Gary Johnson headed to NH

[ronpaulhawaii]

http://www.nhgopliberty.org/2009/rlcnh-forum-featuring-gary-johnson/


The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire is proud to announce that we will host an educational forum with Gary Johnson on Jan 23rd. Gary Johnson is the former Governor of New Mexico and is currently the honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative. The event will be a reception with a cash bar. Food will not be served, however, we’ll be inviting guests to join us at a local restaurant afterward, for further camaraderie and discussion. The event will be held at the Grappone Center in Concord, NH, and starts at 4:30pm.

We are also accepting donations to provide tickets for State Reps and UNH Students to attend.

Another move towards a run...

[Ethek]

huh, anyone going? Im in Maine right now I might hop over.

[AZ Libertarian]

I've heard Gary speak a couple of times here in AZ and I'd support him for President!

[BuddyRey]

YouTube - "Ron Paul successor" Gary Johnson to NH, mulls 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycWYNZ_5DDI)

[JamesButabi]

huh, anyone going? Im in Maine right now I might hop over.

I may as well

[Aratus]

RPH... 2012 again looms?
coooooooooooooooool!!!

[FSP-Rebel]

I'll likely go.

[Dunedain]

Gary Johnson = John McAmnesty mini-me.

[BuddyRey]

Gary Johnson = John McAmnesty mini-me.

Gary Johnson and John McCain couldn't possibly be any farther apart ideologically. I have no idea where you're drawing this comparison from.

[Elwar]

Gary Johnson = John McAmnesty mini-me.

The good thing about Johnson's open border stand is maybe that will keep the Stormfronters from endorsing him.

That would help tremendously.

[LibertyEagle]

The good thing about Johnson's open border stand is maybe that will keep the Stormfronters from endorsing him.

That would help tremendously.

It will also keep out the vast majority of those Republicans even remotely traditionally conservative, because they believe in national sovereignty. That leaves ya the neocons and the rest of the globalists though.

[Elwar]

It will also keep out the vast majority of those Republicans even remotely traditionally conservative, because they believe in national sovereignty. That leaves ya the neocons and the rest of the globalists though.

Except when Ron Paul ran he was constantly hounded as "Isolationist" for his views on national sovereignty.

[American Nationalist]

The good thing about Johnson's open border stand is maybe that will keep the Stormfronters from endorsing him.

That would help tremendously.

It will also keep him from winning an election. The majority of Americans oppose open borders and an increased guest worker program.

[constituent]

It will also keep him from winning an election.

No it won't. The majority of Americans were against the war, didn't prevent them from voting for Obama now did it?

[Elwar]

Most libertarians would favor open borders once we get rid of the welfare state.

[American Nationalist]

No it won't. The majority of Americans were against the war, didn't prevent them from voting for Obama now did it?

They thought Obama was anti Iraq war. Besides, open borders libertarians will never win more than 3%, never have never will.

[sofia]

Gary Johnson's campaign will go nowhere. The Establishment will build him up just to keep Ron Paul away.

[LibertyEagle]

Except when Ron Paul ran he was constantly hounded as "Isolationist" for his views on national sovereignty.

He was wrongly called an isolationist because of his stance on foreign policy. It had nothing to do with immigration.

[LibertyEagle]

Most libertarians would favor open borders once we get rid of the welfare state.

Well, get rid of that and then we will talk.

[Elwar]

He was wrongly called an isolationist because of his stance on foreign policy. It had nothing to do with immigration.

I've already seen so-called analysts calling Johnson "less Isolationist" than Paul and the only differences between them is Johnson's stance toward borders. And that stance is mainly based on the fact that once we have no Drug War, we won't have to worry about keeping all of the drugs from flowing in.

[constituent]

They thought Obama was anti Iraq war. Besides, open borders libertarians will never win more than 3%, never have never will.

Outside of your circle, you might be surprised to find that people aren't really all that pumped about the border wall or other attempts to "close" the border.

I think his open borders stance will help much more than it hurts...

[constituent]

Well, get rid of that and then we will talk.

Wait, so you support federal immigration enforcement?

[LibertyEagle]

Wait, so you support federal immigration enforcement?

I told you that I would look into it and I will. But, I DO support immigration enforcement at SOME level. The fact that it may need to be left to the states does not change that fact. And frankly, I can tell you something right this minute, until they stop stealing from my pocket to pay for illegal aliens in other states, I'm not going to care so much at what level it happens. I realize that doesn't make me puuuuuuuure, but that is my position.

By the way, since you asked, what do you think of Johnson advocating for open borders as a presidential candidate, because from your viewpoint, this should not be handled at the federal level?

[Elwar]

By the way, since you asked, what do you think of Johnson advocating for open borders as a presidential candidate, because from your viewpoint, this should not be handled at the federal level?

He hasn't advocated open borders as a presidential candidate.

[American Nationalist]

Outside of your circle, you might be surprised to find that people aren't really all that pumped about the border wall or other attempts to "close" the border.

I think his open borders stance will help much more than it hurts...

If you are trying to win the Latino vote, you won't. The Democrats support the same open border stance as you and Latinos are a locked in democratic constituency.

Your view simply isn't consistent with reality. Poll after poll shows Americans oppose Amnesty and want to secure the border

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/69_now_say_controlling_the_border_more_important_t han_legalizing_aliens

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004327.html


The fact is, I walk in a much larger circle than you do.

[constituent]

By the way, since you asked, what do you think of Johnson advocating for open borders as a presidential candidate, because from your viewpoint, this should not be handled at the federal level?

If it means open borders as far as the fed is concerned, then that's actually the perfect position... until a state requests help.

Now, philosophically, I don't think that states have any moral authority to hinder the movement of people or goods across borders either... but that's my philosophical position, not my constitutional position.

And just to build on your previous post. It's ok to not be pure to the constitution? When is it ok to deviate then, and when must one stay true? Is there a guide somewhere that you could point me to on acceptable deviations from the constitution?

[constituent]

The fact is, I walk in a much larger circle than you do.

Oh noes, some guy on the internet says he has more friends than me.

I'm totally distraught...

[American Nationalist]

Oh noes, some guy on the internet says he has more friends than me.

I'm totally distraught...

No, said nothing about friends. Your own social inequities have nothing to do to the issue. What I am saying is the majority of Americans are with me in opposing amnesty and open borders.

[Elwar]

And yet another Gary Johnson thread falls into a debate about the 2% of difference he has with Ron Paul's stances that mean "He'll never get elected".

Another 4 years of Obama is what you're working toward.

[constituent]

No, said nothing about friends. Your own social inequities have nothing to do to the issue. What I am saying is the majority of Americans are with me in opposing amnesty and open borders.

yawn.

[constituent]

And yet another Gary Johnson thread falls into a debate about the 2% of difference he has with Ron Paul's stances that mean "He'll never get elected".


This is the only 2% this contingent cares to vote on. It's the acid test so to speak.

Either you're for closing the borders, or you're for a globalist third-world darky invasion to destroy our culture and heritage.

It's one or the other, Elwar. This is war, choose a side! :)

[American Nationalist]

yawn.

Is that all you say when you are debunked? I would like to hear, "I am sorry you were right, now lets secure those borders and deport illegal immigrants". Or at least you could admit you hold a minority position.

[constituent]

Is that all you say when you are debunked? I would like to hear, "I am sorry you were right, now lets secure those borders and deport illegal immigrants". Or at least you could admit you hold a minority position.

Care to show me where you get the constitutional authority to "secure the borders?"

Thanks.

[Elwar]

This is the only 2% this contingent cares to vote on. It's the acid test so to speak.

Either you're for closing the borders, or you're for a globalist third-world darky invasion to destroy our culture and heritage.

It's one or the other, Elwar. This is war, choose a side! :)

That's your war.

I see a problem with out of control spending, over-run prison populations and loss of liberty due to a failed Drug War, constant wars overseas, etc.

[American Nationalist]

Debunked? How so?


You said," Outside of your circle, you might be surprised to find that people aren't really all that pumped about the border wall or other attempts to "close" the border. I think his open borders stance will help much more than it hurts"

I showed you the polls

"Poll after poll shows Americans oppose Amnesty and want to secure the border

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...alizing_aliens

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004327.html "

Thus this debunks your notion that Americans support your open borders position.

[American Nationalist]

Care to show me where you get the constitutional authority to "secure the borders?"

Thanks.

Is this your way of admitting you were wrong?

[constituent]

You said," Outside of your circle, you might be surprised to find that people aren't really all that pumped about the border wall or other attempts to "close" the border. I think his open borders stance will help much more than it hurts"

I showed you the polls

"Poll after poll shows Americans oppose Amnesty and want to secure the border

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...alizing_aliens

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004327.html "

Thus this debunks your notion that Americans support your open borders position.


Sorry, one poll does not equal "poll after poll"... and define "secure the border."

Until then, even the ONE poll that you've posted is invalid as concerns the question.

So no, no admission... And no, you've debunked nothing..


As an aside, I have to laugh at this excerpt from your parapundit link:


The polls by assorted liberal media organizations that show more support for immigration and the Senate bill are designed to produce the answers they desired.


lol.

Pot, meet kettle.



Now, where do you get the constitutional authority to "secure the borders?"

Or is your silence an admission that you have no authority?

[constituent]

That's your war.


No, really it isn't. I would support G.J. regardless of his border position.

[American Nationalist]

Sorry, two polls, at least one which is a bunk link, does not equal "poll after poll"... and define "secure the border."

Until then, even the two polls that you've posted are invalid as concerns the question.

So no, no admission... And no, you've debunked nothing..

Now, where do you get the constitutional authority to "secure the borders?"

Or is your silence an admission that you have no authority?

Securing the border means the opposite of open borders. An open border policy is opposed by most Americans as evident by the polls.

No, the polls are valid, because the majority of Americans support secure borders while you support open borders

[constituent]

Securing the border means the opposite of open borders.

What a worthless, empty statement. Pure rhetoric.



An open border policy is opposed by most Americans as evident by the polls.


You posted one poll.

Geez, can't even keep that straight.

[BuddyRey]

In this pointless argument over which border policy "most Americans support", I'd just like to cordially point out to both of you that *most* Americans are media-spoonfed dumbasses. So does it really matter who has the majority on his side?

[constituent]

Couldn't agree with you more...

I'm just bored, so going in circles sounds like more fun than staring at the wall...

It's all irrelevant to the Gary Johnson issue though, except that some want to use their unconstitutional position as a club to beat him over the head with.

[American Nationalist]

What a worthless, empty statement. Pure rhetoric.



You posted one poll.

Geez, can't even keep that straight.
No, I would say your response is petty and whiney. Secure borders are the opposite of open borders. It is an elementary concept.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/may-1-2009/poll-reveals-74-american-want-stronger-borders.html

[constituent]

No, I would say your response is petty and whiney. .

I'm hurt... It'll probably take me a full minute and half to recover...

I notice you're still mute on the whole constitutional authority issue. Why is that?

If you're an American Nationalist, certainly you agree that we should stick to that nation's founding document, no?

[American Nationalist]

If you're an American Nationalist, certainly you agree that we should stick to that nation's founding document, no?

Yes.

[constituent]

Yes.

Then where do you derive the authority to "secure the borders?"

It isn't the constitution...

Clearly, you're not all that gung-ho about the document.

[American Nationalist]

Then where do you derive the authority to "secure the borders?"

It isn't the constitution...



Yes it is

[constituent]

Yes it is

yawn... no.

Is it really time for yet another lesson on Enumerated Powers? Jesus.

Let's see, you post dead links as "polls" supporting your position... You refuse to answer any questions posed to you w/ supporting facts... It's clear that I'm dealing with a child, or an individual with the intellect of a child.


...moving on

[constituent]

Gary Johnson 2012!

(btw)

[jmdrake]

It will also keep out the vast majority of those Republicans even remotely traditionally conservative, because they believe in national sovereignty. That leaves ya the neocons and the rest of the globalists though.

Gary Johnson is also pro choice. I can't see how he could possibly win the GOP nomination for president.

[Elwar]

Gary Johnson is also pro choice.

In the same way that Ron Paul supports leaving the Abortion issue to the states.

[AbolishTheGovt]

Gary Johnson is also pro choice. I can't see how he could possibly win the GOP nomination for president.

I maintain that if pro-choice Rudy Giuliani had just come out in favor of repealing Roe v Wade like Gary Johnson does, Rudy would have been the nominee in 2008. He was ahead in all the polls for the first 80% of the primary season, and only tanked when grassroots conservative voters found out he wouldn't budge or compromise at all on the abortion issue. Overturning Roe is the best we can ask of a presidential candidate, however.

As for the borders issue, I don't think that supporting a federal barricade across the Southern states that is manned by a standing army is constitutional at all (that said, despite my disagreement with Ron Paul on this issue, I still trudged out in the cold of winter to hang up homemade Ron Paul 2008 signs and donated every spare penny I could find to his campaign). I admit that the main problem with open borders is the weight that illegal immigrants cause on welfare services, but I think a better and more cost-efficient solution to this problem is to simply make people prove their citizenship before they can have access to welfare services in the United States (perhaps with the exception of Emergency Room medical services). That would cut almost all of the burden that illegals cause on the taxpayer, and retain all the benefits from their added labor.

[American Nationalist]

yawn... no.

Is it really time for yet another lesson on Enumerated Powers? Jesus.

Let's see, you post dead links as "polls" supporting your position... You refuse to answer any questions posed to you w/ supporting facts... It's clear that I'm dealing with a child, or an individual with the intellect of a child.


...moving on

Please, give me a lecture, I would love to hear how the Constitution does not allow us to secure our borders.

[constituent]

Please, give me a lecture, I would love to hear how the Constitution does not allow us to secure our borders.

Start here, junior.

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

You need more info., you can always PM me. This thread should be about Gary Johnson.

I regret ever falling for your diversion.

[constituent]

In the same way that Ron Paul supports leaving the Abortion issue to the states.

Elwar,

Do you have a vid. or any info. that we can use to clarify his position when asked?


I maintain that if pro-choice Rudy Giuliani had just come out in favor of repealing Roe v Wade like Gary Johnson does

Wow! That would be a game changer!

Do you have a link?



I admit that the main problem with open borders is the weight that illegal immigrants cause on welfare services, but I think a better and more cost-efficient solution to this problem is to simply make people prove their citizenship before they can have access to welfare services in the United States

You just made my life much easier... Thanks.

[AbolishTheGovt]

I maintain that if pro-choice Rudy Giuliani had just come out in favor of repealing Roe v Wade like Gary Johnson does


Wow! That would be a game changer!

Do you have a link?

A link that proves that if Rudy had come out in favor of repealing Roe v Wade, he would have won the nomination? Or a link where Gary supports overturning Roe V Wade?

If it's the former, then I think this old article (http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MGZhNjFjYjFjODgzZmMxNjgxZmY2Y2Q2NGRkNjE5Yjk=) by Ramesh Ponnuru, where he calls for some kind of modus vivendi from Rudy is pretty indicative.

If it's the latter, then I can cite a personal conversation I've had with the Governor where he stated his abortion position would be to see Roe overturned and the abortion issue entirely handled by the States.

[American Nationalist]

Start here, junior.

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

You need more info., you can always PM me. This thread should be about Gary Johnson.

I regret ever falling for your diversion.
But the enumerated powers cover illegal immigration...
Article 1 Section 8
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Article 4 Section 3
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

[AbolishTheGovt]

But the enumerated powers cover illegal immigration...
Article 1 Section 8
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

I don't think that calling "ragged bands of illegal immigrants sneaking into the United States to work for cheap pay" an "invasion" is being very true to the spirit of the law. :\


Article 4 Section 3
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

But this is not a carte blanche grant of power to Congress to make ANY rule or regulation. The question is, what rules and regulations does the Constitution recognize as "needful"? Those rules and regulations which the Constitution recognizes as "needful" are found in Article I Section 8.

[American Nationalist]

I don't think that calling "ragged bands of illegal immigrants sneaking into the United States to work for cheap pay" an "invasion" is being very true to the spirit of the law. :\



But this is not a carte blanche grant of power to Congress to make ANY rule or regulation.

Yes it is, millions of people coming over the border illegally is an invasion.

"3. An intrusion or encroachment."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/invasion

Never said the Government could make any rule or regulation Constitutionally speaking. But Congress does have the power as proscribed by the Constitution, to "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." That means securing the borders, with a wall, surveillance, national guard, and a militia.

[AbolishTheGovt]

Yes it is, millions of people coming over the border illegally is an invasion.

"3. An intrusion or encroachment."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/invasion (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/invasion)


That's the modern, general definition of the word "invasion," but "invasion" as it was being used in the context of the Constitutional debates had a more precise meaning. As Thomas Jefferson advised: "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."


James Wilson, at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, referred to invasion in the context of "attacks of foreign enemies (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_15s7.html)." I don't think non-citizens trying to sneak in and work for cheap pay are "enemies", per se, nor are they "attacking."


Never said the Government could make any rule or regulation Constitutionally speaking. But Congress does have the power as proscribed by the Constitution, to "dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." That means securing the borders, with a wall, surveillance, national guard, and a militia.

Like I said, "needful" is the key word here. Which rules and regulations are "needful," and which aren't? Those that are "needful" are enumerated above that phrase, in Article I Section 8. However, I do not see the Constitution giving the federal government the authorization to build any sort of Giant Wall indefinitely manned by a perpetual standing army. That sort of thing might be permissible if the federal government was repelling attacks from foreign enemies, but other than that, that's it. One could say that it is permissible under the interstate commerce clause, but like Judge Andrew Napolitano always says, "regulate" back then didn't mean "control and restrict" like it does now. "Regulate" back then meant to "make regular." In other words, the interstate commerce clause was meant to give the federal government the power to remove blockades to free trade and commerce amongst the states, not to stop the flow of labor from one area to another.

Like I said, the real problem with illegal immigration is that illegals weigh down on social welfare services (which are already unconstitutional). The solution is not to go one step further in the direction of unconstitutionality, by erecting a giant unconstitutional wall and manning it with an unconstitutional perpetual standing army. The solution is to simply restrict (or ideally abolish) these social welfare services. Then, illegals will not weigh on the taxpayer--they will only benefit the taxpayer with their voluntary, cheap labor.

[Imperial]

Here is the Rasmussen poll- not quite as ironclad as you believed. And also, consider Rasmussen tends somewhat Republican and conservative with their polling. From August of 2008 mind you:


A growing majority of Americans believe that gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing illegal immigrants, and three out of four (74%) say the government is not doing enough to make that happen.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey say controlling the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers, while just 21% think legalization is more important.

Only 14% think the government is doing enough to secure the borders.

Thirty-four percent (34%) say the current immigration situation makes them angry, and another 25% characterize themselves as mildly frustrated. For 40%, immigration is just one of many issues.

These numbers are comparable to the findings in a June survey on the same topic. At that time, 83% directed their anger at the federal government, while only 12% blamed the illegals themselves.

But in June only 63% rated controlling the borders more important than legalization and 28% felt the latter was of primary importance. The numbers had changed little in the past year, but the new findings show an uptick of concern among voters.

Slightly over half (53%) now say the nation’s immigration policy should welcome all except criminals and those who pose a national security risk. But 28% of voters disagree.

Voters are evenly divided on whether it is even possible for the United States to end illegal immigration.

...

Support for gaining control of the border is high in nearly all age, income, political, gender and racial categories. Only those who describe themselves as liberals are more divided, although they favor border control slightly more than legalization.

[American Nationalist]

That's the modern, general definition of the word "invasion," but "invasion" as it was being used in the context of the Constitutional debates had a more precise meaning. As Thomas Jefferson advised: "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."


James Wilson, at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, referred to invasion in the context of "attacks of foreign enemies (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_15s7.html)." I don't think non-citizens trying to sneak in and work for cheap pay are "enemies", per se, nor are they "attacking."



Like I said, "needful" is the key word here. Which rules and regulations are "needful," and which aren't? Those that are "needful" are enumerated above that phrase, in Article I Section 8. However, I do not see the Constitution giving the federal government the authorization to build any sort of Giant Wall indefinitely manned by a perpetual standing army. That sort of thing might be permissible if the federal government was repelling attacks from foreign enemies, but other than that, that's it. One could say that it is permissible under the interstate commerce clause, but like Judge Andrew Napolitano always says, "regulate" back then didn't mean "control and restrict" like it does now. "Regulate" back then meant to "make regular." In other words, the interstate commerce clause was meant to give the federal government the power to remove blockades to free trade and commerce amongst the states, not to stop the flow of labor from one area to another.

Like I said, the real problem with illegal immigration is that illegals weigh down on social welfare services (which are already unconstitutional). The solution is not to go one step further in the direction of unconstitutionality, by erecting a giant unconstitutional wall and manning it with an unconstitutional perpetual standing army. The solution is to simply restrict (or ideally abolish) these social welfare services. Then, illegals will not weigh on the taxpayer--they will only benefit the taxpayer with their voluntary, cheap labor.

You didn't disprove anything I said. Sorry, invasion means what it means, James Wilson's OPINION is IRRELEVANT in regards to the eyes of the law and the dictionary. Invasion means an encroachment or intrusion. Illegal immigration as an illegal intrusion and encroachment on the United States. The Constitution doesn't need to specifically say the Congress can authorize the building of a wall. The Constitution in Article 1 section 8 clearly states militia can be used in repelling an invasion, which includes the illegal immigrant invasion. This means we can use state militias and National Guard. It is also very clear in Article 4 Section 3 that the Congress can make all needful rules and regulation to protect the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

For all you Libertarians talk about individualism, you seem to throw the working American class under the rug like some meaningless statistic. You talk about cheap labor and free migration of workers as though it is a good thing. The fact is, the more the labor pool increases for manual labor jobs or service jobs the lower the wage sin those sectors will go. You are pricing poorer and working Americans out of work for cheap third world labor.

"In Los Angeles, unionized black janitors had been earning $12 an hour, with benefits. But with the advent of subcontractors who compose roaming crews of Mexican and El Salvadoran laborers, the pay dropped to the minimum wage of $3.35 per hour. Within two years, the unionized crews had all been displaced by the foreign ones, and without any other skills, most of the native workforce did not find new work."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/illegal_immigration_and_low_wa.html

Americans will do the jobs illegals do if given the chance.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/06/jobs-americans-wont-do-meme-takes-another-hit-mississippi

[AbolishTheGovt]

You didn't disprove anything I said. Sorry, invasion means what it means, James Wilson's OPINION is IRRELEVANT in regards to the eyes of the law and the dictionary. Invasion means an encroachment or intrusion. Illegal immigration as an illegal intrusion and encroachment on the United States. The Constitution doesn't need to specifically say the Congress can authorize the building of a wall. The Constitution in Article 1 section 8 clearly states militia can be used in repelling an invasion, which includes the illegal immigrant invasion. This means we can use state militias and National Guard. It is also very clear in Article 4 Section 3 that the Congress can make all needful rules and regulation to protect the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

For all you Libertarians talk about individualism, you seem to throw the working American class under the rug like some meaningless statistic. You talk about cheap labor and free migration of workers as though it is a good thing. The fact is, the more the labor pool increases for manual labor jobs or service jobs the lower the wage sin those sectors will go. You are pricing poorer and working Americans out of work for cheap third world labor.

"In Los Angeles, unionized black janitors had been earning $12 an hour, with benefits. But with the advent of subcontractors who compose roaming crews of Mexican and El Salvadoran laborers, the pay dropped to the minimum wage of $3.35 per hour. Within two years, the unionized crews had all been displaced by the foreign ones, and without any other skills, most of the native workforce did not find new work."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/illegal_immigration_and_low_wa.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/illegal_immigration_and_low_wa.html)

Americans will do the jobs illegals do if given the chance.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/06/jobs-americans-wont-do-meme-takes-another-hit-mississippi (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/06/jobs-americans-wont-do-meme-takes-another-hit-mississippi)

Ahhhhhh, that explains it. I should have known from your name "nationalist" that you weren't a libertarian constitutionalist. You're a protectionist paleoconservative. I would suggest you meander around Mises.org and read a few articles on how the Division of Labor works. Once you understand that, you understand how illegal immigrants don't "steal" Americans' jobs, how illegal immigrants working for cheap pay is a benefit all around, and how the free movement of capital and labor is essential to a healthy economy.

Ignore the plain meaning of the Drafters of the Constitution, if you like, but you still provide no other proof for your argument than mere assertion.

[American Nationalist]

Once you understand that, you understand how illegal immigrants don't "steal" Americans' jobs, and how illegal immigrants working for cheap pay is a benefit all around.

They do take American jobs. When ICE does its job and does its raids on illegal immigrant work places Americans come to take those jobs.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/06/jobs-americans-wont-do-meme-takes-another-hit-mississippi

It is basic economics. And increased labor pools for the same amount of jobs means lowers wages and jobs to the illegals willing to work for low wages below the table. It is sad that your loyalty lies to some school of economics instead of lying with the economic betterment of the American people.

[AbolishTheGovt]

They do take American jobs. When ICE does its job and does its raids on illegal immigrant work places Americans come to take those jobs.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/06/jobs-americans-wont-do-meme-takes-another-hit-mississippi (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/06/jobs-americans-wont-do-meme-takes-another-hit-mississippi)

It is basic economics. And increased labor pools for the same amount of jobs means lowers wages and jobs to the illegals willing to work for low wages below the table. It is sad that your loyalty lies to some school of economics instead of lying with the economic betterment of the American people.

There is never a "set" amount of jobs. There is always more work to be done, so long as there exist wants and needs left unsatisfied. When immigrants willing to do menial work for cheaper pay come into the market, producers have to spend less to produce the products, and therefore not only do consumers pay less for the products, but producers are also able to invest their savings into more/other production, meaning other Americans can be put to work producing other things. So, actually, illegal immigration creates employment. The Division of Labor is basically the old saying "Many hands make light work" applied to a large scale society. When you understand this "school of economics," you understand that when people are free to make voluntary transactions with one another, everyone benefits.

Try reading this article: http://mises.org/story/2326 (http://mises.org/story/2326)

[American Nationalist]

There is never a "set" amount of jobs. There is always work to be done, so long as there exist wants and needs left unsatisfied. When immigrants willing to do menial work for cheaper pay come into the market, producers have to spend less to produce the products, and therefore not only do consumers pay less for the products, but producers are also able to invest their savings into more/other production, meaning other Americans can be put to work producing other things. So, actually, illegal immigration creates employment. The Division of Labor is basically the old saying "Many hands make light work" applied to a large scale society. When you understand this "school of economics," you understand that when people are free to make voluntary transactions with one another, everyone benefits.

Try reading this article: http://mises.org/story/2326 (http://mises.org/story/2326)

Your first sentence is absurd in itself. There is a finite amount of jobs, those that don't hold one of those jobs are unemployed. The ICE raid and the subsequent hiring of unemployed Americans in Mississippi is a case point of that fact. Illegals undermine the American labor market, they depreciate wages and take jobs form Americans because they work for so much less under the table. Americans aren't working because the jobs they held are taken by illegals, it isn't like there are jobs they are refusing to take. Your consumer debt based economic model is failing. In 1950, 1/3 of American workers were in the manufacturing sector, now they make up 12 or so %. I know people whose grandparents worked at GM and were able to have 3 kids, have the mom stay at home(own that home), and buy a new car every 4 or 5 years. The fact is, since we have liberalized trade and allowed for illegal immigration, real wages have not increased since 1973, private and public debt is at it's highest levels(California is in a bankruptcy crisis), the trade deficit is above 400 billion dollars, we have double digit unemployment and the dollar is hitting all time lows against competing currencies.

Americans really don't care about your Von Mises Article saying how great illegals are when they are barely getting by or not getting by pay check to pay check.

Pat Buchanan does a good article on this.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/aug/11/00007/

[AbolishTheGovt]

Your first sentence is absurd in itself. There is a finite amount of jobs, those that don't hold one of those jobs are unemployed.

No. There is always work to be done. Some work is just more urgent than other. The only reason anyone is unemployed is because either A). they choose to stay home and not work, because they value leisure more than the income they could get from working, or B). their marginal productivity would yield lower wages than the government allows employers to pay employees. In the first case, the problem is pure laziness, and in the second case, it's all about government controls, like the minimum wage.


The ICE raid and the subsequent hiring of unemployed Americans in Mississippi is a case point of that fact. Illegals undermine the American labor market, they depreciate wages and take jobs form Americans because they work for so much less under the table. Americans aren't working because the jobs they held are taken by illegals, it isn't like there are jobs they are refusing to take.

Of course there are jobs unemployed Americans are refusing to take. Places like McDonalds are almost always hiring. They refuse to take the jobs because the jobs don't pay high enough to the unemployed Americans' liking. The fact that we just suffered a loss in high paying jobs in America is not because of illegal immigrants. It's because a giant Federal Reserve-created bubble in the durable goods manufacturing sector has just burst and the market is trying to readjust itself and clean up the government's mess.


Your consumer debt based economic model is failing.

You must REALLY misunderstand the Austrian school of economic thought. Austrian economics has been the single most consistent advocate of a NON-debt based economic model. Austrian School economists were the ones warning of the unsustainability of the current consumer debt-based economic model LONG before anyone else was. Just search "Peter Schiff" in Youtube.


In 1950, 1/3 of American workers were in the manufacturing sector, now they make up 12 or so %. I know people whose grandparents worked at GM and were able to have 3 kids, have the mom stay at home(own that home), and buy a new car every 4 or 5 years. The fact is, since we have liberalized trade and allowed for illegal immigration, real wages have not increased since 1973, private and public debt is at it's highest levels(California is in a bankruptcy crisis), the trade deficit is above 400 billion dollars, we have double digit unemployment and the dollar is hitting all time lows against competing currencies.

This is a great example of the fact that, since we began cutting ties with the gold standard, we have been living under a steadily-growing, debt-financed bubble being inflated by the Federal Reserve. Because of the Fed's easy monetary policy, Americans have been able to consume artificially cheap imports from foreign countries while we give foreigners our no-good IOUs in exchange, and all the while our real productive capacity has atrophied. This is in no way the fault of illegal immigrants. It is the Federal Reserve that has distorted the production structure of our economy, and watered down the value of our dollar with its massive money printing, not illegal immigrants. Research "Austrian business cycle theory."

[American Nationalist]

No. There is always work to be done. Some work is just more urgent than other. The only reason anyone is unemployed is because either A). they choose to stay home and not work, because they value leisure more than the income they could get from working, or B). their marginal productivity would yield lower wages than the government allows employers to pay employees. In the first case, the problem is pure laziness, and in the second case, it's all about government controls, like the minimum wage.



Of course there are jobs unemployed Americans are refusing to take. Places like McDonalds are almost always hiring. They refuse to take the jobs because the jobs don't pay high enough to the unemployed Americans' liking. The fact that we just suffered a loss in high paying jobs in America is not because of illegal immigrants. It's because a giant Federal Reserve-created bubble in the durable goods manufacturing sector has just burst and the market is trying to readjust itself and clean up the government's mess.



You must REALLY misunderstand the Austrian school of economic thought. Austrian economics has been the single most consistent advocate of a NON-debt based economic model. Austrian School economists were the ones warning of the unsustainability of the current consumer debt-based economic model LONG before anyone else was. Just search "Peter Schiff" in Youtube.



This is a great example of the fact that, since we began cutting ties with the gold standard, we have been living under a steadily-growing, debt-financed bubble being inflated by the Federal Reserve. Because of the Fed's easy monetary policy, Americans have been able to consume artificially cheap imports from foreign countries while we give foreigners our no-good IOUs in exchange, and all the while our real productive capacity has atrophied. This is in no way the fault of illegal immigrants. It is the Federal Reserve that has distorted the production structure of our economy, and watered down the value of our dollar with its massive money printing, not illegal immigrants. Research "Austrian business cycle theory."

That is simply not true, there is a finite amount of jobs. I have had friends' family(thankfully not my own) who have been out of work for months not because they are lazy, but because there are a finite amount that a large group of people are competing over. You live in theory while I live in reality. You talk about people going to work at McDonald's as though that will feed, cloth and house a family of five. It isn't a sustainable economic model for 15%-20% of people to be burger-flipping. People being relegated to the service industry is the price of manufacturing being shipped overseas due to liberalization of trade and removal of traditional tariffs.

But on this McDonald's issue, you act as though there are an infinite amount of burger flipping jobs. There is a finite amount, they only hire so many. And McDonald's is not immune from hiring illegals.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/07/16/Illegal-aliens-hired-at-11-Reno-McDonalds/UPI-83981216248732/

Even basic service industry work is being undercut by illegal immigrants. What is happening in Reno is happening elsewhere across America.

I agree with basically everything you said about the Federal Reserve. But immigration and trade are part of the puzzle too.

You rightfully point out the Federal Reserve created a low interest policies in which we borrow large amounts of imported goods. However you didn't point out that Americans used to make those good and get paid more doing so. If they had those jobs and were still producing those good the debt crisis we have today wouldn't exist.

[jmdrake]

A link that proves that if Rudy had come out in favor of repealing Roe v Wade, he would have won the nomination? Or a link where Gary supports overturning Roe V Wade?

If it's the former, then I think this old article (http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MGZhNjFjYjFjODgzZmMxNjgxZmY2Y2Q2NGRkNjE5Yjk=) by Ramesh Ponnuru, where he calls for some kind of modus vivendi from Rudy is pretty indicative.

If it's the latter, then I can cite a personal conversation I've had with the Governor where he stated his abortion position would be to see Roe overturned and the abortion issue entirely handled by the States.

Thanks for the info. I just looked it up and Gary Johnson does say on his website he would try to have Roe v Wade repealed.

http://www.johnsonforamerica.com/issues.php
Protecting the Unborn
While Gary himself is personally pro-choice, he understands the proper role of government, and would return the abortion issue back to the 50 states to decide, as the US Constitution mandates. In order to put the abortion issue back under the proper jurisdiction, Gary would seek to have Roe v. Wade repealed. As Governor of New Mexico, he received the endorsement of the Right To Life Committee for his work in reducing abortions through parental consent, informed consent, banning partial-birth abortion, and ending Medicaid funding for abortions. As Governor, he supported every piece of legislation offered by the Right To Life Committee.

I went to the pro-life convention in Nashville to campaign for Paul in 2008 and was decently received by the people I talked to. One couple didn't know Paul's position on abortion at all, but were happy to hear he was staunchly pro life. One lady thought Ron Paul supported gay marriage. I pointed out that he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and that his view as to leave marriage up to the states. She then said he "Didn't understand the threat of Islamists". I pointed out how our country was then supporting an Islamist dictator in Pakistan who supported terrorism. She didn't have a response, but I could tell she was stuck on her ways. I probably wouldn't try to actively campaign for Gary Johnson at a pro life meeting like I could for Paul, but at least this gives a decent response if/when the issue comes up.

[inibo]

This is the only 2% this contingent cares to vote on. It's the acid test so to speak.

Either you're for closing the borders, or you're for a globalist third-world darky invasion to destroy our culture and heritage.

It's one or the other, Elwar. This is war, choose a side! :)

:D

[dr. hfn]

Johnson is a "viable" candidate. We will win.

[Flash]

Seems like every Gary Johnson thread recently has been getting derailed. Lets try to stay on topic.

[Slutter McGee]

Sorry. Johnson does not not pass my self imposed purity test.
Neither does Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, Adam Kokesh, R.J., B.J., Jeff Flake, Walter Williams, John Stossel, the Judge, Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, Von Mises, Ayn Rand, Debra Medina, Glenn Beck, and Batman.

Until one of them agrees that Rothbard was exactly right on everything, they are nothing more than neocons and new world order puppets.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[libertygrl]

OMG. I totally hate whenever this issue of illegal immigration argument comes up! I cannot understand the mindset of embracing open borders and amnesty!

Here's where I stand:

I believe the influx of millions of illegal/undocumented people is an intentional invasion allowed by our government and part of the Bilderberg agenda to take away our sovereignty as a nation.

I am against amnesty. I am for workplace verification to see if someone is legally allowed to work in this country. If no jobs are made available, they will self deport.

I stand firm for protecting our culture and national sovereignty amongst the melting pot of cultures who retain their family traditions yet have learned the english language and integrated themselves into American society. If my family as well as a billion other immigrant families over the centuries could come here legally, abide by the rules and embrace American society, history and culture, why can't they???

I just wonder if anyone has ever asked themselves this question: If you were to leave this country and cross over into another - say Peru to work and live, would you go over to that country without the motivation to learn their language and culture? Or would you expect the Peruvians to change their way of life in order to accommodate you and other Americans?

Can someone please explain to me if believing in Amnesty for illegals and open borders is part of the philosophy of all Libertarians? If so, I guess I'm not one after all!

The constitutionality of enforcing immigration law doesn't seem all that clear to me the way it's being presented here. I wonder what the founders would have said about our present situation. I wish Judge Napolitano would explain it. I learn so much from that man!

As for Gary Johnson - if I were in the state he's running in, I would certainly have a problem with his stance on immigration. But if there isn't another Liberty minded candidate to choose from who is against amnesty, then I would be forced to vote for him based upon the other issues he stands for. These are of grave importance as well. I at least accept the fact that sometimes we are not going to agree 100%. But I would continue to fight him on the amnesty front if he were elected and I was a resident of his state.

[constituent]

As for Gary Johnson - if I were in the state he's running in, I would certainly have a problem with his stance on immigration. But if there isn't another Liberty minded candidate to choose from who is against amnesty, then I would be forced to vote for him based upon the other issues he stands for. These are of grave importance as well. I at least accept the fact that sometimes we are not going to agree 100%. But I would continue to fight him on the amnesty front if he were elected and I was a resident of his state.

Yea, I plan on being G.J.'s BFF until the day after he's elected...

then it's knives-out.

[rich34]

Good luck with Gary Johnson. Gary who??? It's not gonna happen folks. It's Ron Paul or nothing. Ron Paul is our only chance and even with him the odds aren't very good. And honestly the couple times I've seen him get interviewed the dude came off as a stoner. Not that I'm against that, but it certainly doesn't help in a republican primary..

[inibo]

I like Gary Johnson. If anyone could turn me back into a voter he'd be one. I liked him as soon as I saw his speech at the Rally for the Republic. For all those who say he could not win as a Republican, maybe, but let's not forget he had two successful terms as a Republican governor in a 2 to 1 Democratic state without compromising his positions. The man's got some skills.

The biggest hurdle he faces is the militant nationalism of the national party and the three issue blindness of base. They'll probably get behind Sarah Palin or some other unhinged Bible belt loon and then wonder why a Democrat ends up in the White House in 2012.