenship from employees

[bobbyw24]

When a Target store in Walnut Creek, California requested employees to present their legal documentation in order to keep their jobs, they were surprised to receive resignations instead of proper paperwork.

The Northern California store lost approximately 40 employees overnight and in place of the employees Target was presented with a legal wrangle by La Raza Centro Legal guru, Rocio Avila who is now representing the illegal immigrants.

A spokesperson from Target, Kate Gillen explained the employees had an opportunity to prove their eligibility in order to continue working, however most resigned without incident.

It seems La Raza is questioning Target’s rational behind the move to request legal documents. It’s worth pointing out that it is unlawful for employers and illegal immigrants to enter the workforce without proper identification and work papers.

However, La Raza contends Target is simply targeting illegal workers in an effort continue its practice of racial profiling. Many anti-illegal immigration activists are calling the action by La Raza attorney absurd and believe any court that tries to circumvent the laws of the United States should be held accountable.

Many in the country are happy that large companies like Target are taking the initiative to clear all workers ensuring legal residents have the opportunity to work, especially in California where the unemployment rate hovers around the 12 percent mark.



http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m12d17-Target-requires-employees-to-provide-legal-papers-40-workers-quit?cid=examiner-email

[james1906]

Shouldn't have Target done this in the first place? Better late than never I guess.

[bobbyw24]

Shouldn't have Target done this in the first place? Better late than never I guess.

Right--that is what federal law requires

[rp08orbust]

I'm opposed to all government-imposed requirements for employment, but if Target wishes to require certain pieces of paper of their employees, then they have that right, not because of "national sovereignty", but because of freedom of association and property rights.

EDIT: Except for any employees that might be on contracts that never required the pieces of paper in the first place. If so, then Target is violating their contracts, federal law be damned.

[james1906]

I'm opposed to all government-imposed requirements for employment, but if Target wishes to require certain pieces of paper of their employees, then they have that right, not grounded in "national sovereignty", but in freedom of association and property rights.

EDIT: Except for any employees that might be on contracts that never required the pieces of paper in the first place. If so, then Target is violating their contracts, federal law be damned.

So if you lose your job because an illegal who lives with 15 other people in a studio apartment is willing to work for half of what you make, you would be fine with it and simply just call it the market at work?

[rp08orbust]

So if you lose your job because an illegal who lives with 15 other people in a studio apartment is willing to work for half of what you make, you would be fine with it and simply just call it the market at work?

Competition always sucks when you're the loser. But we don't believe in bailouts, do we?

[bobbyw24]

So if you lose your job because an illegal who lives with 15 other people in a studio apartment is willing to work for half of what you make, you would be fine with it and simply just call it the market at work?

Good point James--the people who love competition from illegals like it only till they are outsourced or downsized because of it.

[james1906]

Competition always sucks when you're the loser. But we don't believe in bailouts, do we?

non-sequitur

[YumYum]

So if you lose your job because an illegal who lives with 15 other people in a studio apartment is willing to work for half of what you make, you would be fine with it and simply just call it the market at work?

They call it "Free Market Utopia", and it doesn't exist except in Afghanistan, where people not only sleep 15 to a bed, but they sleep with their goats.

[catdd]

Shouldn't have Target done this in the first place? Better late than never I guess.

Yep, this is what happens when you try to stop spoiling people.

[rp08orbust]

Good point James--the people who love competition from illegals like it only till they are outsourced or downsized because of it.

So because hypocritical free-market proponents exist, free-market economics is wrong? Or because Thomas Jefferson had slaves, freedom sucks?

[rp08orbust]

non-sequitur

You and Bobby are the ones issuing the non-sequiturs. "Since some proponents of competition in X wouldn't like it if they lost, freedom in the area of X must be wrong."

If you were the CEO of Goldman-Sachs, you wouldn't like it if you didn't get the bailout and bonus you lobbied for. Therefore, we should support bailouts.

If you had a minimum wage job and the minimum wage law were cut, you wouldn't like it. Therefore, we should support minimum wage laws.

If you sold weed, you wouldn't like it if the government legalized it. Therefore, we should support the war on drugs.

[rp08orbust]

They call it "Free Market Utopia", and it doesn't exist except in Afghanistan, where people not only sleep 15 to a bed, but they sleep with their goats.

Your argument is what, that Afghanistan is poor because of all the immigrants from, uh, Uzbekistan, taking all the jobs?

[james1906]

You and Bobby are the one's issuing the non-sequiturs. "Since some proponents of competition in X wouldn't like it they lost, X must be wrong."

If you were the CEO of Goldman-Sachs, you wouldn't like it if you didn't get the bailout and bonus you lobbied for. Therefore, we should support bailouts.

If you had a minimum wage job and the minimum wage law were cut, you wouldn't like it. Therefore, we should support minimum wage laws.

If you sold weed, you wouldn't like it if the government legalized it. Therefore, we should support the war on drugs.

Federal immigration law, is just that, a law. It not about asking for a special treatment. It's a law, a Constitutional one, as immigration is a federal issue, that employers are required to follow. If you study the founding fathers, you will see they weren't open borders advocates.

Conversely, you are the like the bank CEO or the drug dealer. You don't feel you have to follow the laws because you don't like spending money, so you want the government to act to benefit you.

[rp08orbust]

Federal immigration law, is just that, a law. It not about asking for a special treatment. It's a law, a Constitutional one, as immigration is a federal issue, that employers are required to follow. If you study the founding fathers, you will see they weren't open borders advocates.

So you've abandoned your original argument and are now falling back on, "It's the LAW!!!" The prohibition of alcohol was the highest law of the land for a while as well. Would you have been in favor of bootleggers being thrown in prison?

[Met Income]

They call it "Free Market Utopia", and it doesn't exist except in Afghanistan, where people not only sleep 15 to a bed, but they sleep with their goats.

Yeah, that's not due to a lack of recognition of property rights or the non-aggression principle. Come on.

[Met Income]

non-sequitur

Nope, you're just being a hypocrite. You want bailouts for some, but not others. Morals are universal.

[YumYum]

Yeah, that's not due to a lack of recognition of property rights or the non-aggression principle. Come on.

OK amigo, no problema...but don't complain when an illegal alien takes your business, your job, your wife, your kids and your goat.

[Stop Making Cents]

It's a shame we don't have real President that would respond to the acts of war that Mexico has been perpetraiting on our nation for many years.

[ChaosControl]

Any group called "The Race" is a piece of crap. I wish they are ordered to pay all the legal fees that target incurs.

[Met Income]

OK amigo, no problema...but don't complain when an illegal alien takes your business, your job, your wife, your kids and your goat.

That's really not the argument at all. I'm sure Lehman Brothers had a problem that Goldman Sachs got a bailout and they didn't. That doesn't make bailouts right. Your argument is not consistent or moral. And again, you're completely ignoring why Afghanistan is the way it is.

[james1906]

So you've abandoned your original argument and are now falling back on, "It's the LAW!!!" The prohibition of alcohol was the highest law of the land for a while as well. Would you have been in favor of bootleggers being thrown in prison?

No I'm giving a counterpoint to you saying that immigration law is a special privilege. If you want us to become a 3rd world country, that's entirely up to you.

[james1906]

Nope, you're just being a hypocrite. You want bailouts for some, but not others. Morals are universal.

Who do I want a bailout for?

[YumYum]

It's a shame we don't have real President that would respond to the acts of war that Mexico has been perpetraiting on our nation for many years.

Good point! It is like a Mexican recently told me: "We may have lost the war, but we are winning the battle."

[james1906]

Good point! It is like a Mexican recently told me: "We may have lost the war, but we are winning the battle."

OMGZ!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!111 U like bank bailoutz!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111!

[rp08orbust]

It's a shame we don't have real President that would respond to the acts of war that Mexico has been perpetraiting on our nation for many years.

So what are you recommending? That the US bomb some Mexicans in retaliation for the Mexican government not stopping its victims from fleeing to a better country?

LOL, no, that wouldn't violate any principles of individual freedom.

[Stop Making Cents]

So what are you recommending? That the US bomb some Mexicans in retaliation for the Mexican government not stopping its victims from fleeing to a better country?

LOL, no, that wouldn't violate any principles of individual freedom.

They have been the aggressors and military action would be completely justified against foreign invaders.

[james1906]

So what are you recommending? That the US bomb some Mexicans in retaliation for the Mexican government not stopping its victims from fleeing to a better country?

LOL, no, that wouldn't violate any principles of individual freedom.

Yeah, bomb Mexico, that's exactly the point. Nothing to do with enforcing the border, nope it's all about turning agave farms into a sheet of glass.

[Stop Making Cents]

Yeah, bomb Mexico, that's exactly the point. Nothing to do with enforcing the border, nope it's all about turning agave farms into a sheet of glass.

If they had sealed the border to begin with there wouldn't be a problem

[rpfan2008]

I see many members here get confused when free market and illegal immigration comes together...the "free" market that Ron Paul talks about is confined to the legal boundary of his country. He is not for imposing a global free market where any individual from anywhere can use his "free choice" and move to another country illegally and start occupying property there hoping for some "free market" to give him some work. Nor by "pro-choice" he means that citizen of US can choose to shelter an undocumented foreigner in his "private property" against the law of land.

[rp08orbust]

They have been the aggressors and military action would be completely justified against foreign invaders.

Let me get this straight. Mexican A sneaks into the US and works voluntarily for American B. Since American C didn't get hired by A because the job isn't worth as much to him, he's pissed, so he demands that the US president bomb Mexican D because he just happens to be ruled by the president of Mexico, E, who failed to stop A from fleeing his shitty country.

Now, please explain the justice in D's death.

[james1906]

I see many members here get confused when free market and illegal immigration comes together...the "free" market that Ron Paul talks about is confined to the legal boundary of his country. He is not for imposing a global free market where any individual from anywhere can use his "free choice" and move to another country illegally and start occupying property there hoping for some "free market" to give him some work. Nor by "pro-choice" he means that citizen of US can choose to shelter an undocumented foreigner in his "private property" against the law of land.

OMGZ!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!111 U like bank bailoutz!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111!

[YumYum]

OMGZ!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!111 U like bank bailoutz!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111!

Sí, Senór, but pleeze, make my bailout in gold.

[rp08orbust]

[Ron Paul] is not for imposing a global free market

You're right, he's not in favor of imposing a global free market, i.e., managed trade. A truly free market, which he is in favor of, does not require "imposing".

[Met Income]

Who do I want a bailout for?

For everyone who might lose a job to a foreigner. Morals are universal.

[rpfan2008]

OMGZ!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!111 U like bank bailoutz!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111!

I didn't quite understand your statement.

[MelissaWV]

The only thing this shows anyone... is that Target isn't really that strict on requiring the paperwork to start with. Pretty basic, simple policy that Target has, and they're enforcing it, even if they 're a bit late on the draw. I am willing to bet that if they'd uncovered undocumented Chinese immigrants working at their store, they would not have said "well it's okay if YOU stay, because YOU'RE not Mexican."

[rp08orbust]

I didn't quite understand your statement.

I understand it. He realizes his position is morally and logically indefensible, so he's simply going to respond with


OMGZ!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!111 U like bank bailoutz!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111!

to anyone on his side who appears halfway articulate in order to drown out the voices of reason in this thread.

[RevolutionSD]

The real enemy for all of us is the government, not Target, not Mexicans. Let's all band together and fight our common enemy.

[rpfan2008]

Aren't Arabs and other brown ppl singled out in airports for extra checkings ?

[MelissaWV]

I didn't quite understand your statement.

He's responding in a pseudo-satircal way, referencing things like:


Competition always sucks when you're the loser. But we don't believe in bailouts, do we?

...said in response to things that have nothing to do with bailouts.

It appears that this thread is going to have "bailouts" as the go-to, just like the abortion thread has "war casualties overseas" as its go-to.

* * *

The threads/articles that devolve into anti-Mexican hysteria are starting to pile up, and the silliness is that the original incidents aren't so focused. This is about a company enforcing a rule they should have from the beginning, and a racist organization seizing an opportunity to cry "unfair!" only it will increasingly fall on deaf ears. There are lots of people who'd love a job, even at Target, and are legal residents. There are also lots of people who are really sick of everyone being a victim and entitled to money from lawsuits. I really don't see this striking much of a sympathetic chord with anyone except the devout zombie followers of La Raza.

[rpfan2008]

The real enemy for all of us is the government, not Target, not Mexicans. Let's all band together and fight our common enemy.

This is their age old game, of the Zs.

They preach hatred among two groups...bring them closer physically...and instigate incidents to fire-up the mixture.

They typically use it when they need to achieve any of the following objectives:

1) weaken a formidable opponent.
2) distract, when they themselves are about to be exposed.
3) in any occasion where their plan A has failed and plan B isn't quite ready, or time isn't right for plan B's implementation.
4) crackdown on their targets under cover of restoring law and order.

[rp08orbust]

...said in response to things that have nothing to do with bailouts.

Demanding that the government arrest and deport your competition for a job is asking for a bailout, plain and simple.

[RM918]

So if you lose your job because an illegal who lives with 15 other people in a studio apartment is willing to work for half of what you make, you would be fine with it and simply just call it the market at work?

It's unfair because while that person is willing to work for half of what you make, YOU are not even ALLOWED to work for half of what you make. The minimum wage laws are what is making illegal immigrants so successful, because citizens are easily priced out of the market.

[MelissaWV]

Demanding that the government arrest and deport your competition for a job is asking for a bailout, plain and simple.

Oddly enough, none of them compete with me. It's interesting. I can honestly say if an undocumented immigrant can do my job, then they can have it, but I doubt any of them can. It's the nature of the beast. Having said that, I'd still like consistency among hiring practices, and for companies to follow their own policies. None of that has anything to do with getting "bailed out," so I'm not sure where you're coming from with the accusation/assertion. I don't think I'm the only one confused by your use of the phrase.

At any rate, no one said "arrest and deport" in the original post, and I struggle to find it in the few subsequent posts before your bailout comment.

[rp08orbust]

At any rate, no one said "arrest and deport" in the original post, and I struggle to find it in the few subsequent posts before your bailout comment.

The details of exactly what kind of violence (fining the employer, imprisoning the employer, deporting the immigrant, bombing Mexico) are used to prevent an illegal alien from working in the US are unimportant. What's important is that many in this thread believe in it is OK for those who cannot get jobs because of competition from illegal aliens to demand that the state intervene with some form of aggression on their behalf.

How is demanding intervention from the government on one's behalf because one has lost in the market place NOT asking for a bailout?

PS Just to reiterate, I have no problems with Target demanding proof of citizenship from its employers, provided citizenship was part of their employment contract. Heck, I would even support Target's right (even though I would find the exercise thereof morally repugnant) to only hire white people.

[rpfan2008]

You're right, he's not in favor of imposing a global free market, i.e., managed trade. A truly free market, which he is in favor of, does not require "imposing".

OK, but only inside his country and for his people.

He's no globalists/internationalist, right?

[jbrace]

In a true free market society with a healthy economy, immigration wouldn't be an issue. With our current welfare/warfare state it's not plausible, but it should be.

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=75


http://mises.org/daily/2326

I'd also suggest reading Economics in One Lesson
by Henry Hazlitt

http://jim.com/econ/

[MelissaWV]

The details of exactly what kind of violence (fining the employer, imprisoning the employer, deporting the immigrant, bombing Mexico) are used to prevent an illegal alien from working in the US are unimportant. What's important is that many in this thread believe in it is OK for those who cannot get jobs because of competition from illegal aliens to demand that the state intervene with some form of aggression on their behalf.

How is demanding intervention from the government on one's behalf because one has lost in the market place NOT asking for a bailout?

Please reread the OP. Target got rid of these employees people, not the Government. Federal law or not, Target has a right to enforce citizenship requirements across the board (the only discrimination would come if ONLY "Hispanic-sounding" employees were asked for their citizenship papers, etc.). If businesses did this, and were quite public about it, there are many people who would applaud, especially considering the difficulty that many local folks are having getting a job. It's a smart business decision. La Raza is just a bunch of shit-stirrers with a lot of sheep bleating in their wake, just like the other race-based organizations.

[rp08orbust]

OK, but only inside his country and for his people.

Bullshit. Ron Paul is constantly saying Americans should trade with people of all countries (even Cuba, North Korea, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, etc) when refuting the accusation of being an "isolationist."

[rp08orbust]

Please reread the OP.

Please re-read my last post. I have no problems with Target voluntarily enforcing whatever employment requirements it wants to.

The ensuing debate is not about that. It's about the abstract question of whether employers should be *forced* to only hire legal residents.

[Dunedain]

If the federal government did it's job and refused the illegals entry in the first place then Target wouldn't have to be policing federal immigration laws.

Target is an inefficient entity at policing federal immigration laws. They sell stuff not immigration services.

[rpfan2008]

So RP wants to spread his free market ideologies to those countries? or deal with them as they are?

Is his "Campaign for Liberty" US specific or worldwide?

So, according to your pov you are isolationist if you don't approve invasion of illegal aliens to your country? Then why Ron Paul opposes the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan?

How is American citizens occupying land/resources in other countries is different than illegals occupying the same here in US?

[rpfan2008]

The ensuing debate is not about that. It's about the abstract question of whether employers should be *forced* to only hire legal residents.

Wha...

employers should not be bound by laws?

Why only illegal workers then?

Do you think employers should also be allowed to sell illegal stuff?
It appears you don't understand the meaning of the word "illegal". Something that isn't allowed under law.

[rp08orbust]

So RP wants to spread his free market ideologies to those countries? or deal with them as they are?

Is his "Campaign for Liberty" US specific or worldwide?

Of course it is worldwide.


So, according to your pov you are isolationist if you don't approve invasion of illegal aliens to your country?

I don't care what you call it, but in my pov, you are no friend of liberty if you demand that the government forcibly stop voluntary transactions of any kind.

I don't view illegal immigrants as "invaders" until they trespass on *my* property.


Then why Ron Paul opposes the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan?

Because they are wars of aggression. Renting an apartment and getting a job is not an act of aggression.

[Met Income]

Wha...

employers should not be bound by laws?

Why only illegal workers then?

Do you think employers should also be allowed to sell illegal stuff?
It appears you don't understand the meaning of the word "illegal". Something that isn't allowed under law.

I guess you would have backed the government during the Prohibition then. War on Drugs? The law isn't right simply because it's the law.

[rp08orbust]

employers should not be bound by laws?

No one should be bound by any law that is contrary to individual natural rights.

[rpfan2008]

Of course it is worldwide.



I don't care what you call it, but in my pov, you are no friend of liberty if you demand that the government forcibly stop voluntary transactions of any kind.

I don't view illegal immigrants as "invaders" until they trespass on *my* property.



Because they are wars of aggression. Renting a apartment and getting a job is not an act of aggression.

Dude you are sick!!!

Besides your private property, what is US the country to you? Of course not your private property, but is it not your property too?

If Russians march into Alaska are you going to wait till they reach your 'private property'? or wait to get a confirmation whether those marching in are aggressive or not?

According to your view the entire humanity can move into US if they wish to, provided one private US citizen invites them in.


And that C4L u talked about must be Rockefeller's C4L.

[rpfan2008]

I guess you would have backed the government during the Prohibition then. War on Drugs? The law isn't right simply because it's the law.

Do you have American citizenship?

[james1906]

I didn't quite understand your statement.

It was sarcasm as some of the posters in here are equating immigration law with bank bailouts.

[james1906]

No one should be bound by any law that is contrary to individual natural rights.

Please tell me where in the Constitution it says someone has a right to enter the US?

[rp08orbust]

Dude you are sick!!!

Besides your private property, what is US the country to you? Of course not your private property, but is it not your property too?

If Russians march into Alaska are you going to wait till they reach your 'private property'? or wait to get a confirmation whether those marching in are aggressive or not?

If by "marching in" you mean shooting people and blowing things up, then of course I would be in favor of taking up arms against the invaders because I would have every reason to believe my property was next.

But if by "marching in", you simply mean getting jobs, then no, what reason could I have to object?


According to your view the entire humanity can move into US if they wish to, provided one private US citizen invites them in.

Anyone has as much of right to be in the US as I do if they can find someone to sell or rent property to them. Why should I have greater rights because of where I happened to be born?

[rp08orbust]

Please tell me where in the Constitution it says someone has a right to enter the US?

Where does it say I have a right to pick my nose? Your understanding of the US Constitution is upside down. The US Constitution restricts the actions of the federal government by itemizing its powers.

The real question is, from where in the US Constitution does the federal government derive the power to tell me who I can and cannot hire?

[rpfan2008]

If by "marching in" you mean shooting people and blowing things up, then of course I would be in favor of taking up arms against the invaders because I would have every reason to believe my property was next.

But if by "marching in", you simply mean getting jobs, then no, what reason could I have to object?



So, you will wait for confirmation-- if those invaders are marching in peacefully or causing some disturbance. Cool.




Anyone has as much of right to be in the US as I do if they can find someone to sell or rent property to them. Why should I have greater rights because of where I happened to be born?

And again according to you, these two are the only criteria for some foreigner around the globe to be US citizens?

OK. Fine. Brilliant.

[LibertyEagle]

Anyone has as much of right to be in the US as I do if they can find someone to sell or rent property to them. Why should I have greater rights because of where I happened to be born?

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this argument. You and I were lucky enough to be born in the U.S. Most of us due to the actions of our forefathers. These same forefathers took risks in coming to this piece of land and some even, fought for their independence from the British to found this country. If you perceive yourself as having greater rights than some in other countries, that is why. If it were possible for us to suck up every last person in the world, assuming they all wanted an opportunity to succeed or fail through their own merits, that would be great. But, the reality is, that we cannot, or we will be brought down. Then, we will unable to help any others; even ourselves.

So, if you are pondering why we have greater rights than others in other countries, then look to the choices their own forefathers made. Just as we in this country are fighting to reinstate the republic that we once had, possibly they should fight for what they want in their own countries. Or, if they want to become Americans, do so through the legal processes that we established.

[YumYum]

We have members on this forum that are for the "Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte", otherwise known as NAFTA. These forum members want a one world, borderless Free Market Utopia, and are against the soverignty of the U.S.

They are against any laws, though. This New World Order of Free Market Utopia would be void of any laws. What about nudity? Will people be allowed to walk around nude in public? I have a neighbor who likes to go nude in public but he is very fat and has saggy skin. I feel he is violating my rights whenever I look at him. Also, are these obese people allowed to go without a bath in the Free Market Utopia New World Borderless Lawless Order? If they don't bath, and they are nude, and their crotch smells like a chicken coup on a hot summer's day, aren't they violating my rights when I get a wiff of them even though they are on their own property in their own cave? What rights do I have from such invasions of my sense of smell and vision?

[Met Income]

Do you have American citizenship?

Yes, because I happened to be born in a specific place. Not because I earned it.

[Dieseler]

Yeah, I read the whole thread and I can only conclude that we got some strange birds making nests among us here.
They are not friendly to American interests either.
Or should I say the interests of U.S. Citizens?
Yeah, I should.
Well anyway, I'm just glad we do have laws, already on the books I might add and Constitutional, that deal with the problems being debated on here and one can only wonder why they are not being enforced.
If one didn't know any better they would think the laws in question were being purposely ignored and action in regard to the damage being perpetrated by that refusal to carry out the law covered up for the most part in what looks to me like the carrying of some agenda, not only for the benefit of Corporatist Slavers but also by and for those who would alter the complexion of our Nation by creating a voting majority that will carry on this Nations dependence on the Welfare System.
Put more simply, the agenda is to create a majority that will vote for more handouts, live like Slaves and accept a lot less Freedom than the Founders intended.
Know Thy Enemies Friends.
For They are Many.

Like LE said, I really don't understand this argument, nor do I deem the enemies of our Republic who would make such an argument worthy of further debate here.
I wouldn't waste any more of my time on them.
If these people were really interested in Freedom then they would advocate for Freedom in the other countries who export their own citizens due to the lack thereof in their own.

[Met Income]

We have members on this forum that are for the "Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte", otherwise known as NAFTA. These forum members want a one world, borderless Free Market Utopia, and are against the soverignty of the U.S.

They are against any laws, though. This New World Order of Free Market Utopia would be void of any laws. What about nudity? Will people be allowed to walk around nude in public? I have a neighbor who likes to go nude in public but he is very fat and has saggy skin. I feel he is violating my rights whenever I look at him. Also, are these obese people allowed to go without a bath in the Free Market Utopia New World Borderless Lawless Order? If they don't bath, and they are nude, and their crotch smells like a chicken coup on a hot summer's day, aren't they violating my rights when I get a wiff of them even though they are on their own property in their own cave? What rights do I have from such invasions of my sense of smell and vision?

And I'd say you're part of the NWO for supporting immoral laws that contradict freedom. Either stick to the argument or don't. But if you don't -- people will notice.

[rpfan2008]

Yes, because I happened to be born in a specific place. Not because I earned it.


I do not.

How should I get one?

[rpfan2008]

And I'd say you're part of the NWO for supporting immoral laws that contradict freedom. Either stick to the argument or don't. But if you don't -- people will notice.

What do you mean by immoral rights?

Immoral to whom?

[Met Income]

This argument is the same angle as every other collectivist argument - "This time is DIFFERENT. We support freedom, except in THIS case because x, y, z..."

[Met Income]

What do you mean by immoral rights?

Immoral to whom?

The employer who wants to employ anyone he chooses and said employees.

[Met Income]

I do not.

How should I get one?

I don't know. I'm sure some collectivist department has some rules regarding it.

[rpfan2008]

This argument is the same angle as every other collectivist argument - "This time is DIFFERENT. We support freedom, except in THIS case because x, y, z..."


Do you support freedom to slaughter humans?
Freedom must have limits.

[Athan]

"La Raza" Translation: The Race = Racism

[LibertyEagle]

yeah, i read the whole thread and i can only conclude that we got some strange birds making nests among us here.
They are not friendly to american interests either.
Or should i say the interests of u.s. Citizens?
Yeah, i should.
Well anyway, i'm just glad we do have laws, already on the books i might add and constitutional, that deal with the problems being debated on here and one can only wonder why they are not being enforced.
If one didn't know any better they would think the laws in question were being purposely ignored and action in regard to the damage being perpetrated by that refusal to carry out the law covered up for the most part in what looks to me like the carrying of some agenda, not only for the benefit of corporatist slavers but also by and for those who would alter the complexion of our nation by creating a voting majority that will carry on this nations dependence on the welfare system.
Put more simply, the agenda is to create a majority that will vote for more handouts, live like slaves and accept a lot less freedom than the founders intended.
Know thy enemies friends.
For they are many.

Like le said, i really don't understand this argument, nor do i deem the enemies of our republic who would make such an argument worthy of further debate here.
I wouldn't waste any more of my time on them.
If these people were really interested in freedom then they would advocate for freedom in the other countries who export their own citizens due to the lack thereof in their own.

Quoted for truth!

[rpfan2008]

I don't know. I'm sure some collectivist department has some rules regarding it.

So there should not be any rules for acquiring citizenship?
According to you- should there be any rules regarding citizenship in a country?

[rpfan2008]

Quoted for truth!

QFF.

This is a sign of Global recession the world is going through.
When you don't have enough money you run on tight budgets & can't hire better trolls, or the trolls won't make an argument that sounds somewhat reasonable, because they aren't getting paid enough.

[Met Income]

Do you support freedom to slaughter humans?
Freedom must have limits.

No, that would violate property rights. And I know the argument you're going to make so -- no, public property rights is a contradiction. If an land owner wanted to deny Mexcians on his property, fine. But other owners wouldn't.

[Met Income]

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this argument. You and I were lucky enough to be born in the U.S. Most of us due to the actions of our forefathers. These same forefathers took risks in coming to this piece of land and some even, fought for their independence from the British to found this country. If you perceive yourself as having greater rights than some in other countries, that is why. If it were possible for us to suck up every last person in the world, assuming they all wanted an opportunity to succeed or fail through their own merits, that would be great. But, the reality is, that we cannot, or we will be brought down. Then, we will unable to help any others; even ourselves.

So, if you are pondering why we have greater rights than others in other countries, then look to the choices their own forefathers made. Just as we in this country are fighting to reinstate the republic that we once had, possibly they should fight for what they want in their own countries. Or, if they want to become Americans, do so through the legal processes that we established.

What is this doomsday scenario you are painting? Free markets would ensure that this doesn't happen. In a free market, foreign works would only come in to the extent that they would provide value. The distortion in the market is the welfare state. If you get rid of that -- it's far less advantageous for Mexicans to come here.

[Dieseler]

No, that would violate property rights. And I know the argument you're going to make so -- no, public property rights is a contradiction. If an land owner wanted to deny Mexcians on his property, fine. But other owners wouldn't.

Everything that leads up to ones property does not belong to them.

[Met Income]

Everything that leads up to ones property does not belong to them.

I'm not following you.

[Dieseler]

What is this doomsday scenario you are painting? Free markets would ensure that this doesn't happen. In a free market, foreign works would only come in to the extent that they would provide value. The distortion in the market is the welfare state. If you get rid of that -- it's far less advantageous for Mexicans to come here.

However if you allow Illegal Immigrants to flood your country and then watch your Government allow them to Illegally vote, they will then choose the faction that best fits their hand out profile.

[Dieseler]

I'm not following you.

It's a reply to your post.
Reread your post, then mine.

[rpfan2008]

No, that would violate property rights. And I know the argument you're going to make so -- no, public property rights is a contradiction. If an land owner wanted to deny Mexcians on his property, fine. But other owners wouldn't.

So if an individual American decides to ship in 50-100 people from Africa and give them some job in his property, they become US citizens...and become eligible for free movement throughout the country?

[Met Income]

However if you allow Illegal Immigrants to flood your country and then watch your Government allow them to Illegally vote, they will then choose the faction that best fits their hand out profile.

This is a structural problem with the government. If you allow anyone to vote for immoral programs like the welfare state -- it will be abused by the masses anyway, regardless of illegals. Even without illegals, 51% of the nation can push around the other 49%. We need to fix THIS problem first. Everything else is a byproduct of this system.

[Met Income]

It's a reply to your post.
Reread your post, then mine.

I did read it. :rolleyes: Again, I'm not following you.

[Met Income]

So if an individual American decides to ship in 50-100 people from Africa and give them some job in his property, they become US citizens...and become eligible for free movement throughout the country?

Right - you're illustrating the problem with US citizenship. It's a collectivist, protectionist policy that is not inherent to natural law. There's nothing immoral with choosing different people to be your employees.

[Met Income]

When the system needs to suppress individual freedoms to survive; it exposes it's own legitimacy.

[rpfan2008]

Right - you're illustrating the problem with US citizenship. It's a collectivist, protectionist policy that is not inherent to natural law. There's nothing immoral with choosing different people to be your employees.

Jugglery of words?

What do you mean by "different people"- foreigners?
But..how are they foreigners anymore since they are inside the country...

Your argument seems to be that anyone who is able to find a job inside the country is eligible to be citizens. Are you for open borders?

[Dieseler]

This is a structural problem with the government. This is a problem of laws on the Books not being followed as well.


If you allow anyone to vote for immoral programs like the welfare state -- it will be abused by the masses anyway, regardless of illegals.
If we followed the Laws on the Books that deal with Immigration it would not be a problem period. Without this invasion, they would never make 51%.

Even without illegals, 51% of the nation can push around the other 49%. We need to fix THIS problem first. Everything else is a byproduct of this system.
Without the Illegal Immigrants, the biggest issue would not eventually be the continuance of the Welfare State.

If you allow your Country to be degraded to third world status by allowing an unchecked flow of ILLEGAL Immigrants, then the nature of Democracy itself WILL be its downfall due to the majority empowering those who would provide the continuance of the Welfare State.

The System in which our Government is Supposed to be operating, A Constitutional Republic, Is by far the best this World has had to offer.

I'm sorry if you do not understand that your Property Rights end at your property line as do everyone else's.
Breaking the Law in order to forward Law Breakers onto your Property is not a good reason to use Property Rights as a defense of your position that property rights are being offended in some way by not allowing Property owners to hire Whomever they wish regardless of the law.

[rpfan2008]

If one illegal alien gets a job inside the country...he then outsources that job to a second alien...who then sends it to the third an so forth....whole Mexico would become eligible citizens of US...since only getting a job is the criteria. Is this model "good" in your opinion.

[YumYum]

If you have the right to bring anybody you want to work on your property you better fly them in by helicopter, because nobody is going to allow you to cross their land with a truck load of illegal aliens. That is the real world we live in, not the make believe, Free Market Borderless Anarchist No Law And Order Utopia World.

[Dieseler]

If you have the right to bring anybody you want to work on your property you better fly them in by helicopter, because nobody is going to allow you to cross their land with a truck load of illegal aliens. That is the real world we live in, not the make believe, Free Market Borderless Anarchist No Law And Order Utopia World.

Good point but these supposed defenders of Property Rights don't own the airspace either.
Unfortunately, our Government, the biggest abettor of this debacle, does, as do they every other avenue the Corporate Slavers and enemas of the State use as well and also Unfortunately that Government turns a blind eye to the use of all of the above avenues, as it serves their purposes to do so apparently.

[rpfan2008]

The same people who are pushing for legal status of these aliens would strictly reject a documented tourism kind of an idea for the Mexicans though. They won't even pretend that is an option. Because "helping" the Mexicans is just a cover, they have already indoctrinated many across the border with reconquista propaganda -- this is a preparation for outright civil unrest. And I think both Americans and Mexicans should mind this.

And if possible, don't fall into the 'free market' side of the argument...hard times are coming your way. If you read history of civil wars propagated by the British empire you will see this pattern very clearly.

[Carson]

I would venture to guess that some posters would not see anything wrong with propping the back door of a theater open so others could enter illegally.

Maybe they would still be condoning it as the seats were destroyed due to vandalism.

As the ticket prices increase to cover the leaches and fewer and fewer honest people buy tickets they might also turn over the choice of movie selection to the illegal invaders.

What can the honest movie goers do about it you may ask?

They really need not do anything. Nature will run its course.

Just like a country needs a strong foundation like a constitution so does a business need a strong business model and moral.

They will just have to move on and find something else to do OR DEFEND THE LAW where they stand.

[Dunedain]

I see many members here get confused when free market and illegal immigration comes together...the "free" market that Ron Paul talks about is confined to the legal boundary of his country. He is not for imposing a global free market where any individual from anywhere can use his "free choice" and move to another country illegally and start occupying property there hoping for some "free market" to give him some work. Nor by "pro-choice" he means that citizen of US can choose to shelter an undocumented foreigner in his "private property" against the law of land.

Double plus good.

[Dunedain]

Yeah, I read the whole thread and I can only conclude that we got some strange birds making nests among us here.
They are not friendly to American interests either.
Or should I say the interests of U.S. Citizens?
Yeah, I should.

I've concluded that many are simply paid to be on here by someone or are leftist volunteering their self-hating time. No one in their right mind would spend so much time trying to push for open borders on the Ron Paul forums. Commieforums.com maybe but here?

I'd like to put my time toward discussing other matters but if the globalists are on here pushing to see unlimited immigration destroy the middle class....well, they've called the time and place for the battle to be fought haven't they?

[YumYum]

The message that Ron Paul had when he was running for President was not one of “anarchy capitalism/no government, anything goes as long as it doesn't hurt your neighbor" idealism, but a message of smaller government, balanced budget, no Fed and other government agencies, which hurt this country more than they help. He preached that we should stick as close as possible to the Constitution, and if a current federal law is not supported by the Constitution, then it should be dropped and be left up to the individual states to make whatever laws they want; as long as they don't violate the Constitution. This message makes sense. But this anarchist/capitalist/no government/no authority/everything is privatized/gold standard agenda is pure fantasy. It is mental masturbation. It will never happen. We are currently facing serious problems, which need real solutions, to real troubles, in a real world, and will require a willing, collective effort by all of us. I find it amazing that the Bolsheviks, who were common people and underfunded, could organize and plan the overthrow of Russia and succeed against a Czar and his regime that wasn’t as bad as our government, yet we, well informed and resourceful, can't agree on anything in this “movement”, let alone make any significant changes to our evil, corrupt system. We really need to work together so this doesn’t turn into a bowel movement.

[Danke]

I find it amazing that the Bolsheviks, who were common people and underfunded, could organize and plan the overthrow of Russia and succeed against a Czar and his regime ...

I believe they got a lot of funding, including from the NY branch of the Federal Reserve.

[rpfan2008]

I do not understand the point made by these no-borders guys...

Freedom, Liberty, personal property rights etc when guaranteed by one country's constitution are only valid within that country. Very much like (say) the British Marriage Act is only valid within Britainand applicable only to it's legal citizens(not even tourists, much less trespassers)...how can some Dutch or German just make that law applicable to himself without being a British at all. I can't believe people who can't understand that elementary concept not only heard about the internet but are also using it.

[Dieseler]

The message that Ron Paul had when he was running for President was not one of “anarchy capitalism/no government, anything goes as long as it doesn't hurt your neighbor" idealism, but a message of smaller government, balanced budget, no Fed and other government agencies, which hurt this country more than they help. He preached that we should stick as close as possible to the Constitution, and if a current federal law is not supported by the Constitution, then it should be dropped and be left up to the individual states to make whatever laws they want; as long as they don't violate the Constitution. This message makes sense. But this anarchist/capitalist/no government/no authority/everything is privatized/gold standard agenda is pure fantasy. It is mental masturbation. It will never happen. We are currently facing serious problems, which need real solutions, to real troubles, in a real world, and will require a willing, collective effort by all of us. I find it amazing that the Bolsheviks, who were common people and underfunded, could organize and plan the overthrow of Russia and succeed against a Czar and his regime that wasn’t as bad as our government, yet we, well informed and resourceful, can't agree on anything in this “movement”, let alone make any significant changes to our evil, corrupt system. We really need to work together so this doesn’t turn into a bowel movement.

Yep.

I believe they got a lot of funding, including from the NY branch of the Federal Reserve.
Yep.


I do not understand the point made by these no-borders guys...

Me either.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm opposed to all government-imposed requirements for employment, but if Target wishes to require certain pieces of paper of their employees, then they have that right, not because of "national sovereignty", but because of freedom of association and property rights.


A group of people join together and freely associate. Each owns a home and property. They decide to share ownership of streets and parks in their community. They put a fence around the entire area and determine rules for people to enter, to visit, to stay and to work. Nations, borders and immigration rules are simply an implementation of freedom of association and property rights.

[YumYum]

A group of people join together and freely associate. Each owns a home and property. They decide to share ownership of streets and parks in their community. They put a fence around the entire area and determine rules for people to enter, to visit, to stay and to work. Nations, borders and immigration rules are simply an implementation of freedom of association and property rights.

And, it is up to those same group of people who joined together, to make sure that those who are elected to serve their nation, protect their borders and property rights are doing their job. In America's case, the people have been asleep at the wheel.

[Bossobass]

If an admitted criminal served me with a lawsuit to demand who I hire, I'd be doing 25 to life soon thereafter. Period.

One month out of high school, the Bretton/Woods gold window was closed. There were newly instituted price and wage freezes, the VietNam Meat Grinder (I was 1-A and there was still a draft) loomed with no end in sight and no one was hiring.

I managed to get a job in a machine shop by convincing the owner that it was in his interest to hire me.

There was a huge Bridgeport machine tool in the shop that took rough metal forms from the foundry and, with a skilled operator, turned out precision machine parts for giant electric turbines.

I sooooo wanted to operate that machine.

I was informed of the 5 year process of apprentice, journeyman and master before I could ever hope to touch that machine.

Crap! I should have just sued them for discrimination and collected food stamps, unemployment payments and took a low wage job for cash while lying about my employment status and on my tax return. While I waited for the legal outcome, I could have had some worthless mouth like Al Sharpton speechifying my plight to the press.

How dumb was I?

Fuck La Raza.

Bosso

[Dieseler]

A group of people join together and freely associate. Each owns a home and property. They decide to share ownership of streets and parks in their community. They put a fence around the entire area and determine rules for people to enter, to visit, to stay and to work. Nations, borders and immigration rules are simply an implementation of freedom of association and property rights.

That help to insure its future prosperity.

If that group of people each found a squatter in their back yard suddenly extorting them to cut their grass (pun) and causing undue stress on them due to rising property taxes (No Pun, but used as an example) imposed on them due to the increased cost to maintain the Illegal squatters then they would have a problem.

Especially if they knew that there were indeed already laws in place to deal with the squatters and they were being ignored because the Mayor and City Council counted on the squatters to keep them in office in the next election and were indeed doing everything in their power to make legal what the squatters were doing in exchange for keeping them in office.

We have a problem.

[Dieseler]

If an admitted criminal served me with a lawsuit to demand who I hire, I'd be doing 25 to life soon thereafter. Period.

One month out of high school, the Bretton/Woods gold window was closed. There were newly instituted price and wage freezes, the VietNam Meat Grinder (I was 1-A and there was still a draft) loomed with no end in sight and no one was hiring.

I managed to get a job in a machine shop by convincing the owner that it was in his interest to hire me.

There was a huge Bridgeport machine tool in the shop that took rough metal forms from the foundry and, with a skilled operator, turned out precision machine parts for giant electric turbines.

I sooooo wanted to operate that machine.

I was informed of the 5 year process of apprentice, journeyman and master before I could ever hope to touch that machine.

Crap! I should have just sued them for discrimination and collected food stamps, unemployment payments and took a low wage job for cash while lying about my employment status and on my tax return. While I waited for the legal outcome, I could have had some worthless mouth like Al Sharpton speechifying my plight to the press.

How dumb was I?

Fuck La Raza.

Bosso

Excellent points Sir.
Thank you.