POLL: Do you support the new AZ immigration law?

[bchavez]

I see libertarians split on this issue....

Ron Paul seems to think it's a bad idea... please vote in the poll to voice your opinion.

Thanks!

I'm not sure where I stand yet....

- States Rights
- Constitution

:confused:

[Zippyjuan]

Libertarians should be opposed to the police being able to randomly stop people to check their papers based on nothing more than the fact that that they "might" appear to be an illegal alien. This sounds more like the old USSR than the USA. Ron is right to oppose this.

[lynnf]

yes! feds won't do their duty to protect this country, so have to do it in their place. kick da bums (illegals) out! oh, by-the-way -- I'm not a libertarian! Paleocon all the way - if I was a libertarian, I'd be in the libertarian party.

lynn

[puppetmaster]

I voted no, but where do you draw the line. Do borders of a country not count for anything?
Is it the that anyone form any country can come without regulation? If that's the case, then why have borders at all. Almost like a one country for the whole planet....

[spudea]

illegal immigrants are the current scapegoats by big government statists. They use the issue as justification to take more of our money for new laws and new enforcement.

"...first (they came) for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . and by that time there was no one left to speak up." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)

[Agorism]

If the police ask you about immigration status, you can always ask for Miranda.

ie...You don't have to answer their inquiry. I don't see what the big deal is unless I'm missing something important about this law.

[treyfu]

End the welfare state, and open the borders. But only in that order...

[MelissaWV]

If the police ask you about immigration status, you can always ask for Miranda.

ie...You don't have to answer their inquiry. I don't see what the big deal is unless I'm missing something important about this law.

Then you are still suspected, and you will be detained until your immigration status can be determined.

[spudea]

If the police ask you about immigration status, you can always ask for Miranda.

ie...You don't have to answer their inquiry. I don't see what the big deal is unless I'm missing something important about this law.

Miranda rights are not applied to non-citizens. Therefore under the AZ law, if police have "reasonable suspicion" that you are not a citizen, when in fact you are, they can violate all your rights. If you take them to court, and the judge says, "well the cop had a suspicion, too bad for you". And the cop might get probation for a week.

[YumYum]

There is a much broader effect that this law will have other then the violation of undocumented worker's human rights. This bill will encourage other states to follow suit in passing similar bills; all of which is in defiance of the federal government. This will further drive a wedge between the states and the federal government. It will force Washington to implement immigration reform.

Also, the protests by Mexicans won't subside. This could get ugly. This could be the spark that divides our country and brings on civil unrest. This will force the hand of Obama to make reforms regarding immigration. If he doesn't, the Mexicans will turn on him, blaming him, and the Democrats will not get the undocumented worker's votes.

[MRoCkEd]

Libertarians should be opposed to the police being able to randomly stop people to check their papers based on nothing more than the fact that that they "might" appear to be an illegal alien. This sounds more like the old USSR than the USA. Ron is right to oppose this.
Yep

[libertygrl]

They need to go after the corporations that hire them in the first place. I saw the documentary Food Inc. last week and they showed how Tyson Foods placed help wanted ads in Mexican newspapers for jobs at the factories. Then our government would act like they were actually doing something about illegal immigration, by sending ICE out to go arrest the illegal employees while not doing anything about those that hired them.

There was a time when Americans made a decent wage working in meat packing plants. It was considered similar to working for Ford or GM. But then with the growth of the fast food industry, they wanted fast and cheaper production. So those American workers could no longer make a living and that's when they started hiring illegals. Bottom line, it's both the poor illegals and working poor Americans who are pitted against one another while these fat cats profit from it. Disgusting! If they would go after the people doing the hiring, the illegal immigrants will self deport.


If you haven't see then film I urge everyone to check it out:

YouTube - Food Inc - Official Trailer [HD] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0)

[erowe1]

Libertarians should be opposed to the police being able to randomly stop people to check their papers based on nothing more than the fact that that they "might" appear to be an illegal alien.

I definitely agree that a law authorizing what you describe is wrong. But is that what this AZ bill actually does? Or do they have to have some other reason to stop them first, like they're speeding. If the latter, it's not quite the same thing.

[TastyWheat]

I'm glad AZ is doing something, but this is going too far. Just go after the businesses. If nobody will hire them then they'll leave on their own. This is basically an attempt to maintain the welfare state though and protectionism for American labor.

[dannno]

Wow, great poll results RPF :cool:

It is ridiculous to take a militant anti-liberty approach against illegals, ESPECIALLY before taking away the free benefits.

I mean, who really wants to lure these people over just so we can have a fascist police round-up?

I bet none of the people who voted "Yes" have brown skin..

[awake]

The immigration problem is going to fix itself. When the welfare state drops so will the immigration rate. Keep your eye on the emigration number though.

[tremendoustie]

If I own property, I have a right to let anyone on it I choose. The bureacrats don't own my property, and they have no right to demand cash or hoop jumping from those who I wish to allow on it (nor do they have a right to go after me for allowing people on my property who haven't paid them sufficient cash, or jumped through a sufficient number of their hoops).

There's no reason people should have to beg and bribe a bunch of bureaucrats to enter what is supposedly a free country.

[Southron]

The welfare state will never end without bloodshed.

[awake]

What if the government put a sign up in front of all retail stores in the country that says everything in the store is now free; how long would it take for the shelf's to empty? Better yet, what if the owners of the stores plead with the government to change their policy and send in the armed police to stop and remove the masses from taking everything. Instead the government writes on the sign a condition, only those who can get a government access card can get in the doors to get the free goods? Does this fix the problem?

The answer is to take the signs down and let the owners decide prices and access.

[RM918]

Wow, great poll results RPF :cool:

It is ridiculous to take a militant anti-liberty approach against illegals, ESPECIALLY before taking away the free benefits.

I mean, who really wants to lure these people over just so we can have a fascist police round-up?

I bet none of the people who voted "Yes" have brown skin..

Come on, the racist argument is below you.

And I voted no by the by.

[dannno]

Come on, the racist argument is below you.

And I voted no by the by.

LOL, you're right, the racist argument is below me, good catch..

Let me clarify... what i meant was that the person who voted 'yes' is not a racist necessarily, but that their rights wouldn't be affected by similar legislation in their area. I would be very surprised to see someone with brown skin who would be affected whether or not they are citizens vote "Yes" in the poll.

[tremendoustie]

What if the government put a sign up in front of all retail stores in the country that says everything in the store is now free; how long would it take for the shelf's to empty? Better yet, what if the owners of the stores plead with the government to change their policy and send in the armed police to stop and remove the masses from taking everything. Instead the government writes on the sign a condition, only those who can get a government access card can get in the doors to get the free goods? Does this fix the problem?

The answer is to take the signs down and let the owners decide prices and access.

Exactly right.

[Danke]

If I own property, I have a right to let anyone on it I choose. The bureacrats don't own my property, and they have no right to demand cash or hoop jumping from those who I wish to allow on it (nor do they have a right to go after me for allowing people on my property who haven't paid them sufficient cash, or jumped through a sufficient number of their hoops).

There's no reason people should have to beg and bribe a bunch of bureaucrats to enter what is supposedly a free country.

Oh? You have allodial title and pay no property taxes?

See FDR's quote below \/

[tremendoustie]

Oh? You have allodial title


Land ownership is land ownership. It is acquired by homesteading, and passed by willing and voluntary exchange. The gang calling themselves "the government" has done nothing to have a legitimate claim on the property.



and pay no property taxes?


Yes, I get mugged on a yearly basis. What of it?



See FDR's quote below \/

They certainly act like they own everything, but I am surprised he would say so so explicitly. Are you sure that quote is not apocryphal? Do you have a source?

[Danke]

Land ownership is land ownership. It is acquired by homesteading, and passed by willing and voluntary exchange. The gang calling themselves "the government" has done nothing to have a legitimate claim on the property.

Yes, I get mugged on a yearly basis. What of it?

They certainly act like they own everything, but I am surprised he would say so so explicitly. Are you sure that quote is not apocryphal? Do you have a source?

I agree, but the point was if you don't pay...especially when we give them the presumption. And do things like record the deed with the county as the Trustee, etc.


Don't remember where I got the quote.

[lester1/2jr]

So if I'm against the iraq war I still have to pay for it, but Arizona is allowed to have it's own immigration policy. that's really fair. they get to vote on sending troops to iraq in response to 9/11 which the people of NYC and DC were like 95% against but we can't vote on things that effect them. must be nice, getting the honey but not the sting vis a vis the central govt

[erowe1]

Are you sure that quote is not apocryphal? Do you have a source?

From googling, it seems to get repeated a lot, but I can't find any source that looks trustworthy. My money's on apocryphal.

[tremendoustie]

I agree, but the point was if you don't pay...especially when we give them the presumption. And do things like record the deed with the county as the Trustee, etc.


Yep, it's true :(

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I don't care what the people in Arizona do. This legislation is going to be expensive. From comments in other threads I have serious reservations if the people of Arizona are going to pay the high price to enforce and litigate.

If Arizona goes broke like California and expects the rest of the states to bail her out I am going to take an interest. In the meantime I will be avoiding Arizona like the plague.

[BuddyRey]

What I see in this new law is the Hegelian Dialectic the press has been playing on us finally coming to fruition. By hyping the illegal immigration issue for so long, the government has the public so panicked that they'll accept *any* solution to the perceived problem, no matter how draconian its implementation might be.

The Feds let this happen by dangling numerous entitlement "carrots" in front of the heads of foreigners for years, on top of waging a drug war that has created a perpetual massacre on the border with thousands killed at the hands of vicious black marketeers. The immigration problem isn't the result of an overly laissez-faire naturalization policy; quite the opposite in fact, since to immigrate legally is to navigate a sea of prohibitive costs and bureaucratic red tape.

In every way, this crisis has been caused by some ill-advised government intervention. And now, they're going to try to remedy the problem they created with more of the very toxin that spawned the ailment.

[devil21]

I voted yes simply because I'm happy to see someone doing something to enforce immigration laws. I'm plain conservative when it comes to illegal immigrants, not "open border" libertarian. The law is a constitutionally questionable gray area (4th amendment vs. Federal responsibility to secure the border...which wins?) but since the police ignore AMERICAN CITIZEN'S 4th amendment rights all the time I'm not overly concerned about illegal immigrant's rights instead. Something needs to be done. I'm not sure this is exactly the right place to start but it's something and any time a state stands up to the Feds I'm inclined to support the state.

[Marenco]

Yes. It's a start.

[Reason]

YouTube - 4409 -- Arrested over Arizona's Real I.D. Paper's Please SB1070 bill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knv6nDZX1mc)

[Bman]

The problems with illegal immigration are caused by the federal government. I don't support the bill, but this was bound to happen and should not be a surprise. All we can hope is that the federal government sees the error of it's ways an takes steps to end the welfare state. However, highly unlikely so maybe this can at least bring state vs fed government to the fore front and make people at the end of the day that America was not created to make government better. It was made to make the individual better.

Of course I'm just dreaming.

[JeNNiF00F00]

No! We already have enough Fascism!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The law is a constitutionally questionable gray area (4th amendment vs. Federal responsibility to secure the border...which wins?)

What gray area?

[Liberty Stud]

Libertarians should be opposed to the police being able to randomly stop people to check their papers based on nothing more than the fact that that they "might" appear to be an illegal alien. This sounds more like the old USSR than the USA. Ron is right to oppose this.

This is not what the law does.

My understanding is that only after people have been pulled over for some violation (ran a red light, etc), only after they have been pulled over, if during the encounter the police notice that the person cannot speak english, does not have a driver's license, etc, then they can inquire about citizenship. Sounds reasonable to me.

How else are we supposed to enforce our immigration laws??

[devil21]

What gray area?

Two parts actually.

1. 4th Amendment vs. Federal exemption for border checkpoints

2. 4th Amendment vs. Federal responsibility to secure borders

Both are more specific parts of Section 8 of the US Constitution:

provide for the common Defence

The common Defence (imho) includes unlawful invasion by millions of citizens of another country without proper Naturalization process, as also provided for in Section 8. I don't see why people stop looking at illegals as invaders simply because they don't wear uniforms and carry guns. Securing the borders is part of providing the common Defence. If the Feds aren't enforcing their constitutional mandate then it becomes a case of which unconstitutional action (or inaction) are you more comfy with. Don't mistake my original post to mean that I agree completely with the law. As with most everything these days it has good and bad uses and of course there will always be violations of the intent.

[Petar]

Wrongheaded approach.

Seems like another case of globalists creating a problem (open borders), so that they can then usher in their own "solution" (violation of 4th amendment rights).

I would say that AZ should focus on all of the Constitutionally sound things that it could be doing to fight illegal immigration, like all of the stuff that Debra Medina would have done as governor of TX, instead of deciding to just use illegal immigration as an excuse to usher in yet more out of control totalitarian government in the USA.

[orenbus]

Brown skinned, law abiding citizen and voted No. If I'm walking to the local convenience store I don't think I should have to bring my birth certificate with me to justify my actions of walking down the street and minding my own business with the only probable cause being I'm brown skinned. This feels a bit like loss of liberty for some security and if I run into a situation where I don't have my birth certificate on me to prove who I am, damn straight I'm going to make sure those that attacked my liberty and those of my fellow citizens know that what they did was wrong.

[MelissaWV]

This is not what the law does.

My understanding is that only after people have been pulled over for some violation (ran a red light, etc), only after they have been pulled over, if during the encounter the police notice that the person cannot speak english, does not have a driver's license, etc, then they can inquire about citizenship. Sounds reasonable to me.

How else are we supposed to enforce our immigration laws??

Your understanding is incorrect. All that is required is suspicion of being in violation of immigration laws. It says nothing about a preliminary offense. Obviously, law enforcement already runs identification and other vital paperwork when they pull someone over... for everyone.

I've already pointed out what the country could do instead. This is a bit like all the pre-crime activity we already have in the country. Who cares if some innocents' rights are violated, when we're catching illegals!

The problems are at employment, once a crime has happened (the example in your post), and when taxpayer benefits are administered. Stopping people on the street who look like immigrants does not target any of those problems.

[MelissaWV]

According to the Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, the following statistics have been recorded concerning the characteristics of offenders who violate and assault children.

* Those inmates who were convicted of committing violent acts against children were more like to have been white, a percentage of nearly 70%, than any other race.
* White inmates were nearly three times more likely to have victimized a child than black inmates.


Having found these startling statistics on the internet, I believe that law enforcement should be able to detain anyone they see as a "potential child molester" based on skin color, without any supporting evidence, and require that they prove beyond all doubt they are NOT a child molester.


Among marijuana treatment admissions for youth, 59 percent were white, 23 percent were Black, 12 percent were Hispanic, 2 percent were Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 2 percent were American Indian and Alaska Natives.

While they are at it, LE should administer a drug test.

What? That's absurd? Isn't it.

[Stary Hickory]

I agree with harsh enforcement but not random stops. There should have to be a legitimate reason for stopping the individual. Like traffic violations(real ones), social services check in, crimes, and for employment.

Illegals should be checked in those circumstances, and that means we all would be checked. In anyone of these instances you are required to identify yourself. So then citizenship status would necessarily be checked too.

[angelatc]

Your understanding is incorrect. All that is required is suspicion of being in violation of immigration laws. It says nothing about a preliminary offense. Obviously, law enforcement already runs identification and other vital paperwork when they pull someone over... for everyone.



I still don't think this is any different than drug laws. All they need is an anonymous informant to report an offender, and bam! Probable cause.

I'm still skeptical that the law will result in people being stopped on the street. The courts have ruled repeatedly that isn't legal in any context that I am aware of, and there's certainly no good reason to think that the lawmakers in Arizona aren't aware of that.

Now the civil libertarians can spout off that the drug laws are wrong too, and you'd be right, but the truth is that the courts have already established precedents about how far the police are allowed to go when looking for criminals.

I wish Obama actually was concerned about our rights. Instead, he signed the extension of the Patriot Act.

[angelatc]

Having found these startling statistics on the internet, I believe that law enforcement should be able to detain anyone they see as a "potential child molester" based on skin color, without any supporting evidence, and require that they prove beyond all doubt they are NOT a child molester.

While they are at it, LE should administer a drug test.

What? That's absurd? Isn't it.

Not, but the courts have consistently ruled it illegal. But if you call and anonymously report me, then it's legal. It sucks, but that's reality.

They want to live here, they can play by our rules.

[ViniVidiVici]

I'm sort of stuck on it. The bill gives state law enforcement the same powers the federal government already has so I don't see how its unconstitutional (unless you want to argue that federal enforcement of immigration is unconstitutional as well). But I'm hesitant to support it because everytime you give the government an inch, it takes a mile. What's going to be next? Real ID, mandatory chip implants with our information, etc.?

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Nope, not a fan of the police state.

There are better ways to do this.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I cant wait to see the report of an American citizen getting deported.

[AuH20]

The problems with illegal immigration are caused by the federal government. I don't support the bill, but this was bound to happen and should not be a surprise. All we can hope is that the federal government sees the error of it's ways an takes steps to end the welfare state. However, highly unlikely so maybe this can at least bring state vs fed government to the fore front and make people at the end of the day that America was not created to make government better. It was made to make the individual better.

Of course I'm just dreaming.

Exactly. The state was forced to enact this law but domestic violence will coming regardless.

[tremendoustie]

They want to live here, they can play by our rules.

Actually, if they want to live on my land, it's my business, not yours, or anyone else's. You don't own the land, and you don't own the people.

[AuH20]

Wow, great poll results RPF :cool:

It is ridiculous to take a militant anti-liberty approach against illegals, ESPECIALLY before taking away the free benefits.

I mean, who really wants to lure these people over just so we can have a fascist police round-up?

I bet none of the people who voted "Yes" have brown skin..

Explain to me how we're going to take away these free benefits within the current framework? I'm all ears. Explain to me how a pure libertarian philosophy gets this accomplished as of April 26th, 2010? They can't even cut teacher salary hikes during a major recession.

[tremendoustie]

How else are we supposed to enforce our immigration laws??

How about we let people decide who they allow on their property, instead of dictating that property owners are not allowed to accept people until they pay off a bunch of bureaucrats, and jump through a bunch of absurd hoops?

[tremendoustie]

Explain to me how we're going to take away these free benefits within the current framework? I'm all ears. Explain to me how a pure libertarian philosophy gets this accomplished as of April 26th, 2010? They can't even cut teacher salary hikes during a major recession.

State nullification is a good approach. Also, the federal government's going bankrupt anyway, and they're going to have to cut back. Individual civil disobedience is also good, jury nullification, etc.

The solution is not more tyranny, to try to fix the problems of other tyranny. Tyranny always creates more problems. And I'm not living in a police state in order to save government some money. If it's my liberties or their checkbook, they can go bankrupt as far as I'm concerned.

It's going to happen anyway. Maybe if they start going broke, they'll wise up, and bring the troops home.

[AuH20]

State nullification is a good approach. Also, the federal government's going bankrupt anyway, and they're going to have to cut back. Individual civil disobedience is also good, jury nullification, etc.

The solution is not more tyranny, to try to fix the problems of other tyranny. Tyranny always creates more problems. And I'm not living in a police state in order to save government some money. If it's my liberties or their checkbook, they can go bankrupt as far as I'm concerned.

It's going to happen anyway. Maybe if they start going broke, they'll wise up, and bring the troops home.

I view the bill as a temporary stopgap. It's not a longterm solution. It's better the authorities attempt to defuse the situation as opposed to an angry populace.

[werdd]

Why racial profile when you can eliminate the incentive to come here?

[Stary Hickory]

Exactly. The state was forced to enact this law but domestic violence will coming regardless.

You can really narrow it down quite nicely. The initation of force is the welfare state and those who are on the dole are the ones iniating force using the government as a weapon.

The AZ law is a measure of self defense. Violent action begets a violent response. The problem with the AZ law is that it needs to not be selective meaing all citizens should be checked when they are presenting ID for employment or other purposes.

[tremendoustie]

You can really narrow it down quite nicely. The initation of force is the welfare state and those who are on the dole are the ones iniating force using the government as a weapon.

The AZ law is a measure of self defense. Violent action begets a violent response. The problem with the AZ law is that it needs to not be selective meaing all citizens should be checked when they are presenting ID for employment or other purposes.

Self defense would be against those initiating the aggression. If you want to arrest politicians who support the welfare state, fine. Going after anyone who moves here means going after a lot of innocent people.

Having to show government paperwork on command is more tyranny, not a defense against tyranny.

[erowe1]

those who are on the dole are the ones iniating force using the government as a weapon.

I can't accept that explanation. It is the state itself that initiates force. Those of us who accept what the state offers us subsequent to that aren't initiating it. Being against welfare doesn't obligate someone to forswear it while it's available to him any more than being against public roads obligates us to forswear those too. Saying otherwise is like all the liberals insisting that libertarians and conservatives shouldn't accept their Social Security when they start getting it.

People here at RPF's should get that, even if some Nobel Prize winners don't.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/the-new-yorker-explains-resolution-authority/

[tremendoustie]

I can't accept that explanation. It is the state itself that initiates force. Those of us who accept what the state offers us subsequent to that aren't initiating it. Being against welfare doesn't obligate someone to forswear it while it's available to him any more than being against public roads obligates us to forswear those too. Saying otherwise is like all the liberals insisting that libertarians and conservatives shouldn't accept their Social Security when they start getting it.

People here at RPF's should get that, even if some Nobel Prize winners don't.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/the-new-yorker-explains-resolution-authority/ (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/the-new-yorker-explains-resolution-authority/)

I agree

[fj45lvr]

being here illegally is a crime....my father was a police officer and it burned him that when making contact with speeders etc. that he would find mexican's with no drivers licenses, no insurance and they were just cited and let go (really the police should be able to take them into custody and then they be deported)....if you drive without a license as a citizen they do have the right to place you in custody until they verify your identity...most people with "warrants" give false identities when stopped by the police.

[tremendoustie]

being here illegally is a crime....


Malum prohibitum, not malum in se

Malum prohibitum is B.S.

What really would be illegal, if there were any sort of justice, would be presuming to dictate to others who they may allow on their property, or who they may do business with.



my father was a police officer and it burned him that when making contact with speeders etc. that he would find mexican's with no drivers licenses, no insurance and they were just cited and let go (really the police should be able to take them into custody and then they be deported)


Really, unless they're harming someone else, or someone else's property, or posing an immediate threat to them, they should be left alone.



....if you drive without a license as a citizen they do have the right to place you in custody until they verify your identity...


They don't have a right to, but they do ...

To be completely accurate, the roads are unowned -- so to arrest someone would require them to have harmed others, or the property of others.

If a road were owned, the owner would have the right to put rules on its use.



.most people with "warrants" give false identities when stopped by the police.

The fact that some who harm others might benefit to some extent from not having to have ID, does not give police the right to demand that everyone carry ID -- just as most people who steal stuff hide it in their home, but that doesn't mean police have a right to just search everyone's property.

[Stary Hickory]

Self defense would be against those initiating the aggression. If you want to arrest politicians who support the welfare state, fine. Going after anyone who moves here means going after a lot of innocent people.

Having to show government paperwork on command is more tyranny, not a defense against tyranny.

Absolutely not, the government is the same as any other weapon. If you wield it to rob your neighbor then you are guilty. If you hire a man to rob someone on your behalf you are guilty. If you request a man rob someone on your behalf you are guilty.

You cannot defend people who use government force for their own benefit and not contradict yourself. The government is a product of the voting populace, they constructed the violent institutions they maintain them and support them for material gain. They are guilty. There is no innocence here.

Having to identify oneself when being detained for violations of the law is NOT tyranny. Nor is providing proof of citizenship when attempting to access government services.

[erowe1]

A]If you hire a man to rob someone on your behalf you are guilty.

But we don't hire the government. The government is more like the Mafia, stealing taxes from you in exchange for services you didn't ask for. If those services were really things we'd hire them for willingly, then they wouldn't need to use coercive methods to fund them. The fact that someone then accepts whatever the government offers after they already had the system in which that service is delivered imposed upon them without their consent does not make that person a party to the theft.

[erowe1]

he will judge by suspicious behavior, such as you probably don't know English, which is a requirement to become a citizen

1) How would a police officer figure out if a person probably doesn't know any English?

2) Even if a person doesn't know any English at all, and thus could not pass a citizenship test, how would that be suspicious? Is there some law that says nobody other than a US citizen is allowed to go to a convenience store?

[ARealConservative]

other - my vote of condemnation for a state I do not belong to is not something I am interested in giving.

Residents of that state should have the power to do what they think is necessary to combat problems the way THEY think it would work.

[MelissaWV]

I think this is being overreacted, if your going to a convenient store and you are Hispanic the officers isn't going to just ask you if you are here illegally, he will judge by suspicious behavior, such as you probably don't know English, which is a requirement to become a citizen, or are doing something suspicious in the store, where then he has every right to talk to you.

Except that a) you can be a citizen without your official language being English, b) as I explained on another thread, you may be detained for suspicion of a removable offense. Being here is a removable offense.

You may be asked for your papers, then, if the officer suspects you are here illegally for any reason. Justification of that clause will be where lawsuits and other problems come into play. It's fine. The Federal Government has already more or less indicated they may leap into this and "fix" the problem.

[Stary Hickory]

But we don't hire the government. The government is more like the Mafia, stealing taxes from you in exchange for services you didn't ask for. If those services were really things we'd hire them for willingly, then they wouldn't need to use coercive methods to fund them. The fact that someone then accepts whatever the government offers after they already had the system in which that service is delivered imposed upon them without their consent does not make that person a party to the theft.

There are plenty of people takign welfare, tax credits, asking for government jobs, increased salaries. These people are acting independtly for personal gain quite directly. Anyone who supports big government is also guilty. You can not voice support for the mafia and help them get and maintain power without being guilty.

[MelissaWV]

I think it borders a line, but I still believe doing nothing is not fixing the problem either. Here is a sheriff who is very Ron Paul friendly justifying the immigration law.
And here is a video of my state senator justifying the bill as well, does it pretty well I think.

http://video.tvguide.com/Anderson+Cooper+360/Illegal+immigrants+called+criminals/5030363?autoplay=true&partnerid=OVG

YouTube - Sheriff: 'We Need Help' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIrhlGVjc_g)


Yes, there are a whole lot of problems in Arizona with illegals being illegally employed, committing crimes, and getting welfare/benefits. This bill is a disaster waiting to happen, and does not address those items uniformly. It also includes e-verify, which most of the people on these forums hated, but now seem okay with. :(

[erowe1]

There are plenty of people takign welfare, tax credits, asking for government jobs, increased salaries.
Of course there are. This includes people who are U.S. citizens. Those programs are all wrong (except for increased salaries--I'm not sure why you include that). But that doesn't mean that the recipients of them are.


You can not voice support for the mafia and help them get and maintain power without being guilty.
That's true. But accepting the freebies does not entail voicing support of them.

[tremendoustie]

Absolutely not, the government is the same as any other weapon. If you wield it to rob your neighbor then you are guilty. If you hire a man to rob someone on your behalf you are guilty. If you request a man rob someone on your behalf you are guilty.


I agree, completely.



You cannot defend people who use government force for their own benefit and not contradict yourself. The government is a product of the voting populace, they constructed the violent institutions they maintain them and support them for material gain. They are guilty. There is no innocence here.


The fact that a person is in the country does not mean they use or advocate the use of government force for their own benefit. They might very well be victims of that force.



Having to identify oneself when being detained for violations of the law is NOT tyranny.


Yes, it can be -- especially depending on the law. If a person has harmed others or their property, they owe restitution. If they're also clearly an imminent and ongoing threat to others, then it could be right to imprison them. That's it.

Many laws are malum prohibitum, and have nothing to do with stopping those who harm others. Immigration is in this category.



Nor is providing proof of citizenship when attempting to access government services.

Well, that's a mixed bag. If a person is going to be forced to pay taxes, I'd say they should be able to use the services. I'd rather people be checked to see if they're taxpayers, if we're going to check something. Better yet, return the services to the free market ...

In any case, that's not what this law does. This law advocates the deportation or imprisonment of people for no better reason than that they failed to jump through enough bureaucratic hoops, or pay the government enough money. That's just wrong, period. It also forced everyone to show their papers, on demand, which is absolutely tyrannical.

[dannno]

Explain to me how we're going to take away these free benefits within the current framework? I'm all ears. Explain to me how a pure libertarian philosophy gets this accomplished as of April 26th, 2010? They can't even cut teacher salary hikes during a major recession.

So, your alternative to taking away benefits for illegals is to throw the Constitution in the fucking trash can and create a giant police state?! Are you fucking kidding me? Don't you know this is precisely WHY people like Rand and Ron and Schiff talk about securing our border and taking away benefits, but they don't talk about going around kidnapping Mexicans and throwing them back on the other side of the border? Especially when we don't even have a secure border!!! We're talking about throwing Mexicans back over there just so they can come right back! Great solution!

1. Take away benefits (this can be done overnight.. simply require beneficiaries to prove they are citizens)

2. Secure the border (won't be very hard when the benefits are gone.. maybe not even necessary)


WTH happened to the poll?! We were at 82% who understood the Constitution at RPF, I was so proud.. now we are down to 64% who understand the Constitution?? WTF :mad:

[speciallyblend]

palin/romney bots!!!

[Danke]

Malum prohibitum, not malum in se

Malum prohibitum is B.S.

What really would be illegal, if there were any sort of justice, would be presuming to dictate to others who they may allow on their property, or who they may do business with.



Really, unless they're harming someone else, or someone else's property, or posing an immediate threat to them, they should be left alone.



They don't have a right to, but they do ...

To be completely accurate, the roads are unowned -- so to arrest someone would require them to have harmed others, or the property of others.

If a road were owned, the owner would have the right to put rules on its use.



The fact that some who harm others might benefit to some extent from not having to have ID, does not give police the right to demand that everyone carry ID -- just as most people who steal stuff hide it in their home, but that doesn't mean police have a right to just search everyone's property.

Exactly.

[Brian4Liberty]

Libertarians should be opposed to the police being able to randomly stop people to check their papers based on nothing more than the fact that that they "might" appear to be an illegal alien.

Yes, random checks should be opposed.


What I see in this new law is the Hegelian Dialectic the press has been playing on us finally coming to fruition. By hyping the illegal immigration issue for so long, the government has the public so panicked that they'll accept *any* solution to the perceived problem, no matter how draconian its implementation might be.
...
In every way, this crisis has been caused by some ill-advised government intervention. And now, they're going to try to remedy the problem they created with more of the very toxin that spawned the ailment.

Yes, whether intended or not, this is the result. The government is going to use this to push through a "comprehensive" reform.


I voted yes simply because I'm happy to see someone doing something to enforce immigration laws.

Yes, the immigration laws should be enforced. How to do it is the question.


I agree with harsh enforcement but not random stops. There should have to be a legitimate reason for stopping the individual. Like traffic violations(real ones), social services check in, crimes, and for employment.


Sounds good.

Enforcing employment rules should be the number one priority. Random checks of people on the street should not be allowed, period. If people are caught for a crime or violation and are determined to be illegal immigrants, then they should be turned over to the proper department (INS). The current scenario where illegal immigrants get more rights than US citizens has to stop (for example, if they are let go in certain instances where a US citizen would not, due to hassle or local "sanctuary" laws).

Another aspect that has not been addressed is people on vacation! Just because their English is not perfect does not mean they should be harassed.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I think this is being overreacted, if your going to a convenient store and you are Hispanic the officers isn't going to just ask you if you are here illegally, he will judge by suspicious behavior, such as you probably don't know English, which is a requirement to become a citizen, or are doing something suspicious in the store, where then he has every right to talk to you.

They're coming for the Arabs next. :P

[John Taylor]

They're coming for the Arabs next. :P

If they're here illegally, boot them too.

[AuH20]

So, your alternative to taking away benefits for illegals is to throw the Constitution in the fucking trash can and create a giant police state?! Are you fucking kidding me? Don't you know this is precisely WHY people like Rand and Ron and Schiff talk about securing our border and taking away benefits, but they don't talk about going around kidnapping Mexicans and throwing them back on the other side of the border? Especially when we don't even have a secure border!!! We're talking about throwing Mexicans back over there just so they can come right back! Great solution!

1. Take away benefits (this can be done overnight.. simply require beneficiaries to prove they are citizens)

2. Secure the border (won't be very hard when the benefits are gone.. maybe not even necessary)


WTH happened to the poll?! We were at 82% who understood the Constitution at RPF, I was so proud.. now we are down to 64% who understand the Constitution?? WTF :mad:


Danno, do you want the people to take the law into their own hands? It's a simple question. I'm distrustful of the state, but anyone who exercises their right to self-defense will be sued to kingdom come or jailed. You are an advocate for personal responsibility and private property rights? Right?

[constituent]

Since all these efforts to get "liberty" candidates elected to office is alleged to mean something, I just want to make sure that we all do in fact support amending the Tariff Act of 1930, specifically Subtitle III, Part II, § 1459. Reporting Requirements for Individuals to include an exception for all natural born citizens of the United States, correct?

[sofia]

Libertarians should be opposed to the police being able to randomly stop people to check their papers based on nothing more than the fact that that they "might" appear to be an illegal alien. This sounds more like the old USSR than the USA. Ron is right to oppose this.

it's not "random"


there has to be probable cause...same standard as any other crime

[Fr3shjive]

it's not "random"


there has to be probable cause...same standard as any other crime
What is probable cause?

I Speak spanish and I am of Mexican descent. Do I now run the risk of being detained by police?

My grandfather is an American citizen, doesnt speak English, wear cowboys boots and hats, and listens to mariachi music. Does that warrant probable cause to pull him over?

[constituent]

My grandfather is an American citizen, doesnt speak English, wear cowboys boots and hats, and listens to mariachi music. Does that warrant probable cause to pull him over?

hey man, if that's probable cause they'd have to pull me over too! :D

[JeNNiF00F00]

If they're here illegally, boot them too.


The problem is how the law will be taking care of things. Back when I was a fascist neocon(right wing socialist), I probably would have supported this law. However I have learned a lot since then about Liberty. Asking for papers is not the way to go. Socialists do this crap. Not people who favor Liberty.

[Stary Hickory]

The problem is how the law will be taking care of things. Back when I was a fascist neocon(right wing socialist), I probably would have supported this law. However I have learned a lot since then about Liberty. Asking for papers is not the way to go. Socialists do this crap. Not people who favor Liberty.

What is the answer? And what is this constant misrepresentation of presenting papers? You do this already when the police pull you over for violations. It seems absolutely absurd to me to say ok" well good luck Mr. illegal alien next time try and keep it under 65mph".

If the police are in a position which requires them to ask for your drivers license or identification it makes perfect sense to check if they are even citizens of the US. The fact of the matter is, the cops will not even have to ask you any more questions than they already do unless you have no way to identify yourself.

And let me repeat I do not support random stops, but the very notion the police must let illegal immigrants go when they no they are illegals is absurd.

[Stary Hickory]

Of course there are. This includes people who are U.S. citizens. Those programs are all wrong (except for increased salaries--I'm not sure why you include that). But that doesn't mean that the recipients of them are.


That's true. But accepting the freebies does not entail voicing support of them.

The people supporting the increase in government and the increase in programs as well as those who accept and use the system are guilty. You cannot simply have no one guilty when massive acts of violence and imorality are being comitted and whose continuance relies on the support of people.

The people who take money from other using the government are guilty. They understand where it comes from, there are people(government workers) protesting for tax increases. This is criminal. You are arguing that people are not responsible for their actions.

There was a time in this country when people felt ashamed to take government aid. Now it's ok..at least according to you

[fj45lvr]

Ron Paul doesn't think we should have open borders.

If you believe in the Federal Gov. you must believe that one of the fundamental purposes of if was for "defense", stopping the illegal immigration is defending our well being.

How can people honestly believe that those that sneak across our borders (knowing that they are doing something they can't legally do) are not "invading"? They have already demonstrated that they have a low level of character.

I am for limited immigration of people that have something to offer (at least the minimum standards to join the military). Why allow "third world" culture and education to come here and bring our communities down to that status??

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

What is the answer? And what is this constant misrepresentation of presenting papers? You do this already when the police pull you over for violations. It seems absolutely absurd to me to say ok" well good luck Mr. illegal alien next time try and keep it under 65mph".

What is the constant misrepresentation of the constitution using the discriminatory, isolationist, quota setting phrase "illegal" alien?


How can people honestly believe that those that sneak across our borders (knowing that they are doing something they can't legally do) are not "invading"?

What is the constant misrepresentation of the constitution using war terminology such as "invasion" without a declared enemy?

[erowe1]

The people supporting the increase in government and the increase in programs as well as those who accept and use the system are guilty.
Hogwash. Old people today who accept Social Security are not guilty, nor are people who drive on public roads or who allow publicly financed fire fighters to put out fires in their houses or who call the police when their houses get broken into.



You cannot simply have no one guilty when massive acts of violence and imorality are being comitted and whose continuance relies on the support of people.

Correct. And we don't have no one guilty. We have a state that is guilty.


The people who take money from other using the government are guilty.
Again. Hogwash. See above.

[fj45lvr]

I have only had 2 real personal problems with most likely illegals:

1st (not verified illegal) was a hispanic male used my social security number and racked up a phone bill and I was denied being able to get a phone line because of it and threatened that I would have to pay the bill even though the guy used the name "roberto romero" rather than my name!!

2nd I was in a no-fault traffic accident with on 2 different occassions with mexican americans that had no drivers license or auto insurance.

[Stary Hickory]

What is the constant misrepresentation of the constitution using the discriminatory, isolationist, quota setting phrase "illegal" alien?


let me see did you make a point here? or are you just trying to muddle the issue. I could care less what it is called. But lets be honest here, you absolutely have to have a term that identifies those that cross the border illegally and come to the US. If you don't like the above term please give me one you prefer and get back to me ok? Lets try and make it something everyone will recognize ok? So we can communicate effectvely. Geez



What is the constant misrepresentation of the constitution using war terminology such as "invasion" without a declared enemy?]

Hmm not sure I coined that one, ask the guy who did


Next...

[bruce leeroy]

What is probable cause?

I Speak spanish and I am of Mexican descent. Do I now run the risk of being detained by police?

My grandfather is an American citizen, doesnt speak English, wear cowboys boots and hats, and listens to mariachi music. Does that warrant probable cause to pull him over?

only if he drives a ford pickup with his last name on the back winshield in olde english letters, and has a case of bud light in a cooler in the back and a pack of marlboro reds on the dash............in that case, get him!!!!!!!!!

[erowe1]

The people supporting the increase in government and the increase in programs as well as those who accept and use the system are guilty.
Hogwash. Old people today who accept Social Security are not guilty, nor are people who drive on public roads or who allow publicly financed fire fighters to put out fires in their houses or who call the police when their houses get broken into.



You cannot simply have no one guilty when massive acts of violence and imorality are being comitted and whose continuance relies on the support of people.

Correct. And we don't have no one guilty. We have a state that is guilty.


The people who take money from other using the government are guilty.
Again. Hogwash. See above.


There was a time in this country when people felt ashamed to take government aid.

No there wasn't.

[Stary Hickory]

Hogwash. Old people today who accept Social Security are not guilty, nor are people who drive on public roads or who allow publicly financed fire fighters to put out fires in their houses or who call the police when their houses get broken into.

Absolutely yes, and not hogwash. You are immediately grasping for the ludicrous in defense of the indefensible. Anyone who supports and prospers from the state and those around them are guilty. SS members payed into the system for years. They were promised a retirement plan in return. Roads are a monoply enforced by government violence. And you next go to the state and community level at which I am not even talking about.

Yet you expressly ignore welfare recipients, people on disability, government workers, and all those wonderful people who avidly support the theft and taxation of OTHER Americans. In your mind it is not the actions of men who cause problems but a fictional entity called the state. This is absolute nonsense. The people who commit these crimes are composed of ACTING men and women, the people who benefit from these crimes are men and women, and the people who empower and support the institutions of violence are men and women.

I hold those that enable and empower, those that benefit and encourage theft, and those that dream up these scams all guilty. I don't charge just some fictional entity with these crimes, because this is absolutely absurd it ascribes blame for crimes committed by men to something that does not exist...except as a concept. Therefore removing all blame from those that cause our problems.

These people earn my contempt and disgust, and the ones who cheer for tax increases and who understand this is the way to line their pockets...well they are downright thugs.

[Athan]

Yeah getting stopped because I'm a beaner isn't something I support.
I support enforcing current immigration laws, but AZ went off the Hilter end.

[Bergie Bergeron]

YouTube - SA@TAC - Praising Arizona (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaJOIJ6qmtI&playnext_from=TL&videos=cLNNKU-Re0I&feature=sub)

Didn't expect that from Jack Hunter.

[tpreitzel]

YouTube - SA@TAC - Praising Arizona (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaJOIJ6qmtI&playnext_from=TL&videos=cLNNKU-Re0I&feature=sub)

Didn't expect that from Jack Hunter.

Excellent and concise commentary on this issue.

[Tend yer biscuits.]

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-libertarian-problem/


What does this all amount to? The support around Paul's campaign, though intellectually vibrant, was relatively small. Far too small, it would seem, to make any real dent in the current two-party regime (Audit the Fed notwithstanding). But the myth that libertarianism and traditionalist conservatism are one and the same is going to come crashing down when amnesty is brought before Congress. Despite the claims of my friend Jack Hunter or my friends at Young Americans for Liberty (who's new membership t-shirts read "classically liberal, traditionally conservative"), there are major differences between radical libertarianism and radical traditionalism. The areas where we agree on policy are, for the most part, by coincidence.

This article was dismissed as "statist shit" on another thread. But I think it is right to point out the fragility of the libertarian/traddie alliance. A significant portion of Ron Paul's support has come from outside of libertarian circles. Splits like this shouldn't be surprising.


As much as many would like to believe the growing libertarian movement is based on an outpouring of intellectual curiosity about the Austrian business cycle, it has a lot more to do with buzzwords like "liberty" and an irrational worship of the individual. In this way, it has a lot more in common with the "hope" and "change" movement on the left than it does with anything written by Schmitt or de Maistre or Jünger or Chesterton or Kirk or Evola or Buchanan.

The importance of the nation-state and the nature of Americans as a western people will be the dividing lines in this battle, and libertarians will find themselves in bed with Obama and Pelosi.

[Southron]

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-libertarian-problem/



This article was dismissed as "statist shit" on another thread. But I think it is right to point out the fragility of the libertarian/traddie alliance. A significant portion of Ron Paul's support has come from outside of libertarian circles. Splits like this shouldn't be surprising.


Very interesting article. You can already see it playing out on these forums.

[AuH20]

YouTube - SA@TAC - Praising Arizona (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaJOIJ6qmtI&playnext_from=TL&videos=cLNNKU-Re0I&feature=sub)

Didn't expect that from Jack Hunter.

Common sense Paleo. I always knew he was. Illegal immigration is a fast-acting poison. Imagine dropping 20 million Americans in Nigeria. The same chaos would ensue.

[Brian4Liberty]

But the myth that libertarianism and traditionalist conservatism are one and the same is going to come crashing down when amnesty is brought before Congress. Despite the claims of my friend Jack Hunter or my friends at Young Americans for Liberty (who's new membership t-shirts read "classically liberal, traditionally conservative"), there are major differences between radical libertarianism and radical traditionalism. The areas where we agree on policy are, for the most part, by coincidence.

I would submit that Paleos and libertarians agree on the vast majority of issues.

The fact that some libertarians agree with Republicans, Democrats, the most powerful lobby groups, the Oligarchy and the globalists on the issue of immigration and borders is the strange "coincidence". ;)

[dannno]

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-libertarian-problem/



This article was dismissed as "statist shit" on another thread. But I think it is right to point out the fragility of the libertarian/traddie alliance. A significant portion of Ron Paul's support has come from outside of libertarian circles. Splits like this shouldn't be surprising.

No, that's all bullshit, you aren't listening to us and you arent' taking any time to understand the libertarian viewpoint, and neither does the author. So LISTEN for a second.

Most libertarians don't want amnesty, and NO libertarian here that I am aware of would want amnesty right now, so the author is wrong, wrong wrong about libertarians being in bed with Obama and Pelosi over amnesty. Total horse shit. Most libertarians understand how the welfare state encourages immigration and why protecting borders is important in said welfare state when their money is being used to subsidize it. Only in a libertarian utopia would most libertarians consider the idea of open borders.

This debate is SUPPOSED to be about you being fascist and ok with foregoing the fourth amendment and not having any consideration for AMERICAN CITIZENS rights, this debate is not about amnesty. You are mis-directing, and that is a forum technique that is used by US intelligence and you are using it to cause and incite divisiveness.

Secondly, I said that the statement the author made about individual liberty being similar to hope and change is statist bullshit. It is, not the entire article, but portions of it are pure un-adulterated statist bullshit. I wouldn't be surprised if that crap was written by the CIA. I wouldn't be surprised if you and your cohorts work for them, either. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't. I'm not paranoid, I just know how they work and you are spinning this argument into something it isn't and trying to incite divisiveness.

[low preference guy]

danno, come down dude.

[dannno]

No, that article is pure bullshit and there are fucking rEVOLution logos all over it (edit: ok, maybe just in the title.. but many of the articles on the site talk about RP) and it is saying individual liberty is bad.

Statist bullshit with Ron Paul's name on it is something to get fucking upset about :mad:

[The Patriot]

Danno, you exemplify why the Libertarian Party will never get elected, ever. Most reasonable and rational Americans recognize that what Arizona is doing is a common sense solution within the Constitution(4th amendment allows reasonable searches and the Feds have no authority on immigration laws) to address a serious problem. You see, people who live in the real world instead of the theoretical an-cap society recognize that mass immigration from the third world breaks the bank, corrodes western culture, and creates a voting block for the democrats who wish to expand the state further into our lives(economic and social freedom is on in the same in my book). You spout off absurd conspiracy theories, like suggesting someone opposed to Amnesty and Open borders=CIA. You sound like a crazy person.
cap
BTW, I am an ardent Libertarian, and I would love an An-Cap society, but it just won't happen in my lifetime.

[JeNNiF00F00]

What is the answer? And what is this constant misrepresentation of presenting papers? You do this already when the police pull you over for violations. It seems absolutely absurd to me to say ok" well good luck Mr. illegal alien next time try and keep it under 65mph".

If the police are in a position which requires them to ask for your drivers license or identification it makes perfect sense to check if they are even citizens of the US. The fact of the matter is, the cops will not even have to ask you any more questions than they already do unless you have no way to identify yourself.

And let me repeat I do not support random stops, but the very notion the police must let illegal immigrants go when they no they are illegals is absurd.

So you agree with the National ID then?

[Knightskye]

I'm with Judge Napolitano.

No.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Danno, you exemplify why the Libertarian Party will never get elected, ever. Most reasonable and rational Americans recognize that what Arizona is doing is a common sense solution within the Constitution(4th amendment allows reasonable searches and the Feds have no authority on immigration laws) to address a serious problem. You see, people who live in the real world instead of the theoretical an-cap society recognize that mass immigration from the third world breaks the bank, corrodes western culture, and creates a voting block for the democrats who wish to expand the state further into our lives(economic and social freedom is on in the same in my book). You spout off absurd conspiracy theories, like suggesting someone opposed to Amnesty and Open borders=CIA. You sound like a crazy person.
cap
BTW, I am an ardent Libertarian, and I would love an An-Cap society, but it just won't happen in my lifetime.

And I would have to say that you exemplify why there is tyranny in the US. I would also like to say that think before you start tossing insults about other parties, and philosophies. A lot of us are registered republicans.

[The Patriot]

And I would have to say that you exemplify why there is tyranny in the US. I would also like to say that think before you start tossing insults about other parties, and philosophies. A lot of us are registered republicans.

The Constitution is tyrannical?

[akforme]

Danno, you exemplify why the Libertarian Party will never get elected, ever. Most reasonable and rational Americans recognize that what Arizona is doing is a common sense solution within the Constitution(4th amendment allows reasonable searches and the Feds have no authority on immigration laws) to address a serious problem. You see, people who live in the real world instead of the theoretical an-cap society recognize that mass immigration from the third world breaks the bank, corrodes western culture, and creates a voting block for the democrats who wish to expand the state further into our lives(economic and social freedom is on in the same in my book). You spout off absurd conspiracy theories, like suggesting someone opposed to Amnesty and Open borders=CIA. You sound like a crazy person.
cap
BTW, I am an ardent Libertarian, and I would love an An-Cap society, but it just won't happen in my lifetime.

"Most reasonable and rational Americans " also support the financial reform that's coming and thought Obama was change.

This is a police state action to cover up a problem created by government. I'm not willing to give up my rights for a government mistake they aren't willing to really address.

[The Patriot]

"Most reasonable and rational Americans " also support the financial reform that's coming and thought Obama was change.

This is a police state action to cover up a problem created by government. I'm not willing to give up my rights for a government mistake they aren't willing to really address.

You aren't losing any Constitutional Rights, this is well within the fourth amendment. And the State of Arizona is addressing a problem within it's Constitutional jurisdiction. Constitutionally speaking, as per the tenth amendment, immigration is a state issue.

[Tend yer biscuits.]

I'm not inciting divisiveness. I'm offering an explanation for why it's already there. The paleos and libertarians are an awkward match. Always have been. They just happen to agree on debt, foreign policy, and state's rights.

[dannno]

suggesting someone opposed to Amnesty and Open borders=CIA. You sound like a crazy person.



Are you serious?? My entire post was DEDICATED TO SAYING THAT LIBERTARIANS OPPOSE AMNESTY AND OPEN BORDERS RIGHT NOW!! And look at what you said.. it's like you ignored the ENTIRE post. Everybody on your side ignores everything that our side says and is completely intellectually dishonest.

Why can't you people take in an argument instead of shutting down and spouting off a bunch of statist crap about how violating AMERICAN CITIZENS 4th amendment rights with ILLEGAL searches and seizures OF AMERICAN CITIZENS is actually some how legitimate :confused:

You are also spouting a bunch of garbage about Mexicans making our economy worse like someone who believes in global warming, it's like a religion for you and you can't consider the POSSIBILITY that they have actually improved our economy by providing cheap labor, and helped to keep our manufacturing base here rather than exporting more of it to China!!

[JeNNiF00F00]

The Constitution is tyrannical?

National Socialism and the Police State is. This law could/would BYPASS your 4th amendment rights. Do you not understand the nature of how cops work to bypass your natural rights? Don't ask stupid questions. This law is no different than the Patriot Act, or FISA.

[dannno]

Constitutionally speaking, as per the tenth amendment, immigration is a state issue.

The states CANNOT violate the fourth amendment.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I'm not inciting divisiveness. I'm offering an explanation for why it's already there. The paleos and libertarians are an awkward match. Always have been. They just happen to agree on debt, foreign policy, and state's rights.

Bullshit.

[dannno]

Summary of this thread for anyone not wanting to read:


Statist: It's OK to violate the fourth amendment because illegal aliens broke the law.

Advocate for liberty: You won't be violating illegal aliens' rights, you will be violating American citizens' rights with illegal searches.

Statist: You're for amnesty and you are dividing the liberty movement!!

Advocate for liberty: I am NOT for amnesty right now, I want to secure our borders and stop entitlements to non-citizens. I am not dividing the liberty movement, you are in fact not apart of the liberty movement because you don't care about individual liberty or the Constitution. You are actually advocating taking away the fourth amendment.

Statist: It's not violating the fourth amendment, the searches would be legal because illegal aliens have committed a crime.

Advocate for liberty: It isn't violating the rights of illegal aliens, it is violating the rights of American citizens with illegal searches.

Statist: You want amnesty! Libertarians will never get anywhere!

Advocate for liberty: :rolleyes:

[Tend yer biscuits.]

Bullshit.

Maybe I'm missing something. When I talk about paleos, I mean Chronicles, Richard Spencer's Takimag, Pat Buchanan, TAC. AltRight is Spencer's effort to rebrand paleo ideas. I'm an example of someone who discovered Ron Paul through one of these outlets. I know when I agree with libertarians. I know when I don't. Why is it 'bullshit' to acknowledge this?

[bruce leeroy]

Are you serious?? My entire post was DEDICATED TO SAYING THAT LIBERTARIANS OPPOSE AMNESTY AND OPEN BORDERS RIGHT NOW!! And look at what you said.. it's like you ignored the ENTIRE post. Everybody on your side ignores everything that our side says and is completely intellectually dishonest.

Why can't you people take in an argument instead of shutting down and spouting off a bunch of statist crap about how violating AMERICAN CITIZENS 4th amendment rights with ILLEGAL searches and seizures OF AMERICAN CITIZENS is actually some how legitimate :confused:

You are also spouting a bunch of garbage about Mexicans making our economy worse like someone who believes in global warming, it's like a religion for you and you can't consider the POSSIBILITY that they have actually improved our economy by providing cheap labor, and helped to keep our manufacturing base here rather than exporting more of it to China!!


I am not in any way convinced that mexican illegals have saved our industrial base; but I will say, look at detroit and then look at Dallas

[dannno]

I am not in any way convinced that mexican illegals have saved our industrial base; but I will say, look at detroit and then look at Dallas

Well you don't have to be convinced, just know there are a lot of good arguments on both sides and that it is extremely difficult to judge the entire effect on the economy because their entire effect is extremely difficult to measure.. I don't think anybody knows for sure, and depending on who you are, many people have an agenda don't look at everything.. even though they may say that they do look at everything or even think that they are.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Maybe I'm missing something. When I talk about paleos, I mean Chronicles, Richard Spencer's Takimag, Pat Buchanan, TAC. AltRight is Spencer's effort to rebrand paleo ideas. I'm an example of someone who discovered Ron Paul through one of these outlets. I know when I agree with libertarians. I know when I don't. Why is it 'bullshit' to acknowledge this?

Because labeling peoples ideologies is somewhat against what the R3VOLUTION is about. Its about the individual, and Liberty. This amnesty crap is a distraction from the real problem, which is STATISM and our already expanding government.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

--Pastor Niemöller

[heavenlyboy34]

Because labeling peoples ideologies is somewhat against what the R3VOLUTION is about. Its about the individual, and Liberty. This amnesty crap is a distraction from the real problem, which is STATISM and our already expanding government.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

--Pastor Niemöller
I've been labeled plenty of times by self-proclaimed members of the R3VOLUTION. Perhaps these were exceptions to the rule?:confused:

[JeNNiF00F00]

I've been labeled plenty of times by self-proclaimed members of the R3VOLUTION. Perhaps these were exceptions to the rule?:confused:

Labeling ANYONE is wrong.

Symptoms of GROUPTHINK

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

[The Patriot]

Are you serious?? My entire post was DEDICATED TO SAYING THAT LIBERTARIANS OPPOSE AMNESTY AND OPEN BORDERS RIGHT NOW!! And look at what you said.. it's like you ignored the ENTIRE post. Everybody on your side ignores everything that our side says and is completely intellectually dishonest.

Why can't you people take in an argument instead of shutting down and spouting off a bunch of statist crap about how violating AMERICAN CITIZENS 4th amendment rights with ILLEGAL searches and seizures OF AMERICAN CITIZENS is actually some how legitimate :confused:

You are also spouting a bunch of garbage about Mexicans making our economy worse like someone who believes in global warming, it's like a religion for you and you can't consider the POSSIBILITY that they have actually improved our economy by providing cheap labor, and helped to keep our manufacturing base here rather than exporting more of it to China!!

What did I ignore? You called a man who opposes open borders and amnesty a CIA agent. That is crazy, seriously, take off the tin foil hat. You are the one being intellectually dishonest. You are claiming victim status and positing accusations against me that I never laid against you. I never said anything about your personal position. Than again, it seems like you ignore the words of the Constitution, so it is no surprise you ignore my post.

This bill is totally in line with the fourth amendment. This bill clearly states that legal contact must be made where the legal infraction committed garners reasonable suspicion the person is an illegal alien. The Constitution allows for searches within reasonable suspicion. You are dramatically misrepresenting the bill to fit your conspiratorial tin foil agenda.

And talk about being intellectually dishonest, I have never said anything about immigrant labor, yet you are pegging an opinion to me I never espoused. Is that not hypocritical. If you must know, my position is to create a guest worker program to allow for cheaper migratory labor. But sorry, no I am not for open borders, a free lunch, and a free ballot for every person that comes to this country with a beating pulse. Putting things in caps and exclamations points makes you look like a crazy troll, just for future reference.

[JeNNiF00F00]

This bill is totally in line with the fourth amendment. This bill clearly states that legal contact must be made where the legal infraction committed garners reasonable suspicion the person is an illegal alien. The Constitution allows for searches within reasonable suspicion. You are dramatically misrepresenting the bill to fit your conspiratorial tin foil agenda.

So when a cop pulls you over for a broken tail light, and asks you if he can search your vehicle and you say "no" due to your knowledge of your 4th amendment rights and principles, do you not think he will then pull the "let me see your papers" line in order to do so? How is this in line with the constitution? How is this any different from the Patriot Act and FISA?

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Ben Franklin

[Reason]

YouTube - SA@TAC - Praising Arizona (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaJOIJ6qmtI)

[JeNNiF00F00]

YouTube - 4409 -- NAZI Checkpoint Confronted - 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kantS-kzIWU&feature=related)

YouTube - Border Patrol Fail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5_RkYXlmXE&feature=related)

[wgadget]

I'm all FOR the law. STATES' RIGHTS, man. The Feds have shirked one of the few responsibilities they have and for what reason?

[MelissaWV]

23-24% of people who took this poll favor the use of e-verify.