Sounding Like a Libertarian, Pelosi Calls for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

[stu2002]

(CNSNews.com) -- Speaking at the Asian-American and Pacific Islanders Summit held at the Capitol on Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States, a proposal she called a “path to legalization."

“Hopefully, we will be moving toward comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, enforces our laws, protects our workers, honors family unification and has a path to legalization--so that we have certainty in our country and respect for the contributions that newcomers bring to us,” she said on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.


House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office told CNSNews.com that Boehner “disagrees” with Pelosi’s comments and thinks immigration reform will not pass this year.

“Mr. Boehner has said that no one believes we will do immigration reform this year,” said Michael Steel, Boehner’s press secretary. “Democrats are only talking about it to gin up their political base.”

Speaker Pelosi also spoke about immigration reform last week on Capitol Hill at the Catholic Community Conference. At that event, she said she had asked Catholic bishops to speak from the pulpit about how immigration reform was a "manifestation of our living the Gospels."

“I would hope that there’s one thing that we can do working together as we go forward that speaks to what the Bible tells us about the dignity and worth of every person, and that is on the subject of immigration,” she said. “Because I think the church is going to have to play a very major role in how we, in how people are treated.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65888

[cindy25]

path to legalization, with no handouts-ok

path to citizenship - no way

[romacox]

Ron Paul is against amnesty. Are you saying he is not a libertarian?

"Ron Paul(and his son Rand)oppose any form of amnesty for illegals aliens, but it looks like it will be a tough fight stopping Obama from passing comprehensive Immigration reform(aka amnesty coupled with weak and ineffective/insufficient enforcement measures)."
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/104098


New Code Word for Amnesty: Assimilation Immigration

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/sgifford/may-17-2010/new-code-word-amnesty-assimilation-immigration.html

[FrankRep]

Politics makes strange bedfellows: Nancy Pelosi & anti-Border Libertarians.

[Petar]

This is not libertarian.

This is an anarchist practice being used by a globalist fascist, in order to expedite the destruction of Constitutional government of the USA.

Anarchists need to face the fact that they are only really useful for these types of purposes.

[stu2002]

Ron Paul is against amnesty. Are you saying he is not a libertarian?


Ah, last time I checked. Dr. Paul was a Republican

[Stary Hickory]

This is not libertarian.

This is an anarchist practice being used by a globalist fascist, in order to expedite the destruction of Constitutional government of the USA.

Anarchists need to face the fact that they are only really useful for these types of purposes.

Exactly this

[romacox]

This is not libertarian.

This is an anarchist practice being used by a globalist fascist, in order to expedite the destruction of Constitutional government of the USA.

Anarchists need to face the fact that they are only really useful for these types of purposes.

You hit the nail on the head.

[RM918]

Somehow I'm betting this 'amnesty' thing will do NOTHING to simplify immigration law, because the idea that the Republicrats can simplify ANYTHING is rather absurd. It'll probably only help those who broke the law in the first place. While I'm against rewarding people who broke the law, our immigration system is absolutely terrible.

A friend of mine from England lined up a job over here, had a girl he was going to marry and a bunch of friends. Because of the goddamn quota system, where there were only like 50-thousand or so work visas given out a year that dried up 10 hours from the time they were released, he kept getting screwed year after year. His company eventually gave up on him, and he quit trying. Ruined his life. If an engineer from England couldn't get in because the visas were bought up, how the hell does some poverty-stricken farmer in Mexico expect to get in? I certainly don't think they were right to break in, but getting in legally wasn't much of an option either.

[Fredom101]

This is not libertarian.

This is an anarchist practice being used by a globalist fascist, in order to expedite the destruction of Constitutional government of the USA.

Anarchists need to face the fact that they are only really useful for these types of purposes.

Amnesty is the farthest thing from anarchy or libertarianism.

Amnesty requires big government. Anarchy means "no ruler".

You cannot have anarchy, or a voluntary society, and amnesty (bene's for foreigners) at the same time.

The title of this post is just silly.

[Fredom101]

You hit the nail on the head.

How?
Anarchy would never result in amnesty.

Being for "beefing up the border" just means more government intervention. This is the opposite of small government libertarianism...or anarchy.

Let's get this one right.

[VaderM5]

Somehow I'm betting this 'amnesty' thing will do NOTHING to simplify immigration law, because the idea that the Republicrats can simplify ANYTHING is rather absurd. It'll probably only help those who broke the law in the first place. While I'm against rewarding people who broke the law, our immigration system is absolutely terrible.

A friend of mine from England lined up a job over here, had a girl he was going to marry and a bunch of friends. Because of the goddamn quota system, where there were only like 50-thousand or so work visas given out a year that dried up 10 hours from the time they were released, he kept getting screwed year after year. His company eventually gave up on him, and he quit trying. Ruined his life. If an engineer from England couldn't get in because the visas were bought up, how the hell does some poverty-stricken farmer in Mexico expect to get in? I certainly don't think they were right to break in, but getting in legally wasn't much of an option either.
What quotas? There are no limits on the number of visa's for immigrant spouses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

[tremendoustie]

Yes, how horrible of people to respect the freedom of their neighbors to decide who to allow on their property. Why, if a peaceful person wants to house or hire a peaceful person, who hasn't adequately jumped through arbitrary bureacratic hoops, or paid my bureaucrats lots of money, I should go attack both of them.

By all means, get rid of the bennies. But you can't call yourself a pro-liberty person if you want to control other people's property, or kidnap peaceful people who are only trying to earn a living.

[ClayTrainor]

but you can't call yourself a pro-liberty person if you want to control other people's property, or kidnap peaceful people who are only trying to earn a living.

+1000000

[euphemia]

So nobody thinks a limited governent should uphold the soverignity of the United States by defending its borders?

[Stary Hickory]

Amnesty is the farthest thing from anarchy or libertarianism.

Amnesty requires big government. Anarchy means "no ruler".

You cannot have anarchy, or a voluntary society, and amnesty (bene's for foreigners) at the same time.

The title of this post is just silly.

By refusing to enforce immigration laws you are in effect eliminating them. Without controls on who comes and goes you are in effect eliminating the border entirely. So yes this is an narchist position, it is arguing against borders or border protection.

This is simply a fantasy land. The reason borders exist is the same reason people protect their private property. Without defense and the right to private property their can be no freedom for anyone. Anarchists seem to think that asa krappy as the world is today, as bad as the politicians are, as bad as the voters are who have no problem robbing their neighbor using the government, as bad as all this is....that somehow when people completely drop their guards that they will play nice.

It is no less silly than the notion that you can create a "socialist" man who considers himself a cog of society rather than a soverign individual.

[tremendoustie]

So nobody thinks a limited governent should uphold the soverignity of the United States by defending its borders?

No, I don't think any organization should claim the ability to extort money or bureaucratic hoop jumping from people who want to live or work on the property of another person, who consents.

The us government does not own the country.

[Epic]

Get rid of all welfare and voting rights for immigrants, then let everybody in.

[tremendoustie]

By refusing to enforce immigration laws you are in effect eliminating them. Without controls on who comes and goes you are in effect eliminating the border entirely. So yes this is an narchist position, it is arguing against borders or border protection.

To argue against deportations and fines is not to argue against all rules or laws. I support rules against harming persons or property. I don't support violence against those who haven't harmed either.



This is simply a fantasy land. The reason borders exist is the same reason people protect their private property.


I own my private property. The US government does not own the country -- and neither you, nor the US government has a right to make arbitrary dictates who I may allow on my land -- or demand that they jump through their hoops.



Without defense and the right to private property their can be no freedom for anyone.


I agree with private property. That's precisely why I don't approve of people presuming to control the private property of others.



Anarchists seem to think that asa krappy as the world is today, as bad as the politicians are, as bad as the voters are who have no problem robbing their neighbor using the government, as bad as all this is....that somehow when people completely drop their guards that they will play nice.

Well, I'm not an "anarchist", as I pointed out, I believe in rules. That said, this sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps you can rephrase. I know there will always be people who use aggressive violence. I suggest we go after those people, rather than using aggressive violence ourselves, against peaceful people.



It is no less silly than the notion that you can create a "socialist" man who considers himself a cog of society rather than a soverign individual.

I support private property rights, and oppose aggressive violence. I don't want to control or re-engineer your life, I want you to be free to live as you choose, as long as you don't harm others or their property. This seems like a reasonable moral stance to me.

Don't allow any Mexicans on your land -- fine. Or, require that they jump through a bunch of hoops first. But, don't presume to dictate to me who I may allow on my land.

[ClayTrainor]

So nobody thinks a limited governent should uphold the soverignity of the United States by defending its borders?

Borders are a completely socialist concept. They are entirely based around the theory of public property, and extorting money from private individuals within.

Be very wary of things you think government should be doing. They will not limit themselves in the way you probably want them to, when you grant them the power to tax and regulate you for whatever purpose.

[noxagol]

Remember, they're only illegal because the government says so ^_^ if the government were to get rid of all quotas and regulations on immigration through perfectly legal means according to the Constitution, to the letter, would you then not care about them because the would no longer be illegal?

Citizenship is nothing more than a brand that identifies your government master and looter. Borders are nothing more than a line of piss that tells other governments that this area has already been claimed for looting by another government and if you come here you're asking for trouble.