PDA

View Full Version : Illegal Aliens sue for the right to work in US




Nemesis
02-10-2010, 12:48 PM
Illegal alien lawsuits continue to clog the courts in California
Posted on Wednesday, February 10 @ 01:28:39 EST
Topic: Illegal Immigration News in the US
Well-funded illegal alien activists in Southern California have found a new way to attack Americans fighting for secure borders and enforcement of current immigration laws. The fight has moved from the streets where they wave the their Mexican flag to America's civil courtrooms.

Subjects: Illegal immigration, illegal alien activists, day-laborers, lawsuits by illegals, Jeff Schwilk, MALDEF, amnesty


February 9, 2010
Kimberly Dvorak
Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com

“Allow me to understand this correctly. Illegal aliens, people who have committed a crime by entering this country illegally, and who continue to commit additional crimes by using counterfeit documents to project a status they are not entitled to, are suing cities and citizens for "disrupting their RIGHT to work in the US, even though they have no such right? If any immigrant "rights" organization or other advocacy group is responsible for the filing of such suits, either directly or indirectly, they should be counter claimed against for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. It's time for the good citizens of this country to fight back through the courts,” said retired ICE Agent John Sampson who now runs CSI Consulting and Investigations.

The beef about an upcoming lawsuit in San Diego against Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, stems from a violent attack on Los Angeles anti-illegal immigration activist John Monti in November 2006 at the Rancho Penasquitos day-labor site in San Diego.

“Controversial San Diego attorney Daniel Gilleon was hired by La Raza operatives more than three years ago to go after San Diego Minutemen and other pro-security activists,” says Schwilk.

Monti had gone to the infamous makeshift hiring site to photograph the day laborers and the law-breaking employers hiring illegal workers. “It is still a felony to hire illegal aliens in the U.S. and studies have shown that almost all day laborers are illegal aliens from Latin America, Schwilk explains.

While photographing the street-side hiring process, Monti was suddenly jumped from behind by at least seven Hispanic men. “They punched him, tried to steal his professional camera, and pushed him into the busy boulevard. Several passersby’s witnessed the attack and called 911. When police arrived two minutes later, they found a bloody and shaken Mr. Monti,” witnesses reported.

Once the police were called to the scene, all of the attackers had made a run for it. Luckily, Monti photographed many of the laborers prior to the attack and was able to show San Diego Police Department. The next day the victim, Monti, sent the same pictures via email to local San Diego activists so they could call the police if the suspects returned to the day labor site where they usually look for employment every day. At this point Schwilk received the pictures and forwarded them to his local law enforcement contacts and other concerned residents in the area.

Their claim was defendants were disseminating pictures of the suspects with Monti's statement and pointed out that they were wanted for questioning by SDPD regarding day-labor site scuffle. The flyer indicated if anyone had any information about the incident to phone the police.

Police records show the suspects were being sought for questioning and most of them were eventually found and questioned. No charges against the suspects were ever filed, as they all, not surprisingly, claimed that Monti attacked them first. According to Schwilk, local illegal alien activists were seen speaking with the suspects soon after the attacks.

“Witnesses who saw Monti being attacked and beaten were ignored by investigators and the city attorney, who were under extreme pressure from the so-called ‘Mexican mafia’ to protect the suspects (most of them Mexican citizens) from prosecution,” Schwilk contends. Fox News' and Monti's lawsuits were eventually dismissed or settled, but Schwilk demanded a trial to prove that this was just another unfounded, frivolous lawsuit and malicious prosecution meant to harass and silence those who oppose illegal immigration.

This defamation suit also accuses Schwilk of putting up Monti's "wanted posters" in the area around the day labor site - a charge Schwilk denies. Schwilk and a few other concerned citizens did use Monti's pictures to identify two of the suspects standing at the sidewalk hiring area three days after the attack.

"When we saw two of the suspects back at their sidewalk loitering area, we immediately called SDPD. The lead detective of the nearby division came to the scene and explained to us that they had already questioned and released those two men and that an arrest had been made," Schwilk said. “The officers refused to elaborate further, but they told us they were fully investigating the assault on Monti and hoped to bring all of the guilty day laborers to justice.”

The lead attorney in this so-called lawsuit is Dan Gilleon. In emails from Gilleon obtained by the Examiner, Gilleon repeatedly seems to be asking Schwilk to settle the case over the past year. In the most recent email sent on Feb. 6, Gilleon again offers to Schwilk, "If you want to settle, we'll take $1,000 for each plaintiff, cash now, or $10,000 each in stipulated judgments."

Schwilk has repeatedly told the plaintiff’s attorney Gilleon that he has no intention of settling this case because he is the victim not the other way around. In addition to last minute attempts to avoid taking this case to trial, Gilleon failed to depose Schwilk for 2 1/2 years and recently convinced the judge to allow a last-minute deposition just days before the trial is set to commence.

In a voicemail message from Gilleon, he declined to comment on this pending case. However he claims there is a new lawsuit pending against Schwilk. However, court records show no new lawsuits have been filed.

Schwilk, who is now defending himself, says he strongly opposes a deposition at this late date because he believes Gilleon lied to the judge about trying to depose him in October. Evidence submitted to the court last week clearly shows that Gilleon claimed to have served Schwilk a notice of a deposition at a long-abandoned store in Oceanside. Schwilk says he has asked Judge Styn to rescind his recent deposition order and the motion is pending.

The trial begins on Thursday. It is worth pointing out, the attorney for the plaintiffs admitted that all his clients were living in Mexico and may not be able to enter the country legally to attend the trial, according to Schwilk.

It is a sad commentary that the civil court system is filled with well-funded foreign interests who hire activist lawyers to gain control of the country for their illegal clients.

The Minutemen vow to keep fighting no matter how many lawsuits La Raza activists file against them. "Our cause to make our cities and our country safe and secure is too great to be deterred by these people who make a mockery of our legal system," Schwilk finishes.

In another lawsuit filed in Costa Mesa, California, MALDEF the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund charges the city’s anti-solicitation ordinance is unconstitutional. Joining in on the February 2, 2010 lawsuit is the ACLU of Southern California and the National Day Laborer’s Organizing Network (NDLON).

The civil rights groups filed the lawsuit against the City of Costa Mesa on behalf of the Association de Jornaleros de Costa Mesa and the Colectivo Tonantzin, whose members have been restricted from peaceably expressing their need and availability for employment in the city’s public areas due to the ordinance.

Claiming his client’s first Amendment right, MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas A. Saenz said, "Free speech, one of our most cherished rights, belongs to everyone in society. Day laborers seeking work have as much right to express themselves as the largest corporation employing hundreds of thousands. Costa Mesa’s anti-solicitation ordinance violates this vital and longstanding constitutional principle."

“The city’s anti-solicitation ordinance prohibits any person standing on a sidewalk or other public area from soliciting employment, business or contributions in any manner deemed to be intended to attract the attention of traveling vehicles. The ordinance subjects day laborers and other solicitors to a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment up to six months. The ordinance violates the day laborers’ First and Fourteenth amendments rights under the United States Constitution,” according Saenz.

"Day laborers have contributed to the Costa Mesa economy for decades," says Pablo Alvarado, director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "Particularly during these tough times, the hard work they provide the community should be rewarded and not the target of destructive law enforcement practices."

The ruling of federal courts throughout the country in the past have ruled in favor of preserving the free speech rights of day laborers, which allows them to continue to solicit work.

“The contention that the civil rights of illegal day laborers are being violated is pure malarkey and if anything at all, the advocates can be criminally charged and prosecuted for aiding and abetting illegal alien immigration,” says Vince Johnson in a letter to the city of Costa Mesa.

He goes on to explain this frivolous lawsuit should be recognized as such by any federal judge who may incorporate immigration law regarding employment by undocumented immigrants.

“I suggest that you utilize the resources of Homeland Security/ICE, the US Department of Labor and the US Justice Department to promptly stop this court action and affirm that this country can not be controlled by people who do not even have the right to be in this country. Any meddling by the Mexican government is a clear-cut violation of American law and sovereignty,” Johnson finished.

The meddling of Mexico continues to play out on both sides of the border. It was reported by the M3 report (a publication put out by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers) that all political parties of the Mexican Senate must reproached the policy change of direction of President, Barack Obama, “who has decided to go back on the promise he made to all the Hispanic groups that supported him, and now he insists on closing the border. The government of Barack Obama seeks to increase the funds to reinforce border security with $4.6 billion to support 20,000 agents of the Border Patrol, as well as to finish the first portion of the ‘virtual fence,’” the report stated.

The Mexican government continues by “announcing that he (Obama) will build the missing portion of the ‘virtual fence’ by means of which everyone who crosses, undocumented or illegally, will be detected and can be immediately jailed and later expelled, (and also) reinforcing the number of agents for customs, as well as for the border. From now on we Mexicans will not know what to believe when we speak with the President of all the Americans, because he is a President who fails to keep his word,” according to a member of the Mexican Senate.

One thing is certain Mexico continues to demand the rule of law be tweaked in their favor when it comes to illegal immigration. This will surely set up a very contentious immigration reform debate, one the American people have clearly stated Amnesty will not be a part of the legislation.

The Patriot
02-10-2010, 04:29 PM
Where is the right to work in the Constitution? How does this ridiculous case even make it to Court, yet it took a year for Judicial Watch to file a brief with SCOTUS over Hilary Clinton's ineligibility to be secretary of State? Our nation is no longer one of laws as the founders intended. The Judicial Branch is merely a second legislative branch for the Left where they legislate from the Bench.

Mini-Me
02-10-2010, 04:33 PM
lol wut? How the heck can illegal aliens openly sue without being deported? Considering the cases we hear about where judges decide the plaintiffs have "no standing," it would be kind of insulting for this to actually be heard. This is just asinine...
...and this is coming from someone who's pretty sympathetic to the "no compromises on the principles of liberty" open border crowd.

erowe1
02-10-2010, 04:48 PM
Where is the right to work in the Constitution?

Rights don't come from the Constitution. They come from God. This includes our property rights, including the right to enter contracts with one another. I don't have the right to interfere with your entering such a contract with another person when the terms of that contract involve property that belongs to you or that person and not to me, including if that contract involves you hiring another person, or that other person hiring you. Nor would the incidental circumstance of you and that other person not being from the same country be something that causes me to have that right. And since I don't have that right, nor do I have the right to delegate that right to someone else. Therefore, no government can have that right either.

Granting the above, and that the Constitution, although it is not the source of anyone's rights, does make reference to the prior existence of such rights, the place where it makes reference to the rights in question here is the 9th amendment.

torchbearer
02-10-2010, 04:51 PM
Rights don't come from the Constitution. They come from God. This includes our property rights, including the right to enter contracts with one another. I don't have the right to interfere with your entering such a contract with another person when the terms of that contract involve property that belongs to you or that person and not to me, including if that contract involves you hiring another person, or that other person hiring you. Nor would the incidental circumstance of you and that other person not being from the same country be something that causes me to have that right. And since I don't have that right, nor do I have the right to delegate that right to someone else. Therefore, no government can have that right either.

Granting the above, and that the Constitution, although it is not the source of anyone's rights, does make reference to the prior existence of such rights, the place where it makes reference to the rights in question here is the 9th amendment.

+1

The Patriot
02-10-2010, 05:00 PM
Rights don't come from the Constitution. They come from God. This includes our property rights, including the right to enter contracts with one another. I don't have the right to interfere with your entering such a contract with another person when the terms of that contract involve property that belongs to you or that person and not to me, including if that contract involves you hiring another person, or that other person hiring you. Nor would the incidental circumstance of you and that other person not being from the same country be something that causes me to have that right. And since I don't have that right, nor do I have the right to delegate that right to someone else. Therefore, no government can have that right either.

Granting the above, and that the Constitution, although it is not the source of anyone's rights, does make reference to the prior existence of such rights, the place where it makes reference to the rights in question here is the 9th amendment.
Maybe I should have said it differently. What I meant was a right to a job, there is no right to a job mentioned in the Constitution. These illegals to not have a right to a job.

I agree the government has no right to interfere in contracts(whether it be minimum wage, price controls, affirmative action quotas etc) except to enforce contract law. However, the Constitution does give Congress the power to set up a naturalization process and enforce it. The Federal Government has the constitutional authority to deport illegal immigrants

torchbearer
02-10-2010, 05:02 PM
Maybe I should have said it differently. What I meant was a right to a job, there is no right to a job mentioned in the Constitution. These illegals to not have a right to a job.

I agree the government has no right to interfere in contracts(whether it be minimum wage, price controls, affirmative action quotas etc) except to enforce contract law. However, the Constitution does give Congress the power to set up a naturalization process and enforce it. The Federal Government has the constitutional authority to deport illegal immigrants

the only constitutional authority the Feds have in regards to immigration is determining naturalization. that is it.

The Patriot
02-10-2010, 05:05 PM
the only constitutional authority the Feds have in regards to immigration is determining naturalization. that is it.

No, Congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of nationalization, thus they have the power to enforce that rule.

torchbearer
02-10-2010, 05:06 PM
No, Congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of nationalization, thus they have the power to enforce that rule.

naturalization doesn't deal with who can work here, just who is considered a citizen and how they get that status.
the states retain the right to determine who works in their state.

torchbearer
02-10-2010, 05:08 PM
article I section 8:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

that is it. that is they can do.

torchbearer
02-10-2010, 05:10 PM
"Naturalization has been defined by the Supreme Court as ''the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen.''
Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892).

The Patriot
02-10-2010, 05:10 PM
naturalization doesn't deal with who can work here, just who is considered a citizen and how they get that status.
the states retain the right to determine who works in their state.

I agree naturalization doesn't deal with work, but the Congress has the right to enforce the rule of naturalization and deport illegals who either work or don't work.

The individual states don't have the right to say one can't work. Like if you wanted to set up a lemonade stand on your property it would be a violation of fourth amendment rights and the notion of property rights in general for a state government to come in and say you can't have your lemonade stand.

torchbearer
02-10-2010, 05:13 PM
I agree naturalization doesn't deal with work, but the Congress has the right to enforce the rule of naturalization and deport illegals who either work or don't work.

The individual states don't have the right to say one can't work. Like if you wanted to set up a lemonade stand on your property it would be a violation of fourth amendment rights and the notion of property rights in general for a state government to come in and say you can't have your lemonade stand.

technically, under the rule of law- a state can take your property for public use with just compensation.
i don't like that- but its legal.
the state can create laws to regulate labor under the constitution. it may be immoral, but it isn't forbidden.

The Patriot
02-10-2010, 05:17 PM
technically, under the rule of law- a state can take your property for public use with just compensation.
i don't like that- but its legal.
the state can create laws to regulate labor under the constitution. it may be immoral, but it isn't forbidden.

Fine, if you disagree with that part of the Constitution, I don't care. You can push to Amend Article 1 Section 8 if you wish. I like it. I don't like the 16th Amendment or Birthright Citizenship, I want to Amend the Fourteenth Amendment. I don't think enforcing naturalization laws is immoral.

torchbearer
02-10-2010, 05:22 PM
Fine, if you disagree with that part of the Constitution, I don't care. You can push to Amend Article 1 Section 8 if you wish. I like it. I don't like the 16th Amendment or Birthright Citizenship, I want to Amend the Fourteenth Amendment. I don't think enforcing naturalization laws is immoral.

telling people who they can hire is immoral. not deciding how one becomes a citizen.

The Patriot
02-10-2010, 05:28 PM
telling people who they can hire is immoral. not deciding how one becomes a citizen.

I agree, the government shouldn't tell people who to hire, no quotas of any kind should be set up, it would be unconstitutional. However, it is not unconstitutional to establish a naturalization rule and enforce it by deporting illegal immigrants.

Nemesis
02-10-2010, 08:01 PM
I agree naturalization doesn't deal with work, but the Congress has the right to enforce the rule of naturalization and deport illegals who either work or don't work.

The individual states don't have the right to say one can't work. Like if you wanted to set up a lemonade stand on your property it would be a violation of fourth amendment rights and the notion of property rights in general for a state government to come in and say you can't have your lemonade stand.

So what gives you the "right" to stay in the US and some Mexican doesn't get the same right???

Dude, they didn't cross the border, the border crossed them.

Show me in the constitution where it specifically states that foreigners don't have the same rights as Americans.

ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL. They teach you the declaration of independence at the school you attended????

Nemesis
02-10-2010, 08:01 PM
I agree, the government shouldn't tell people who to hire, no quotas of any kind should be set up, it would be unconstitutional. However, it is not unconstitutional to establish a naturalization rule and enforce it by deporting illegal immigrants.


Spoken like a neo-con.

You sound like a FreeRepublicon.

The Patriot
02-10-2010, 08:58 PM
So what gives you the "right" to stay in the US and some Mexican doesn't get the same right???

Dude, they didn't cross the border, the border crossed them.

Show me in the constitution where it specifically states that foreigners don't have the same rights as Americans.

ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL. They teach you the declaration of independence at the school you attended????

I don't think Americans have a right to a job either.

akihabro
02-10-2010, 09:11 PM
A right to work sounds like socialist/communistic promise. I wouldn't expect anyone to hire me unless they found I would be of benefit.

Met Income
02-10-2010, 09:48 PM
If someone wants to hire another, who is anyone else to stop them? Do private property rights exist or not?

RedStripe
02-10-2010, 10:36 PM
The right to work, to sell one's labor, should be considered a basic human right by any decent society. We don't strip people of their right to work simply because they've broken the law - otherwise no one would have the right to work because we have all broken laws (and some of us are damn proud of it).

Just because you might think that the laws against crossing imaginary government lines in the sand are super-duper important, most people who are more concerned with reality than some nationalistic fantasy recognize the fact that illegal immigration is the moral and justifiable choice for many impoverished people, and that the laws which restrict it do far more harm to society than the act itself.

Liberty_Tree
02-10-2010, 11:44 PM
The right to work, to sell one's labor, should be considered a basic human right by any decent society. We don't strip people of their right to work simply because they've broken the law - otherwise no one would have the right to work because we have all broken laws (and some of us are damn proud of it).

Just because you might think that the laws against crossing imaginary government lines in the sand are super-duper important, most people who are more concerned with reality than some nationalistic fantasy recognize the fact that illegal immigration is the moral and justifiable choice for many impoverished people, and that the laws which restrict it do far more harm to society than the act itself.



Our nation has a right to set limits and enforce our laws. Cultures need time to assimilate, and no nation or state -- not even a state with the resources of Texas -- can bear the cost of free mass medical services for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from another nation or free education for thousands of their youth. We need to be able to differentiate between what we owe a legal guest and what can be expected by someone who has violated our laws.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-10-2010, 11:58 PM
Our nation has a right to set limits and enforce our laws. Cultures need time to assimilate, and no nation or state -- not even a state with the resources of Texas -- can bear the cost of free mass medical services for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from another nation or free education for thousands of their youth. We need to be able to differentiate between what we owe a legal guest and what can be expected by someone who has violated our laws.

There are tens of millions on these programs. Singling out one group based on antiquated notions of Nationalistic feelings is beyond unapproachable. You put the abstract legal rights of an abstract entity that embodies Moral Hazard above the Natural and UNALIEABLE rights of INDIVIDUALS. Disgrace.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-11-2010, 12:02 AM
I agree, the government shouldn't tell people who to hire, no quotas of any kind should be set up, it would be unconstitutional. However, it is not unconstitutional to establish a naturalization rule and enforce it by deporting illegal immigrants.

Do you realize by implication you are supporting some sort of National ID? You are by also implication supporting necessarily an invasion of privacy. If I do not have these ID cards issued by a Monopoly authority (the State), then I will be forceably ejected from my justly and legitimately acquired property. (I used the example of me being an "illegal" immigrant)


Thomas Jefferson: Law is often but the will of tyrants, and it is anytime it impedes on an individuals natural rights.

YumYum
02-11-2010, 12:03 AM
+1

Torch! What the Hell happened to you? Did you shave your head?:D

The Patriot
02-11-2010, 12:10 AM
Do you realize by implication you are supporting some sort of National ID? You are by also implication supporting necessarily an invasion of privacy. If I do not have these ID cards issued by a Monopoly authority (the State), then I will be forceably ejected from my justly and legitimately acquired property. (I used the example of me being an "illegal" immigrant)


Thomas Jefferson: Law is often but the will of tyrants, and it is anytime it impedes on an individuals natural rights.

I am not asking for any national ID Card. Passport and green card would suffice.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-11-2010, 12:12 AM
I am not asking for any national ID Card. Passport and green card would suffice.

How are you going to identify a legal citizen, immigrant, or other person, from an illegal?

The Patriot
02-11-2010, 12:33 AM
How are you going to identify a legal citizen, immigrant, or other person, from an illegal?

ICE raids, when they apply for welfare, when their birthright citizen kids get public services and welfare checks, things like that.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-11-2010, 12:49 AM
ICE raids, when they apply for welfare, when their birthright citizen kids get public services and welfare checks, things like that.

You didn't answer the question. Unless you implicitly implied that SS must forever stay. So you support Social Security. It also brings me back to my Natural Law point. Another strike against private property! Are you aware you are arguing against natural rights?

The Patriot
02-11-2010, 01:02 AM
You didn't answer the question. Unless you implicitly implied that SS must forever stay. So you support Social Security. It also brings me back to my Natural Law point. Another strike against private property! Are you aware you are arguing against natural rights?

No, I want to get rid of social security.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-11-2010, 01:50 AM
No, I want to get rid of social security.

Then how are you going to identify illegals and legals alike?! You have to have some sort of national ID, intrusion of privacy, etc.

Lord Xar
02-11-2010, 02:19 AM
Then how are you going to identify illegals and legals alike?! You have to have some sort of national ID, intrusion of privacy, etc.

Stop playing word games, your desperation to "win" is becoming embarrassing.

Drivers license?
Applying for a job, they check your immigration status?
Applying for school, they check your immigrations status?
Applying for a credit card?
Applying for a bank account?

We all have social security numbers. If you can cross-reference it, you can cut down on a tremendous amount of illegals in the worlplace.

Open borders WITH the welfare state is a death sentence for our Sovereign nation. It is bearing itself out. If you advocate open borders, then you must be a globalist.
And that is the antithesis of individual freedom and liberty IN THESE UNITED STATES.

There is a national database for criminals, is there not? If you are here illegally, you are a criminal.

There are a plethora of ways to validate ones "immigration status" and by you always going off the deep end "Then you support a national id???", shows your intellectual dishonesty regarding the situation.

Lord Xar
02-11-2010, 02:23 AM
Spoken like a neo-con.

You sound like a FreeRepublicon.

Excuse me, you sound like a baseless communist. Get lost tard. Your agenda is fairly obvious.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-11-2010, 02:31 AM
Stop playing word games, your desperation to "win" is becoming embarrassing.

Drivers license?
Applying for a job, they check your immigration status?
Applying for school, they check your immigrations status?
Applying for a credit card?
Applying for a bank account?

There is a national database for criminals, is there not? If you are here illegally, you are a criminal.

There are a plethora of ways to validate ones "immigration status" and by you always going off the deep end "Then you support a national id???", shows your intellectual dishonesty regarding the situation.


Whoosh. No one is required to have a drivers license, and many states allow "illegals" to get licenses. Does every single employer check their employees status (Aka, have them show their birth certificate, or work visa)? Nope. How do you fix that? Well, you have to have a National ID system to track those who are legal and you have to intrude into the privacy of the businesses to check if who they have employed are actually legal citizens (By checking their database). How do they do that? Not all illegals are agorists, so they will pay taxes. So the income tax is one way. So the guy is advocating POLICE RAIDS against people who have violated NO ONES RIGHTS. What is tyranny defined again as?

By supporting the foolish notion of invasion of private property you are supporting the Income Tax, National ID databases, and other invasive measures that violate Natural Law.

I think I may have to re-work the saying "The right hates the left more than the State" to "The right hates immigrants and private property more than taxation, invasion of privacy, and tyranny".

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-11-2010, 02:35 AM
There is a national database for criminals, is there not? If you are here illegally, you are a criminal.

.

The Law is often but the tyrants will and is so everytime it violates natural rights.

If you sell raw milk you are a criminal, better throw these people in the National Database. I'm sure they'll write a law that says if you aren't obedient to the State then you are a criminal. North (Or was it South) Carolina has all ready.

Lord Xar
02-11-2010, 02:43 AM
Whoosh. No one is required to have a drivers license, and many states allow "illegals" to get licenses. Does every single employer check their employees status (Aka, have them show their birth certificate, or work visa)? Nope. How do you fix that? Well, you have to have a National ID system to track those who are legal and you have to intrude into the privacy of the businesses to check if who they have employed are actually legal citizens (By checking their database). How do they do that? Not all illegals are agorists, so they will pay taxes. So the income tax is one way. So the guy is advocating POLICE RAIDS against people who have violated NO ONES RIGHTS. What is tyranny defined again as?

By supporting the foolish notion of invasion of private property you are supporting the Income Tax, National ID databases, and other invasive measures that violate Natural Law.

I think I may have to re-work the saying "The right hates the left more than the State" to "The right hates immigrants and private property more than taxation, invasion of privacy, and tyranny".


As it seems your play, you take positions that have so many holes, a mouse would be proud.

Every citizen has a social security number. I mentioned this, did I not? Your social will be cross-referenced for validity. Not hard. Not much more than anything we currently have in place. Just more refined.

Will you catch everyone, no. Will you catch most, yes.

In addition. IF an employer is found to be employing illegals, huge fines. Huge.

They will self-deport.

Listen, if you open border apologists rallied against welfare with such fervor that you do for open borders and the tens upon tens of millions of illegals, and "like it". .. we might be able to end the welfare state. But you, and your ilk, are so open borders that you can never realize the "no welfare state" because the thing you are advocating ie. open borders & its consequences, will breed bigger government, more taxation, and more welfare.

Lord Xar
02-11-2010, 02:45 AM
The Law is often but the tyrants will and is so everytime it violates natural rights.

If you sell raw milk you are a criminal, better throw these people in the National Database. I'm sure they'll write a law that says if you aren't obedient to the State then you are a criminal. North (Or was it South) Carolina has all ready.

This is what I mean. You are too desperate and grasping at straws. I am surprised you didn't use the "jay walking" example. You spiced it up a bit. I like it.

AED, are you an anarchist?

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-11-2010, 02:48 AM
As it seems your play, you take positions that have so many holes, a mouse would be proud.

Every citizen has a social security number. I mentioned this, did I not? Your social will be cross-referenced for validity. Not hard. Not much more than anything we currently have in place. Just more refined.

Will you catch everyone, no. Will you catch most, yes.

In addition. IF an employer is found to be employing illegals, huge fines. Huge.

They will self-deport.

Listen, if you open border apologists rallied against welfare with such fervor that you do for open borders and the tens upon tens of millions of illegals, and "like it". .. we might be able to end the welfare state. But you, and your ilk, are so open borders that you can never realize the "no welfare state" because the thing you are advocating ie. open borders & its consequences, will breed bigger government, more taxation, and more welfare.

I am pro-Private Property and Natural Law. Secondly, what mouse holes? Didn't you just read what I said. It appears you did because you are pimping Social Security (IE National ID cards). What's the substantive difference between SS and Real ID?

After that, you are then advocating stealing (fine), the money and capital of people who have violated no ones rights.

You must really hate immigrants to throw away private property and privacy.

Also, if you are concerned about bigger government and more welfare then you should advocate the deportation of everyone on welfare, and all the socialists, communists, and environmental Statist agrarians.

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-11-2010, 03:15 AM
http://i45.tinypic.com/2czda1s.png

RedStripe
02-11-2010, 09:23 AM
Listen, if you pro-life apologists rallied against welfare with such fervor that you do for pro-life and the tens upon tens of millions of aborted fetuses, and "like it". .. we might be able to end the welfare state. But you, and your ilk, are so pro-life that you can never realize the "no welfare state" because the thing you are advocating ie. no abortions & its consequences, will breed bigger government, more taxation, and more welfare.

See what I did there?

RedStripe
02-11-2010, 09:37 AM
Our nation has a right to set limits and enforce our laws.

It's not "your" nation, and it has no rights.


Cultures need time to assimilate,

Yea, we should probably shut down the internet to give cultures around the globe time to "assimilate."


and no nation or state -- not even a state with the resources of Texas -- can bear the cost of free mass medical services for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from another nation or free education for thousands of their youth.

Um, the number of people that a government can provide services to has nothing to do with the immigration status of the people it is serving. So what exactly is the problem? That the population is growing? That the growing population is disproportionately poorer?

Well, if that's the case, then the real 'solution' is just having fewer poor people being added to the population - a goal that abortion is contributing to. Perhaps we should sterilize anyone not making more than $15k a year. That would help the government sustain it's public services.


We need to be able to differentiate between what we owe a legal guest and what can be expected by someone who has violated our laws.

LOL @ "our laws". You really do think you are "part" of something because the government calls you a citizen. You wear that like cub scout wears his badges (which are given to him just to boost his self-esteem). Here's a reality check: immigration laws aren't "your laws." You have no say. You are chattel. And you just loooooove that brand they placed on your forehead.

Another reality check: you're a lawbreaker. You have broken "our laws" dozens - if not hundreds - of times. I guess you should be deported for defying the will of "my nation."

Nationalism is so stupid.