PDA

View Full Version : Chuck Baldwin Supports Arizona's new anti-Illegal Immigration Law




FrankRep
04-30-2010, 11:43 AM
Arizona Has It Right (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1490)


Chuck Baldwin Live (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/)
Apr 30, 2010


Open borders advocates are livid that the State of Arizona has enacted a new law authorizing State law enforcement personnel to arrest illegal aliens. The Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to march. The mayor of San Francisco has declared Arizona off limits as a travel destination. The national government of Mexico has issued travel warnings. President Barack Obama is contemplating bringing a federal lawsuit against the State. Some are calling for a boycott of the State.

So, why all the fuss?

The State of Arizona is rightly sick and tired of the federal government’s refusal to protect our nation (and the State of Arizona specifically) from this foreign invasion that is commonly referred to as “illegal immigration.” In other words, the State of Arizona has said, “If the federal government won’t enforce the law, we will.” I say, good for them! Now, the other border states (Texas, New Mexico, and California) should do the same thing. Arizona has it right, and the vast majority of the American people know it.

As an aside, if you are considering a visit to the American Southwest this summer, why not support the brave legislators and governor of Arizona, and make a point to spend your leisure dollars in Arizona? And when you do, write a letter to the State capitol and tell them. Even more importantly, I suggest that everyone contact their own State representatives, senators, and governors, and urge them to enact a similar law–to the one Arizona passed–in your State.

And since the national news media refuses to set the record straight on the subject of illegal immigration (one could even say that the national news media is deliberately covering up the record), let’s do that right here and now.

First, let’s talk about numbers. Even though the Census Bureau (CB) estimates 11 million illegal aliens live in America, the real numbers are much higher. Even CB officials admit that many illegal aliens purposely avoid the census count. A more reliable count is provided by Bear Stearns. It puts the number of illegal aliens at around 20 million. Former US Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who was Chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, puts the number at over 18 million.

According to Tennesseans for Responsible Immigration Policies (TNRIP), 6,000 immigrants arrive in America EVERY DAY. That equates to more than 2 million EVERY YEAR. In many communities in the Southwest, including Los Angeles, California, and Houston, Texas, Hispanics now comprise a majority of the population. But numbers of illegal aliens are quickly beginning to mount in cities throughout the United States.

For example, TNRIP documents the fact that the Hispanic population grew in three Tennessee counties by more than 70% between 2000 and 2004. In one of those counties (Robertson) it grew over 95% during that time. In seven Tennessee counties, the Hispanic population grew by more than 40%. Now, Tennessee can hardly be considered a “border state.” The fact is, what is happening in Tennessee is happening all over the United States. And lest you think this is all harmless, think again.

According to TNRIP, the financial cost of this foreign invasion to U.S. taxpayers is staggering! Here is a breakdown of the annual costs:

Education: $22.5 billion
Bi-lingual Education: $3.3 billion
AFDC: $2.4 billion
SSI: $2.9 billion
Social Security: $24.8 billion
Housing Assistance: $2.6 billion
Criminal Justice: $2.6 billion
Jobs Lost by Americans: $10.8 billion
Other Programs: $51.4 billion
Food Stamps: $7 billion
Health Care: $1.4 billion

The first study of the net cost of illegal immigration to American taxpayers was conducted in 1997 by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University. This study concluded that from 1970 to 1997, illegal immigration had cost taxpayers over $69 billion. Obviously, the financial numbers have exploded since then.

Furthermore, during 1996 alone, more than 2.3 million American workers were displaced by (mostly) illegal aliens. Harvard Professor George Borjas estimates that today American workers lose $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss.

Back in 2007 it was reported, “LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich announced that a new report shows illegal aliens and their families collected over $35 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in July.

“In the report, illegals are said to have collected nearly $20 million in welfare assistance for July 2007 and an additional $15 million in monthly food stamp allocations for an estimated annual cost of $440 million.

“‘Illegal immigration continues to have a devastating impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,’ said Antonovich. ‘In addition to $220 million for public safety and $400 million for healthcare, the $440 million in welfare allocations bring the total cost to County taxpayers that exceeds $1 billion a year–this does not include the skyrocketing cost of education.’”

Consider, too, this recent report by Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector. According to Byron York at National Review, “Rector found that in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill households received an average of $32,138 per household–the great majority in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits. (Rector excluded from that figure the cost of public goods and interest; with those included, he says, each low-skill household receives an average of $43,084.) Against that, Rector found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes. (The biggest chunk of that was the Social Security tax–$2,509–followed by state and local taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, and federal income taxes, but Rector counted everything, including highway levies and lottery purchases.) In the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household received $22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes–the $32,138 in benefits, excluding public goods, minus the $9,689 in taxes.

“Taking that $22,449, and multiplying it by the 17.7 million low-skill households, Rector found that the total deficit for such households was $397 billion in 2004. ‘Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion,’ Rector writes. ‘This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services.’”

See York’s column at:

http://tinyurl.com/illegal-imm-cost

It has been noted that 75% of people on LA’s most-wanted list are illegal aliens. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are here illegally, and roughly 30% of inmates in the federal prisons are illegal aliens.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegals from south of the border. According to Tancredo, gang membership by illegal aliens in many states is 50%, and in Phoenix, Arizona, illegal aliens constitute 34% of child-molestation and 40% of auto theft cases.

Furthermore, illegal aliens murder (on average) 12 Americans EVERY DAY, according to Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa). Plus, illegals that drive drunk kill another 13 Americans EVERY DAY. That means illegal aliens kill more Americans EVERY YEAR than have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in total.

See the report at:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103

Of course, Arizonans are still reeling from the recent high profile murder of a fellow citizen on his own property by an illegal.

Law enforcement agencies are very much cognizant of a surge in Latin American “ultra-violent” gangs that have sprung up in more than 40 US states. According to the FBI, one gang called MS-13 has been identified in 42 states. Another group called the 18th Street Gang is in 37 states. According to FBI MS-13 National Gang Task Force director Brian Truchon, “When the gang migrates throughout the U.S., there is always a road back to L.A. From L.A., there is always a road back to Central America.”

Retired lawman Jim Kouri wrote, “According to Lt. Steve Rogers, a decorated cop and award-winning writer, there are tens of thousands of murderers, rapists, child predators, robbers and drug dealers who are illegally in the United States. One study shows over 200,000 criminal aliens are preying on U.S. citizens.”

What the Arizona law does is authorize its law enforcement personnel to ENFORCE THE LAW. No one in Arizona is talking about racial profiling or violating citizens’ constitutional rights. In fact, the new Arizona law actually mirrors already established federal law. But the federal government has hamstrung State and local police agencies in their attempts to arrest illegals for decades. Now, Arizona policemen can arrest illegals for being in the State of Arizona illegally, and have them deported: something they should have been doing (and have every right to do) all along. No wonder the vast majority of the American people (not to mention the citizens of Arizona) supports the Arizona law.

But there is a greater issue here: the right of the State of Arizona to protect, defend, and govern itself. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the State sovereignty movement is growing like a wildfire. Whether it is Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Florida, Alaska, or a couple dozen other states, legislators are beginning to awaken to the constitutional and moral responsibility of each State to govern itself. And when the central government in Washington, D.C., abridges or impedes that responsibility, it is the right and duty of states to resist.

This is why I tell people everywhere I speak, What is going on in [Your State] is infinitely more important than anything that goes on in Washington, D.C. Without the approbation of the State, DC’s actions and attitudes are irrelevant. This is why we need county sheriffs, State legislators, State judges, State attorneys general, and governors who–along with their State’s citizenry–understand the Constitution and are willing to courageously hold the line for freedom and constitutional government in their respective states. And by passing this anti-illegal alien bill, the State of Arizona did just that–the chagrin and consternation of open borders advocates notwithstanding.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19


SOURCE:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1490

FrankRep
04-30-2010, 11:45 AM
To answer the question as to whether Arizona's controversial immigration law creates a police state or is a reasonable response to a growing immigration crisis, one should first look at what the legislation actually says. By Joe Wolverton, II


Arizona's Immigration Law: Police State or State of Emergency? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3436-arizonas-immigration-law-police-state-or-state-of-emergency)

Joe Wolverton, II | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Wednesday, 28 April 2010

dannno
04-30-2010, 11:47 AM
When you start up your BBQ, put out 15 pounds of meat and put a big sign out front inviting all your neighbors to come to your BBQ..... When 30 of your neighbors show up, you welcome them in and feed them is that an "invasion"??

Anybody who uses the word "invasion" to describe illegals is naive or xenophobic. We fucking invited them here.

LibertyEagle
04-30-2010, 11:48 AM
When you start up your BBQ, put out 15 pounds of meat and put a big sign out front inviting all your neighbors to come to your BBQ..... When 30 people show up is that an "invasion"??

Anybody who uses the word "invasion" to describe illegals is naive or xenophobic. We fucking invited them here.

Define "we", Danno. Because I sure as hell didn't invite them. Did you?

Brian Defferding
04-30-2010, 11:49 AM
When you start up your BBQ, put out 15 pounds of meat and put a big sign out front inviting all your neighbors to come to your BBQ..... When 30 of your neighbors show up, you welcome them in and feed them is that an "invasion"??

Anybody who uses the word "invasion" to describe illegals is naive or xenophobic. We fucking invited them here.

I agree with you.

LibertyEagle
04-30-2010, 11:49 AM
Yeah, Frank, the first I heard about this I was against it. But, the more I find out what is actually in the bill, I'm changing my mind. I still need to read the whole thing myself, though.

FreeTraveler
04-30-2010, 11:52 AM
Scratch a Theocrat, underneath you'll find an Authoritarian.

Screw personal liberty; screw the fourth amendment; I want them people gone!

Illegals are illegal and need to be sent back to do it the right way, but trashing what little remains of the Bill of Rights is not the right solution.

FrankRep
04-30-2010, 11:52 AM
When you start up your BBQ, put out 15 pounds of meat and put a big sign out front inviting all your neighbors to come to your BBQ..... When 30 of your neighbors show up, you welcome them in and feed them is that an "invasion"??

Anybody who uses the word "invasion" to describe illegals is naive or xenophobic. We fucking invited them here.

Obeying Legal Immigration Laws and the Constitution is Racist? What??

You just called Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html), Alex Jones (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242285), and Chuck Baldwin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242484) racist. Good going.

RonPaulCult
04-30-2010, 11:54 AM
Add Chuck Baldwin to the long list of people who understand the problem - but don't understand the proper, constitutional solution.

RonPaulCult
04-30-2010, 11:55 AM
When you start up your BBQ, put out 15 pounds of meat and put a big sign out front inviting all your neighbors to come to your BBQ..... When 30 of your neighbors show up, you welcome them in and feed them is that an "invasion"??

Anybody who uses the word "invasion" to describe illegals is naive or xenophobic. We fucking invited them here.

Your post made me hungry.

FrankRep
04-30-2010, 11:56 AM
Add Chuck Baldwin to the long list of people who understand the problem - but don't understand the proper, constitutional solution.

Arizona's new anti-Illegal Immigration Law doesn't violate the Constitution.
http://www.infowars.com/arizona-illegal-immigration-and-the-tenth-amendment/

Hamer
04-30-2010, 12:00 PM
The constitution is clear on this issue, just read the 10th amendment it is a states rights issue not a federal Government issue. I support AZ so long as it doesn't become racial profiling of American citizens.

We are either going to follow the constitution or we become anarchists and mob rule, you can't pick and choose what amendments or constitutional clauses you are going to follow.

If you don't believe in or support the constitution I will not listen to anything you say.

Sorry Frank Alex Jones posts I ignore. Putting Alex's name next to Dr Paul or Chuck Baldwin should be a crime.

dannno
04-30-2010, 12:01 PM
Define "we", Danno. Because I sure as hell didn't invite them. Did you?

The policies of the country we live in invited them here.. therefore I think it is silly to place a lot of hatred on the individual illegals.. we INVITED them here, I was at the party they were invited to, they didn't crash it and a lot of people on this forum have hatred towards the illegals themselves which doesn't make any sense.

And no, I didn't personally invite any of them here ;)

dannno
04-30-2010, 12:03 PM
Obeying Legal Immigration Laws and the Constitution is Racist? What??

You just called Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html), Alex Jones (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242285), and Chuck Baldwin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242484) racist. Good going.

I didn't call anybody a racist. Said person could be naive.. but I've never heard Ron Paul refer to illegal immigration as an 'invasion'



Anybody who uses the word "invasion" to describe illegals is naive or xenophobic. We fucking invited them here.

RonPaulCult
04-30-2010, 12:05 PM
Arizona's new anti-Illegal Immigration Law doesn't violate the Constitution.
http://www.infowars.com/arizona-illegal-immigration-and-the-tenth-amendment/

Oh please - you're going to have to provide a better source than infowars.com - the site that reported there were cameras inside the over-the-air hdtv converter boxes.

Turns out they didn't even bother to drive to Wal-Mart to buy one, open it up and check for themselves.

And you're using them as a source for constitutional matters?

FrankRep
04-30-2010, 12:05 PM
I didn't call anybody a racist. Said person could be naive.. but I've never heard Ron Paul refer to illegal immigration as an 'invasion'

Fine:

You just called Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html), Alex Jones (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242285), and Chuck Baldwin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242484) Xenophobic. Good going.

Hamer
04-30-2010, 12:05 PM
The policies of the country we live in invited them here.. therefore I think it is silly to place a lot of hatred on the individual illegals.. we INVITED them here, I was at the party they were invited to, they didn't crash it and a lot of people on this forum have hatred towards the illegals themselves which doesn't make any sense.

I disagree Dano, We invited people to become American citizens legally, who exactly invited illegals here, it wasn't me. Anyone is welcome so long as they do it legally.

Original_Intent
04-30-2010, 12:06 PM
Yes the correct and easier to enforce option is to fine the hell out of anyone that hires illegals. When there are no jobs, they will self deport - much cheaper, easier, and in fact some money could be made setting an example.

dannno
04-30-2010, 12:07 PM
Fine:

You just called Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html), Alex Jones (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242285), and Chuck Baldwin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242484) Xenophobic. Good going.

If Ron Paul HAD used the word "invasion", which is what i specified in my post, I would say he is naive, not xenophobic... But he didn't even use the word invasion!!

Can you find where Ron Paul has called illegal immigration an "invasion" as my post specified?? I doubt he would ever use the term because he understands the problem more like I do.. which many here fail to grasp.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-30-2010, 12:08 PM
Obeying Legal Immigration Laws and the Constitution is Racist? What??

You just called Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html), Alex Jones (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242285), and Chuck Baldwin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242484) racist. Good going.

Ron Paul doesn't use the word invasion. The term invasion is JBS and affiliates propaganda.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-30-2010, 12:09 PM
I dont think anybody is objecting to Arizona having the right to enforce Immigration laws and create a police state. But the fact is as a lover of liberty and freedom....I DONT LIKE THE POLICE STATE.

dannno
04-30-2010, 12:10 PM
Yes the correct and easier to enforce option is to fine the hell out of anyone that hires illegals. When there are no jobs, they will self deport - much cheaper, easier, and in fact some money could be made setting an example.

That would put a bunch of illegals on welfare because they would be too scared to work, or employers would be too scared to hire them.

I don't understand why we can't focus on getting rid of the entitlements. That is THE solution. As long as we are giving them free money it doesn't fucking matter if we deport them or fine employees.. EVERYTHING you try will FAIL until you END THE ENTITLEMENTS. It is so easy to come back across the border, deporting them isn't going to do shit if we are still giving out free money.

RonPaulCult
04-30-2010, 12:10 PM
I love how people who don't have law degrees refuse to listen to people who do, such as Judge Napolitano, who are explaining how the law violates the 4th amendment to the constitution.

Then people are saying states' rights - failing to understand that a state has no right to violate the rights protected by the constitution. It's as if you're saying AZ can make a law limiting the freedom of the press or speech - cause you know - states rights.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-30-2010, 12:11 PM
Yes the correct and easier to enforce option is to fine the hell out of anyone that hires illegals. When there are no jobs, they will self deport - much cheaper, easier, and in fact some money could be made setting an example.


But who will suffer the most from that? The illegals or the businesses (and us through loss of productivity)?

dannno
04-30-2010, 12:13 PM
I dont think anybody is objecting to Arizona having the right to enforce Immigration laws and create a police state. But the fact is as a lover of liberty and freedom....I DONT LIKE THE POLICE STATE.

Exactly.


LE, we all agree that AZ is within their 10th amendment right to create the law.. but it is still going to create situations where law enforcement walk all over citizen's fourth amendment rights.

Peter Schiff, Napolitano and Ron Paul are all troubled by this bill, but they all recognize their 10th amendment rights to enact it.

Again, deporting illegals does nothing because they can just come back over and get on the dole. We need to get rid of the dole for illegals first... and in fact, that could be the only solution we need.

I would LOVE for AZ to use their 10th amendment rights to stop giving entitlements to illegals. Secede over the issue for all I care.. but we don't need these false solutions that aren't going to do anything in the long run, and will really just create a bunch of hatred and distract us so the Fed Govt. can do the RealID thing.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-30-2010, 12:15 PM
I love how people who don't have law degrees refuse to listen to people who do, such as Judge Napolitano, who are explaining how the law violates the 4th amendment to the constitution.

Then people are saying states' rights - failing to understand that a state has no right to violate the rights protected by the constitution. It's as if you're saying AZ can make a law limiting the freedom of the press or speech - cause you know - states rights.

Has the Judge published anything detailed on the matter other than what has been stated in soundbytes?

If the answer is no why would you be critical of people for independent thinking?

The Patriot
04-30-2010, 12:17 PM
When you start up your BBQ, put out 15 pounds of meat and put a big sign out front inviting all your neighbors to come to your BBQ..... When 30 of your neighbors show up, you welcome them in and feed them is that an "invasion"??

Anybody who uses the word "invasion" to describe illegals is naive or xenophobic. We fucking invited them here.

70% of Arizonans and a large plurality of Americans didn't.

RonPaulCult
04-30-2010, 12:21 PM
Has the Judge published anything detailed on the matter other than what has been stated in soundbytes?

If the answer is no why would you be critical of people for independent thinking?

I listened to the judge give a 20 MINUTE interview on the subject yesterday on the Alex Jones show. 20 minutes is hardly a soundbyte. Judge is a tv and radio personality - I'm not sure what you expect from him in writing.

But I've read lots of other opinions from people with ACTUAL LAW DEGREES (which I don't have - and I'm guessing most people on here don't have - and I'd bet the farm people who write for infowars.com don't have) and almost ALL of those people feel the law violates the constitution.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-30-2010, 12:21 PM
70% of Arizonans and a large plurality of Americans didn't.

According to the Arizona Constitution they did:



2. Political power; purpose of government

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Live_Free_Or_Die
04-30-2010, 12:24 PM
I listened to the judge give a 20 MINUTE interview on the subject yesterday on the Alex Jones show. 20 minutes is hardly a soundbyte. Judge is a tv and radio personality - I'm not sure what you expect from him in writing.

But I've read lots of other opinions from people with ACTUAL LAW DEGREES (which I don't have - and I'm guessing most people on here don't have - and I'd bet the farm people who write for infowars.com don't have) and almost ALL of those people feel the law violates the constitution.

It took some time for the health care arguments to find solid roots in constitutional context. All I see happening is the same evolution of thought. Things will get published but I think most constitutional scholars are chewing over the arguments and proper constitutional reasoning.

dannno
04-30-2010, 12:26 PM
I disagree Dano, We invited people to become American citizens legally,

Like who?? There is like a 5-10 year waiting list to get here, and the only way to get on the list is to be a family member of someone who is already a citizen here!!

We didn't invite people to come here legally, and that was a big part of the problem because the cheap labor was much needed and welcome in CA.




who exactly invited illegals here, it wasn't me. Anyone is welcome so long as they do it legally.

You didn't invite them here, neither did I.. but our policies did, we left our borders open, offered them jobs at a time when the multinational corporations were going in and taking stolen land from the indigenous populations (which was a result of our government meddling in their government related to NAFTA).. we offered them free school for their kids, free welfare, free medical care..

You should become familiar with our policies that invited them here, not to mention the ones that got them kicked off of their land. This isn't an opinion, it's demonstrable fact.

dannno
04-30-2010, 12:30 PM
70% of Arizonans and a large plurality of Americans didn't.

Ok, so you have a roommate who organizes the bbq, and you and your girlfriend don't want to have a bbq.. but next thing you know there are 30 people out in your yard because your roommate invited them there for the bbq...

Do you get mad at the people at the bbq, take their burgers and yell at them and kick them out, or do you yell at your roommate for not asking before inviting them there?

angelatc
04-30-2010, 12:38 PM
Ok, so you have a roommate who organizes the bbq, and you and your girlfriend don't want to have a bbq.. but next thing you know there are 30 people out in your yard because your roommate invited them there for the bbq...

Do you get mad at the people at the bbq, take their burgers and yell at them and kick them out, or do you yell at your roommate for not asking before inviting them there?

The key difference here is that your roommates guests weren't willfully breaking any laws when they came to the BBQ.

Suppose you had a BBQ, and invited your family over. Suddenly 24 of your neighbors climb over the fence and start eating your burgers and drinking your beer. Do you blame the food?

And I believe Ron Paul said it was an invasion. Not to mention La Raza and the President of Mexico have a stated goal of implementing a Fifth Column in our governments.

angelatc
04-30-2010, 12:39 PM
According to the Arizona Constitution they did:

Which is why the law gives the citizens the specific right to sue their local officials if the laws aren't enforced.

angelatc
04-30-2010, 12:41 PM
But I've read lots of other opinions from people with ACTUAL LAW DEGREES (which I don't have - and I'm guessing most people on here don't have - and I'd bet the farm people who write for infowars.com don't have) and almost ALL of those people feel the law violates the constitution.

Really? Because I've also spent quite a bit of time perusing the legal blogs, and almost all those lawyers seem to feel it is absolutely constitutional, with the possible exception of concurrent jurisdiction.

DamianTV
04-30-2010, 12:46 PM
Like who?? There is like a 5-10 year waiting list to get here, and the only way to get on the list is to be a family member of someone who is already a citizen here!!

...

The reason the list is so long is due to the number of illegals already immigrating.

If there were no illegal immigration, those that qualify (IE dont have criminal records in their home country, I agree with you on needing to have a family member already a citizen) the waiting list would be much shorter, not longer, IMHO. THere would be a lot of applicants, however...

paulitics
04-30-2010, 12:47 PM
Arguments I am really getting sick of.

Appeal to Authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_Authority

Race baiting.

Some of us are still trying to sort this out, but one side is losing when they resort to these tactics.

Hamer
04-30-2010, 12:49 PM
I love how people who don't have law degrees refuse to listen to people who do, such as Judge Napolitano, who are explaining how the law violates the 4th amendment to the constitution.

Then people are saying states' rights - failing to understand that a state has no right to violate the rights protected by the constitution. It's as if you're saying AZ can make a law limiting the freedom of the press or speech - cause you know - states rights.

It is only a 4th amendment issue if they are asking for your papers without probable cause, this is yet to be seen and if it happens it will be unconstitutional. You and the judge are using hypothetical arguments at this point.

I also understand that federal law trumps state law if and only if the states are violating the constitutional rights of it's citizens.

As of now it is absolutely a states rights issue.

dannno
04-30-2010, 12:58 PM
The key difference here is that your roommates guests weren't willfully breaking any laws when they came to the BBQ.

But there was a sign inviting everybody to come over..the bbq was on and the meat was out.. inside the house somewhere there is a 'law' written down, but none of the guests know about it, or maybe they thought it was repealed because all they saw was the big sign out front inviting everybody in.



Suppose you had a BBQ, and invited your family over. Suddenly 24 of your neighbors climb over the fence and start eating your burgers and drinking your beer. Do you blame the food?


That wasn't my analogy, in my analogy all the neighbors were invited.. because it is a good analogy to describe the situation we have will illegals. I've been watching them come here since the 80s, and my parents have always been dumbfounded that we just let them come up here, they used to talk about it a lot when I was growing up.. but they didn't blame the illegal immigrants either because they knew we just let them come up and get jobs and whatever..





And I believe Ron Paul said it was an invasion.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I listen to Ron Paul a LOT.. I've read a lot of his stuff and I would be VERY surprised to hear him use the word invasion on this issue unless he is referring to the cartels on the border. I can't imagine him talking about illegal aliens coming up here to work as 'invading' our country..




Not to mention La Raza and the President of Mexico have a stated goal of implementing a Fifth Column in our governments.

Ya I know their agenda, it's just that I've lived in or very near Mexican neighborhoods my entire life and the only time I've been exposed to La Raza and any sort of extremism was in my Chicano Studies class in college.. the people living and working here, most of them, just want to raise their family and be left alone.

RonPaulCult
04-30-2010, 01:00 PM
Really? Because I've also spent quite a bit of time perusing the legal blogs, and almost all those lawyers seem to feel it is absolutely constitutional, with the possible exception of concurrent jurisdiction.

By all means - PLEASE post links to these because I am searching and I want to hear all sides.

Vessol
04-30-2010, 01:01 PM
Chuck Baldwin also supports racial profiling of Arabs in airports. Why am I not surprised?

dannno
04-30-2010, 01:09 PM
Chuck Baldwin also supports racial profiling of Arabs in airports. Why am I not surprised?

I support racial profiling by private airlines, not by the state. I can choose another airline, can't choose another state. It's 'the one'.

Vessol
04-30-2010, 01:12 PM
I support racial profiling by private airlines, not by the state. I can choose another airline, can't choose another state. It's 'the one'.

Problem is the TSA currently is in the hands of the state. Airports should perform their own security.

angelatc
04-30-2010, 01:18 PM
But there was a sign inviting everybody to come over..the bbq was on and the meat was out.. inside the house somewhere there is a 'law' written down, but none of the guests know about it, or maybe they thought it was repealed because all they saw was the big sign out front inviting everybody in.


But there's no big sign out in America. In fact, we have big signs that say "You Must Have A Written Invitation To Attend This Party."



That wasn't my analogy, in my analogy all the neighbors were invited.. because it is a good analogy to describe the situation we have will illegals. I've been watching them come here since the 80s, and my parents have always been dumbfounded that we just let them come up here, they used to talk about it a lot when I was growing up.. but they didn't blame the illegal immigrants either because they knew we just let them come up and get jobs and whatever..




Your analogy is better suited to the Cubans. We told them that if they can catch a ride, it's all good.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but I listen to Ron Paul a LOT.. I've read a lot of his stuff and I would be VERY surprised to hear him use the word invasion on this issue unless he is referring to the cartels on the border. I can't imagine him talking about illegal aliens coming up here to work as 'invading' our country..

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change. Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your view.

REP. PAUL: And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently.



Ya I know their agenda, it's just that I've lived in or very near Mexican neighborhoods my entire life and the only time I've been exposed to La Raza and any sort of extremism was in my Chicano Studies class in college.. the people living and working here, most of them, just want to raise their family and be left alone.

And the only time I've been exposed to Congress is in my high school government classes.

If your neighbors want to be left alone, they should stop breaking laws. Funny how that works.

angelatc
04-30-2010, 01:20 PM
I support racial profiling by private airlines, not by the state. I can choose another airline, can't choose another state. It's 'the one'.

Really? I thought there were 50.

Vessol
04-30-2010, 01:25 PM
Really? I thought there were 50.

State refers to the government in general. In most cases, when someone refers to the 'State' as an entity, they are referring to the U.S Federal Government.

A Statist is someone whom believes in the power of the government(any government) over individual rights.

A lot of people here are showing their true Statist side, they'll not support the Federal Government violating the Constitution, but it's fine if it's a state government.

FrankRep
04-30-2010, 01:32 PM
I support racial profiling by private airlines, not by the state. I can choose another airline, can't choose another state. It's 'the one'.
We have 50 states, remember? Possibly 51.

Vessol
04-30-2010, 01:33 PM
We have 50 states, remember? Possibly 51.


State refers to the government in general. In most cases, when someone refers to the 'State' as an entity, they are referring to the U.S Federal Government.

A Statist is someone whom believes in the power of the government(any government) over individual rights.

A lot of people here are showing their true Statist side, they'll not support the Federal Government violating the Constitution, but it's fine if it's a state government.

^

It's a term.

dannno
04-30-2010, 01:33 PM
But there's no big sign out in America. In fact, we have big signs that say "You Must Have A Written Invitation To Attend This Party."


That's not true, that is how you would like things to be, but it's not reality. Actions speak much louder than words.........which is a great lead in for:




Your analogy is better suited to the Cubans. We told them that if they can catch a ride, it's all good.

Again, actions speak louder than words. There might be a document somewhere that says the Mexicans are here illegally, but when they can come here and signup for government programs and get all this free stuff, that isn't the message you are sending.




MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change. Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your view.

REP. PAUL: And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently.


"There very well may be a time..."

And I agree the cartels ARE invading RIGHT NOW. But not the hard working immigrants who are the vast majority, and the target of all these laws.




If your neighbors want to be left alone, they should stop breaking laws. Funny how that works.

They aren't aggressing against anybody so I don't have a problem with them.

AuH20
04-30-2010, 01:38 PM
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change. Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your view.

REP. PAUL: And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently.


Libertarians really mean well, but sometimes they are as deluded as the left. You cannot promote liberty by encouraging the tyranny of the masses to take hold on your shores. Many Latinos view themselves almost as a collective, as exhibited by their insistence to be recognized as a race instead of free-standing individuals. There are extreme undercurrents of racial supremacy and protection found in their rhetoric and policy goals & instead of being alienated like the white supremacist organizations, they're given a seat in the Capitol to hammer out legislation details!!!

Vessol
04-30-2010, 01:40 PM
Libertarians really mean well, but sometimes they are as deluded as the left. You cannot promote liberty by encouraging the tyranny of the masses to take hold on your shores. Many Latinos view themselves almost as a collective, as exhibited by their insistence to be recognized as a race instead of free-standing individuals. There are extreme undercurrents of racial supremacy and protection found in their rhetoric and policy goals & instead of being alienated like the white supremacist organizations, they're given a seat in the Capitol to hammer out legislation details!!!

And what do we respond with?

The exact same racial collectivism?

You don't fight fire with fire.

What sir, does an illegal immigrant look like?

AuH20
04-30-2010, 01:43 PM
And what do we respond with?

The exact same racial collectivism?

You don't fight fire with fire.

What sir, does an illegal immigrant look like?

I'm not advocating racial collectivism. I want individuals who want to come here, so as to improve their stead in life. However, it must be done in an orderly and just way. Simply allow the legal system in place to work.

Vessol
04-30-2010, 01:44 PM
I'm not advocating racial collectivism. I want individuals who want to come here, so as to improve their stead in life. However, it must be done in an orderly and just way. Simply allow the legal system in place to work.

The problem is that the new law promotes racial collectivism. How does a cop, in looking at someone, decide if they are here illegally or not?

AuH20
04-30-2010, 01:45 PM
The problem is that the new law promotes racial collectivism. How does a cop, in looking at someone, decide if they are here illegally or not?

Beyond that, I'm referring to legal process of immigration. Wait in line like the rest of the world.

dannno
04-30-2010, 02:00 PM
Many Latinos view themselves almost as a collective, as exhibited by their insistence to be recognized as a race instead of free-standing individuals.

Sounds more like you view latinos as a collective ;)

I know a lot of white people who are way more collectivist than many of the latinos around here..

dannno
04-30-2010, 02:03 PM
Beyond that, I'm referring to legal process of immigration. Wait in line like the rest of the world.

The problem was we had this HUGE demand for cheap labor, but the immigration wait is like 5-10 years and people who have family here get priority.. otherwise it is nearly impossible. Illegal immigration was filling the gap, when we should have increased legal immigration to help fill that gap.

Had we had an actual immigration policy of letting more of these people come here who wanted to work and given them green cards or something, then the legal immigrants would have filled many of the jobs the illegal immigrants were filling. This would have reduced the incentive for illegals to come, not to mention more of the 'illegals' would have come anyway and would be legal instead.. they would be paying into the system just like anybody else.

.Tom
04-30-2010, 03:38 PM
Baldwin has always been nothing but a theocrat piece of garbage, and anyone who supports him and the statist porn-banning "Constitution" Party is insane.

andrewh817
04-30-2010, 04:00 PM
Illegals are illegal and need to be sent back to do it the right way, but trashing what little remains of the Bill of Rights is not the right solution.

I'm all ears for your solution.


When you start up your BBQ, put out 15 pounds of meat and put a big sign out front inviting all your neighbors to come to your BBQ..... When 30 of your neighbors show up, you welcome them in and feed them is that an "invasion"??

Anybody who uses the word "invasion" to describe illegals is naive or xenophobic. We fucking invited them here.

If by we, you mean the government, then major thumbs up. Lots of immigration hypocrisy in the liberty movement.