Doubt this will be a quiet weekend.

[Sarge]

KAWEAH, California -- SoCal Martial Law Alerts (SCMLA) interviewed Dutch Joens, host of the Dutch Joens Radio Program, who discussed a call that recently went out to America's militias to muster for at least three days near Arizona's troubled border with Mexico.

According to Joens, an Arizona militia sent a request out to the nation's Constitutional militias to help secure a 50-mile section of Arizona's southernmost border for at least three days. The three-day period is to begin on the evening of July 9, 2010 and will extend at least until July 12, 2010. The 50-mile section of border to be protected extends approximately 80 miles inland from Arizona's southernmost border and is being used as a "dry port" by Mexican cartels to facilitate drug smuggling, human trafficking, etc. into America.

"This isn't a political action per se. This is a reaction to an invasion," Joens said.

"There are more beheadings along the border than there are in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the Arab countries put together, but the media won't report it," said Joens. "People have their relatives kidnapped. They pay the ransom and then they're delivered in a 50-gallon drum in parts. So, we're on the border of a third-world nation that is exporting its violence on us and we need to do something to stop it."

Joens stated that the "mission" of the operation is to shut the illegal border crossing down for at least three days, because "if we can do it, the federal government has no excuse."

On June 16, 2010, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu stated that Arizona needs "support from the federal government. It's their job to secure the border and they haven't done it. In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it's just simply outrageous."

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told a local Tea Party audience that President Obama had said in a private conversation that he would not secure America's southern border until the "immigration reform" law is passed. "In other words, they're holding it hostage," Kyl said, "They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with 'comprehensive immigration reform.'"

During SCMLA's interview with Joens, which took place on June 27, 2010, he told viewers that he's "hoping that by the time you hear this, we'll have five, six, seven hundred militia guys from across the country down there. They're coming from Michigan, Oregon, all over. We're sending a small contingent, because we're a small militia. But if somebody can just send one person ... "

At the conclusion of the interview, Joens gave instructions on how anyone can help, even if they are not able to travel to Arizona.

----------------------------------------------------------​-

Per Dutch Joens, anyone who can physically help the militia's cause or who can donate materials or funds for the militia's cause is encouraged to get in touch with the militia's contact person at the following email address:

coalition_of_patriots1776@hotmail.com

There are so many other things going on, I can't begin to post them all.

I will throw in the total solar eclipse on the 11th late and early 12th.

Not up to getting into Fed's deciding if they will file suit on the cop that was convicted. Anyone heard one shouldn't get tried twice for the same crime?

Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts.

How about they filed before the trial took place. BO is out of control to let this crap go on.

Drop the voter intimidation suit. Holder it out of control along with the rest. My words.

[Sarge]

Sort of messed up on the header and could not correct.

[Matt Collins]

It might be quite the weekend, but I don't know if it will be a quiet weekend or not. Whatever happens, toady is the day for Ron Pauk.

[A Son of Liberty]

My solution to the "illegal" immigration "problem": End the "War on Drugs"; eliminate the minimum wage; end social welfare programs such as Medicaid, WIC, etc.; end "public" education... voila - no problem! :)

[A Son of Liberty]

It might be quite the weekend, but I don't know if it will be a quiet weekend or not. Whatever happens, toady is the day for Ron Pauk.

:lol:

[dannno]

A few hundred??? That's it??

Oh man, I fear for their safety..

[dannno]

My solution to the "illegal" immigration "problem": End the "War on Drugs"; eliminate the minimum wage; end social welfare programs such as Medicaid, WIC, etc.; end "public" education... voila - no problem! :)

Psshhhhh... That would be too easy :rolleyes:

Apparently we want a challenge :cool:

[A Son of Liberty]

Psshhhhh... That would be too easy :rolleyes:

Apparently we want a challenge :cool:

:thumb:

Heaven forbid people freely associate! :p

[Elwar]

eliminate the minimum wage;

This and ending the extension of unemployment benefits would see unemployment go way down, inflation go down and a huge boost to the economy.

[Acala]

My solution to the "illegal" immigration "problem": End the "War on Drugs"; eliminate the minimum wage; end social welfare programs such as Medicaid, WIC, etc.; end "public" education... voila - no problem! :)

As an Arizonan, I agree. Liberty is the answer and illegals are scapegoats.

But I don't mind if the illegal immigration issue, and Arizona's new law, become the fuse that lights the secession bomb.

[Deborah K]

My solution to the "illegal" immigration "problem": End the "War on Drugs"; eliminate the minimum wage; end social welfare programs such as Medicaid, WIC, etc.; end "public" education... voila - no problem! :)

Those things only put bandaids on the real problem. They will help end the incentive, but they won't totally solve the problem. Why aren't Canadians flooding across to the tune of millions per year? Because Canada's gov't isn't corrupt to the core the way Mexico's is. And btw, you will NEVER be able to end the war on drugs until the corruption in the mexican gov't is ended. They go hand in hand. Money, money, money, money.
No matter what we do here, as long as there are corrupt gov'ts oppressing their citizens, there will always be an abundance of people trying to get to America.

[TNforPaul45]

Toady is a quite day....

[Matt Collins]

Toady is a quite day....
Toady is the primary! :cool:

[A Son of Liberty]

Those things only put bandaids on the real problem. They will help end the incentive, but they won't totally solve the problem. Why aren't Canadians flooding across to the tune of millions per year? Because Canada's gov't isn't corrupt to the core the way Mexico's is. And btw, you will NEVER be able to end the war on drugs until the corruption in the mexican gov't is ended. They go hand in hand. Money, money, money, money.
No matter what we do here, as long as there are corrupt gov'ts oppressing their citizens, there will always be an abundance of people trying to get to America.

Well, those things actually do solve the problem(s):

1. "'They' take our jobs." "They" take jobs that "American" people won't do because they've (Americans) have been living in bubble-world, made up by minimum wage laws and the Fed's loose monetary policy.

2. "'They' are vicious drug lords." The drug black market exists because government insists upon dictating morals.

3. "'They' sap our resources." Eliminate the incentive - get rid of the social welfare programs - including public schools - that 'they' 'exploit'.

Free association. Just because a person lives across some imaginary line on a map does not mean they don't have a right to work at an agreed-upon rate with an employer on the other side of that imaginary line.

Where's the problem? :)

[Deborah K]

Well, those things actually do solve the problem(s):

1. "'They' take our jobs." "They" take jobs that "American" people won't do because they've (Americans) have been living in bubble-world, made up by minimum wage laws and the Fed's loose monetary policy.

2. "'They' are vicious drug lords." The drug black market exists because government insists upon dictating morals.

3. "'They' sap our resources." Eliminate the incentive - get rid of the social welfare programs - including public schools - that 'they' 'exploit'.

Free association. Just because a person lives across some imaginary line on a map does not mean they don't have a right to work at an agreed-upon rate with an employer on the other side of that imaginary line.

Where's the problem? :)

Explain why Canadians don't flood across the border to take advantage of our incentives. It's because their gov't isn't corrupted the way Mexico's is. They have no need to cross to the degree that Mexicans do. Ending incentives isn't going to keep Mexicans and other foreigners from trying to live in America.

This isn't about imaginary lines. It's about gov't corruption and opression of its citizens plain and simple. People generally wouldn't want to leave their countries of origin if they could find freedom and prosperity in them.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Sheriff Paul Babeu stated that Arizona needs
"support from the federal government. It's their job to secure the border and they haven't done it. In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it's just simply outrageous."

Frankly, Arizona should sue the Federal Government for every nickle expense and losses occurred due to the border/immigration problems.

It's amazing the US government can give billions in taxpayer money to Mexico for selective enforcement of what the US Federal government warrants action. It appears illegal immigration is not one of them. Frankly not even due to Mexico corruption, US needs to withhold all aid/bailouts/funds, forever!

[Deborah K]

Sheriff Paul Babeu stated that Arizona needs

Frankly, Arizona should sue the Federal Government for every nickle expense and losses occurred due to the border/immigration problems.

It's amazing the US government can give billions in taxpayer money to Mexico for selective enforcement of what the US Federal government warrants action. It appears illegal immigration is not one of them. Frankly not even due to Mexico corruption, US needs to withhold all aid/bailouts/funds, forever!

Their dream is to annex mexico ala NAU, after all Mexico is rich in natural resources that we don't have. They love this chaos. It divides us while they work feverishly behind the scenes to merge us.

[A Son of Liberty]

Explain why Canadians don't flood across the border to take advantage of our incentives. It's because their gov't isn't corrupted the way Mexico's is. They have no need to cross to the degree that Mexicans do. Ending incentives isn't going to keep Mexicans and other foreigners from trying to live in America.

This isn't about imaginary lines. It's about gov't corruption and opression of its citizens plain and simple. People generally wouldn't want to leave their countries of origin if they could find freedom and prosperity in them.

What would be the problem with Mexicans living in America "illegally" if none of these incentives were in place? They wouldn't be "stealing jobs", the drug black market wouldn't exist, they wouldn't be taking advantage of social welfare programs including schools...

[dannno]

Explain why Canadians don't flood across the border to take advantage of our incentives. It's because their gov't isn't corrupted the way Mexico's is. They have no need to cross to the degree that Mexicans do. Ending incentives isn't going to keep Mexicans and other foreigners from trying to live in America.

This isn't about imaginary lines. It's about gov't corruption and opression of its citizens plain and simple. People generally wouldn't want to leave their countries of origin if they could find freedom and prosperity in them.

NAFTA doubled the poverty rate in Mexico, and that was OUR country that corrupted THEM. Our country is MUCH MORE corrupt than Mexico, and we are dictating actions to them that is making the people in their country much worse off... which is leading them to here.. which is why i don't blame them at all.

[Deborah K]

What would be the problem with Mexicans living in America "illegally" if none of these incentives were in place? They wouldn't be "stealing jobs", the drug black market wouldn't exist, they wouldn't be taking advantage of social welfare programs including schools...

First of all, you're assuming all illegals are just coming over to earn a living. In the case of most Mexicans, that's probably true. But, I believe we have a right to be selective about who lives among us from foreign nations, hence immigration laws, which every country has. Without them we would end up with every person who is being oppressed in their country of origin. In which case, we would end up with a population like China or India and no resources to handle it.

[Deborah K]

NAFTA doubled the poverty rate in Mexico, and that was OUR country that corrupted THEM. Our country is MUCH MORE corrupt than Mexico, and we are dictating actions to them that is making the people in their country much worse off... which is leading them to here.. which is why i don't blame them at all.

The Mexican gov't wanted NAFTA as well. Yes, the US gov't is corrupt, but surely you aren't claiming the Mexican gov't is pure as the driven snow. :confused:

What are we dictating precisely that is making the people in their country much worse off?

[A Son of Liberty]

First of all, you're assuming all illegals are just coming over to earn a living. In the case of most Mexicans, that's probably true. But, I believe we have a right to be selective about who lives among us from foreign nations, hence immigration laws, which every country has. Without them we would end up with every person who is being oppressed in their country of origin. In which case, we would end up with a population like China or India and no resources to handle it.

I'm not exactly making that assumption - if all of the incentives that I suggest we get rid of actually were gotten rid of, then I would very definitely make that assumption... after all, what else would they be here for? ;)

As to being selective about who lives among "us", well... I'll probably just leave that alone. :)

[Elwar]

So...what happened over the weekend? Did they plug the leak?

[Deborah K]

I'm not exactly making that assumption - if all of the incentives that I suggest we get rid of actually were gotten rid of, then I would very definitely make that assumption... after all, what else would they be here for? ;)

As I stated, not all of them who come here are for the benefits. Kind of insulting to assume all Mexicans who enter illegally are lazy and just want to sponge off the system. Not saying that's what you intended, and ending the entitlements will help, but again, it's unrealistic to think it's the end-all-be-all solution.


As to being selective about who lives among "us", well... I'll probably just leave that alone. :)


Are you selective about who lives under your roof? Cuz, it's the same thing only on a much larger scale.

[A Son of Liberty]

As I stated, not all of them who come here are for the benefits. Kind of insulting to assume all Mexicans who enter illegally are lazy and just want to sponge off the system. Not saying that's what you intended, and ending the entitlements will help, but again, it's unrealistic to think it's the end-all-be-all solution.

To be clear, if there were no incentives, then everyone who came here would be here for a better living. That there are incentives in place makes it likely that at least some who are here now are here to take advantage of those incentives.



Are you selective about who lives under your roof? Cuz, it's the same thing only on a much larger scale.

Well, no, it isn't. I have a right to determine who lives under my roof, because what is under my roof is my property. But I have no right to restrict the movement of other people because I imagine that I exist as part of some collective. People have the right to freely associate.

[Marenco]

Well, those things actually do solve the problem(s):

1. "'They' take our jobs." "They" take jobs that "American" people won't do because they've (Americans) have been living in bubble-world, made up by minimum wage laws and the Fed's loose monetary policy.

2. "'They' are vicious drug lords." The drug black market exists because government insists upon dictating morals.

3. "'They' sap our resources." Eliminate the incentive - get rid of the social welfare programs - including public schools - that 'they' 'exploit'.

Free association. Just because a person lives across some imaginary line on a map does not mean they don't have a right to work at an agreed-upon rate with an employer on the other side of that imaginary line.

Where's the problem? :)

Hah. No wonder a lot of people get turned away from this william volker libertarian movement.

[A Son of Liberty]

Hah. No wonder a lot of people get turned away from this william volker libertarian movement.

That may be. But I was turned ON to libertarianism by it's inherent logic and morality in respect for the individual.

[The Patriot]

My solution to the "illegal" immigration "problem": End the "War on Drugs"; eliminate the minimum wage; end social welfare programs such as Medicaid, WIC, etc.; end "public" education... voila - no problem! :)

What happens to people who can't afford private school?

[The Patriot]

What would be the problem with Mexicans living in America "illegally" if none of these incentives were in place? They wouldn't be "stealing jobs", the drug black market wouldn't exist, they wouldn't be taking advantage of social welfare programs including schools...

Would they be able to vote?

What is to say that once they accumulate a majority they will vote in left leaning progressive legislators who reinstate the welfare state?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

First of all, you're assuming all illegals are just coming over to earn a living. In the case of most Mexicans, that's probably true. But, I believe we have a right to be selective about who lives among us from foreign nations, hence immigration laws, which every country has. Without them we would end up with every person who is being oppressed in their country of origin. In which case, we would end up with a population like China or India and no resources to handle it.

Do you agree with Ron Paul when has stated many Mexican workers would simply head home to Mexico after the farming season or more often if they could freely traverse the border?

You are citing Canadians as model citizens however Florida is temporary home to many Canadian snowbirds who come down and work during the winter. Florida even accommodates seasonal residency in statue.

If we ended everything already mentioned and ended farm subsidies they might start growing more corn south of the border again and some might not even make the trip.

What is the constitutional basis for immigration law? The constitution delegates the power to create a uniform rule of naturalization. States already regulate aliens owning property and preventing participation in the democratic political process. What else do you want states to do beyond doing something more effectively?

If your state wants to enforce trespassing why should my state pay for it?

[A Son of Liberty]

What happens to people who can't afford private school?

What happens to people now who can't afford the taxes that are confiscated to fund public schools? What happens to the people now who send their kids to private schools, or home school, yet still have their earnings confiscated to fund public schools? What happens to charities which attend to the poor now who lose out on contributions because people have fewer funds to offer on account of their labor being garnished? What happens to the entrepreneurs facing "competition" from a monopoly backed by force who wish to start low-tuition private schools to tap the market of people who can't afford private schools as currently constituted?

[A Son of Liberty]

Would they be able to vote?

What is to say that once they accumulate a majority they will vote in left leaning progressive legislators who reinstate the welfare state?

Only if they're citizens would they be able to vote.

We have plenty of honest-to-goodness, born-and-bred citizens right here and now that are left leaning and voting to expand the existing welfare state. As we are doing with these people, we continue to express our ideas about liberty, rather than implement them through force, and try to educate people about the truth.

[The Patriot]

What happens to people now who can't afford the taxes that are confiscated to fund public schools? What happens to the people now who send their kids to private schools, or home school, yet still have their earnings confiscated to fund public schools? What happens to charities which attend to the poor now who lose out on contributions because people have fewer funds to offer on account of their labor being garnished? What happens to the entrepreneurs facing "competition" from a monopoly backed by force who wish to start low-tuition private schools to tap the market of people who can't afford private schools as currently constituted?

The people that can't afford private schools aren't the one's being significantly taxed, if at all. Hell 47% of Americans paid no income tax this year and many of them can't afford public school. Americans give 295 billion in overall charity, each year. Even with abolishment of the income tax, even if it were to double, how would you fund education for every child in the country?

So the question remains, what happens to the kids who can't afford private school when public education is abolished?

[The Patriot]

Only if they're citizens would they be able to vote.

We have plenty of honest-to-goodness, born-and-bred citizens right here and now that are left leaning and voting to expand the existing welfare state. As we are doing with these people, we continue to express our ideas about liberty, rather than implement them through force, and try to educate people about the truth.

I agree, we have plenty of those kind of citizens, so how does having more solve the problem when legislators can reinstitute programs overtime? And how are you going to educate all the people about "liberty" so called when you don't have a public education system, and there will clearly be ideologically differing curricula and learning environments?

[A Son of Liberty]

The people that can't afford private schools aren't the one's being significantly taxed, if at all. Hell 47% of Americans paid no income tax this year and many of them can't afford public school. Americans give 295 billion in overall charity, each year. Even with abolishment of the income tax, even if it were to double, how would you fund education for every child in the country?

So the question remains, what happens to the kids who can't afford private school when public education is abolished?

Property taxes fund schools. Everyone pays property taxes - even if you're a renter, your monthly rent payment is calculated by your landlord to include his/her expenses, which include taxes on the property.

I accept no responsibility placed upon me to see to it that every child in the country is educated.

[A Son of Liberty]

I agree, we have plenty of those kind of citizens, so how does having more solve the problem when legislators can reinstitute programs overtime? And how are you going to educate all the people about "liberty" so called when you don't have a public education system, and there will clearly be ideologically differing curricula and learning environments?

It would be far easier to teach the concept of liberty without the existence of government schools! :D

You make a good point - maybe we should abolish legislatures. ;)

[Meatwasp]

the people that can't afford private schools aren't
so the question remains, what happens to the kids who can't afford private school when public education is abolished?
home school them like i did!

[Seraphim]

Their dream is to annex mexico ala NAU, after all Mexico is rich in natural resources that we don't have. They love this chaos. It divides us while they work feverishly behind the scenes to merge us.

Correct. The NAU in practice already exists(not full blown, but NAFTA, the Security and Prosperity Act, the super highway of trade being built etc). It will become official sooner rather than later. Once the destruction of the US dollar is complete the "solution presented will be the Amero (or whatever the hell you want to call it).

Without a stable American currency the oil pipe lines to the USA directly from Alberta would have no way of of being paid for. It will be presented to the people as an economic equilizer and a way of ensuring that North American trade be viable and stable over the long term.

Many jobs in Canada and a large sector of the economy are dependant on the USA buying our oil. So in that regard, I doubt it will take much to convince the Canadian populace (particularly those out East who are heavily dependant on the Alberta oil jobs). The US populace will be desperate for economic relief and will likely be easily swayed as well.

[Deborah K]

To be clear, if there were no incentives, then everyone who came here would be here for a better living. That there are incentives in place makes it likely that at least some who are here now are here to take advantage of those incentives.


Have you ever looked at the statistics regarding who crosses our borders illegally? It is naive at best to assume everyone who does is well intentioned. Regardless of whether or not social services exist.



Well, no, it isn't. I have a right to determine who lives under my roof, because what is under my roof is my property. But I have no right to restrict the movement of other people because I imagine that I exist as part of some collective. People have the right to freely associate

This is a misinterpretation of collectivism. Individuals can live together in a country that is governed by the rule of law and not be considered collectivists. You have every right to restrict the movement of someone who's only concern it is to use or take or destroy your property if it suits them. The picture below is what many illegals do once they cross the border. This was taken by a rancher of his land.

Not everyone who crosses illegally has benevolent intentions.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2zrq1xv.jpg

[Deborah K]

Do you agree with Ron Paul when has stated many Mexican workers would simply head home to Mexico after the farming season or more often if they could freely traverse the border?


Yes, I do! It is still that way for those who choose to go the legal route. It's called the guest worker program.


You are citing Canadians as model citizens however Florida is temporary home to many Canadian snowbirds who come down and work during the winter. Florida even accommodates seasonal residency in statue.

Never cited Canadians as model citizens - never even implied it. Simply made an analogy regarding the degree to which Mexicans cross compared to Canadians and attributed it to gov't corruption. As to your point, sounds like it's all nice and legal - key word being legal.


If we ended everything already mentioned and ended farm subsidies they might start growing more corn south of the border again and some might not even make the trip.

Again, this would insult me if I were a Mexican living here illegally. It assumes I am lazy and only here to get freebies. I strongly believe the reason they aren't "growing more corn south of the border" is because it's not only not feasible, it's not safe anymore to do so in their own country. I've lived in the southwest my entire life, in every state and I know a lot of mexicans, some legal, some trying get legal. Mexico is a beautiful country with lots of natural resources. Why wouldn't mexicans want to earn a living in their own country? Answer: Corrupt government.


What is the constitutional basis for immigration law? The constitution delegates the power to create a uniform rule of naturalization. States already regulate aliens owning property and preventing participation in the democratic political process. What else do you want states to do beyond doing something more effectively?

What would be the point of having a uniform rule of naturalization without a uniform rule of immigration? We have immigration laws in this country that are supposed to be enforced by the federal gov't. If they would enforce them - uniformly - states like AZ wouldn't be caught in the situation they find themselves in now.


If your state wants to enforce trespassing why should my state pay for it

Show me where I stated that your state should.

[Deborah K]

Correct. The NAU in practice already exists(not full blown, but NAFTA, the Security and Prosperity Act, the super highway of trade being built etc). It will become official sooner rather than later. Once the destruction of the US dollar is complete the "solution presented will be the Amero (or whatever the hell you want to call it).

Without a stable American currency the oil pipe lines to the USA directly from Alberta would have no way of of being paid for. It will be presented to the people as an economic equilizer and a way of ensuring that North American trade be viable and stable over the long term.

Many jobs in Canada and a large sector of the economy are dependant on the USA buying our oil. So in that regard, I doubt it will take much to convince the Canadian populace (particularly those out East who are heavily dependant on the Alberta oil jobs). The US populace will be desperate for economic relief and will likely be easily swayed as well.

I'm starting to think they're just going to do this so slowly and gradually, that while the older among us die off, the younger generations will just be indoctrinated into accepting the merge. Check this out, it's a study program at Arizona State University: http://nacts.asu.edu/projects/north-america-next

Here's another University teaching about 'North America': http://www.american.edu/sis/cnas/index.cfm

And this is a link to NAFI: North American Forum on Integration: http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/triumvirat07/

And this is on that site:


MAIN OBJECTIVES

To raise awareness among future North American leaders regarding regional integration issues

To allow participants to familiarize themselves with the functioning of democratic institutions

To help participants better understand NAFTA’s political, economic and social realities

To develop their sense of a North American identity

To encourage intercultural exchanges and to promote the creation of North American academic networks

To inform the current decision makers of the priorities and the concerns of North American youth.

[A Son of Liberty]

Have you ever looked at the statistics regarding who crosses our borders illegally? It is naive at best to assume everyone who does is well intentioned. Regardless of whether or not social services exist.


This is a misinterpretation of collectivism. Individuals can live together in a country that is governed by the rule of law and not be considered collectivists. You have every right to restrict the movement of someone who's only concern it is to use or take or destroy your property if it suits them. The picture below is what many illegals do once they cross the border. This was taken by a rancher of his land.

Not everyone who crosses illegally has benevolent intentions.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2zrq1xv.jpg

If someone from this or any other country wishes to steal or do damage to my property, then I have a right to redress. I don't have a right to restrict their movement because I'm afraid they might have bad intentions.

If someone is coming here for an opportunity to work and improve their life, why would anyone wish to restrict that? I understand and agree that those who come here to take advantage of our programs, etc., shouldn't be allowed. But that's why I say get rid of those programs. Those who come here who wish to do me harm should be and are subject to legal action, just like people who are here to begin with.

[Deborah K]

If someone from this or any other country wishes to steal or do damage to my property, then I have a right to redress. I don't have a right to restrict their movement because I'm afraid they might have bad intentions.

If someone is coming here for an opportunity to work and improve their life, why would anyone wish to restrict that? I understand and agree that those who come here to take advantage of our programs, etc., shouldn't be allowed. But that's why I say get rid of those programs. Those who come here who wish to do me harm should be and are subject to legal action, just like people who are here to begin with.

Again I state without equivocation, I believe we have a right to be selective about who lives among us from other countries. I am not stating that I am against legal immigration, just illegal immigration. I know plenty of latinos who became citizens and are just as upset about those who go through the back door.

It is all well and good to have an ideology that dictates freedom of movement, it is a goal to strive for when humanity as a whole is capable of respecting it. But in reality, our country cannot take everyone around the world who wants to live here. We do not have the resources to handle a billion people.

[The Patriot]

home school them like i did!
Who will home school them when the parents are out working to make ends meet?

[The Patriot]

It would be far easier to teach the concept of liberty without the existence of government schools! :D

You make a good point - maybe we should abolish legislatures. ;)

How so? How are you going to stop say, Catholic schools from teaching the concepts of distributism and social justice so called? No doubt they will fill a void in the absence of public schooling.

[A Son of Liberty]

Again I state without equivocation, I believe we have a right to be selective about who lives among us from other countries. I am not stating that I am against legal immigration, just illegal immigration. I know plenty of latinos who became citizens and are just as upset about those who go through the back door.

It is all well and good to have an ideology that dictates freedom of movement, it is a goal to strive for when humanity as a whole is capable of respecting it. But in reality, our country cannot take everyone around the world who wants to live here. We do not have the resources to handle a billion people.

With respect, this is why I put my faith in market forces, rather than in the force of government.

We have a natural, God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We do not have the right to be free of the inconvenience of other people's rights.

[A Son of Liberty]

How so? How are you going to stop say, Catholic schools from teaching the concepts of distributism and social justice so called? No doubt they will fill a void in the absence of public schooling.

Why would I seek to stop any school from teaching anything?

Edit to add: I'm interested in your response to my comment that I accept no responsibility to see to it that all children must be educated...

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Again, this would insult me if I were a Mexican living here illegally. It assumes I am lazy and only here to get freebies. I strongly believe the reason they aren't "growing more corn south of the border" is because it's not only not feasible, it's not safe anymore to do so in their own country. I've lived in the southwest my entire life, in every state and I know a lot of mexicans, some legal, some trying get legal. Mexico is a beautiful country with lots of natural resources. Why wouldn't mexicans want to earn a living in their own country? Answer: Corrupt government.

Your reply just defies reality. What would happen in America if farmers left or quit farming in mass exodus because China decided to pump $20 billion in corn subsidies? Would government become more or less corrupt without rural America?



What would be the point of having a uniform rule of naturalization without a uniform rule of immigration?

That is your constitutional argument? What would be the point?

What is the point to advocating a constitution of expressly delegated powers if you are going to simply create new delegated powers out of thin air?

[Deborah K]

With respect, this is why I put my faith in market forces, rather than in the force of government.

We have a natural, God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We do not have the right to be free of the inconvenience of other people's rights.

Your ideology will not solve the problems we face today. And it is beyond me how you can think that becoming a nation like China or India would be to anyone's advantage. That is exactly what would happen with open borders as long as there are people trying to escape the oppression of their own gov'ts.

[Deborah K]

Your reply just defies reality. What would happen in America if farmers left or quit farming in mass exodus because China decided to pump $20 billion in corn subsidies? Would government become more or less corrupt without rural America?


What if? What if we just focus on the reality of the situation. :rolleyes: Enough with philosophical arguments and no concrete solutions to the problems at hand.



That is your constitutional argument? What would be the point?

What is the point to advocating a constitution of expressly delegated powers if you are going to simply create new delegated powers out of thin air

Do I really have to spell this out for you? There is no point to naturalization laws without first dealing with the issue of immigration. You can't become a citizen without immigrating here, thus the need for uniform immigration laws. While you can immigrate without naturalization, you can't become a citizen without immigrating first. Get it?

[A Son of Liberty]

Your ideology will not solve the problems we face today. And it is beyond me how you can think that becoming a nation like China or India would be to anyone's advantage. That is exactly what would happen with open borders as long as there are people trying to escape the oppression of their own gov'ts.

Again, with respect, my ideology respects the choices of individuals - human beings. It is hyperbolic and circumspect to presume that what I espouse would create conditions like those in China and India.

[Deborah K]

Again, with respect, my ideology respects the choices of individuals - human beings. It is hyperbolic and circumspect to presume that what I espouse would create conditions like those in China and India.

No more so than what you are implying my ideology supposes. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[A Son of Liberty]

No more so than what you are implying my ideology supposes. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't believe I've made any implications about your ideology.

I can agree to disagree.

[The Patriot]

Why would I seek to stop any school from teaching anything?

Edit to add: I'm interested in your response to my comment that I accept no responsibility to see to it that all children must be educated...

I don't know, how would you guarantee giving everyone an education that would guarantee your ideal libertarian society? Seems like wishful thinking for the most part.

I know you don't, but you pay for it, so unless you want to evade taxes and go to prison, you are upholding your civic responsibility to pay for public services.

[Deborah K]

I don't believe I've made any implications about your ideology.

I can agree to disagree.

With this comment:
With respect, this is why I put my faith in market forces, rather than in the force of government.


You are implying that because I don't agree with your ideology that must mean I agree in the force of government. I don't. I believe that gov't was instituted orginally in this nation to protect our rights. That includes protecting our borders.

[A Son of Liberty]

I don't know, how would you guarantee giving everyone an education that would guarantee your ideal libertarian society? Seems like wishful thinking for the most part.

I know you don't, but you pay for it, so unless you want to evade taxes and go to prison, you are upholding your civic responsibility to pay for public services.

I have no right to a guaranteed libertarian society. I have a right to express my ideas, just like anyone else. If my ideas sell, more's the better.

[A Son of Liberty]

With this comment:

You are implying that because I don't agree with your ideology that must mean I agree in the force of government. I don't. I believe that gov't was instituted orginally in this nation to protect our rights. That includes protecting our borders.

Well that really isn't an implication, is it? You've stated that you believe that "we have a right to regulate who gets into our country" (paraphrased). This is a distinction which can only exist, in this case, with government force.

If this is an unfair recognition of your position, I apologize.

[Deborah K]

Well that really isn't an implication, is it? You've stated that you believe that "we have a right to regulate who gets into our country" (paraphrased). This is a distinction which can only exist, in this case, with government force.

If this is an unfair recognition of your position, I apologize.

If you mean ICE breaking down doors in the middle of the night rounding up people - yes - that is government force. And I am against doing that. But I'm not against deportation and securing the borders, neither of which involve force.

When I used to patrol the border as a minuteman, and illegals were caught by border patrol, they were processed i.e. 'booked', given food and water, and a ride back to the legal border entry and that was it - all in the same day.

[A Son of Liberty]

If you mean ICE breaking down doors in the middle of the night rounding up people - yes - that is government force. And I am against doing that. But I'm not against deportation and securing the borders, neither of which involve force.

When I used to patrol the border as a minuteman, and illegals were caught by border patrol, they were processed i.e. 'booked', given food and water, and a ride back to the legal border entry and that was it - all in the same day.

I want to take a second to clarify that I respect your practical position on this. You see, I tend to deal mostly in the philosophical (this is no admission that my views aren't practical - ;) ).

Where we diverge is that I accept a definition of government that admits that all government is force.

Again, I don't oppose restricting illegal immigration, given our current set of circumstances.

[dannno]

Did shit go down or did they puss out :confused:

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

What if? What if we just focus on the reality of the situation. :rolleyes: Enough with philosophical arguments and no concrete solutions to the problems at hand.

End everything previously mentioned and end farm subsidies. I started at concrete solutions and it has drifted because there seems to be some disagreement U.S. farm subsidies have not helped put rural Mexican farming out of business. You pretty much wrote a long winded reply that I am full of shit and a corrupt Mexican government is the problem. That position defies the reality of history.



Do I really have to spell this out for you? There is no point to naturalization laws without first dealing with the issue of immigration. You can't become a citizen without immigrating here, thus the need for uniform immigration laws. While you can immigrate without naturalization, you can't become a citizen without immigrating first. Get it?

Yes you do. No point of something has no relevance to express delegated power. Furthermore I find your argument to be complete hogwash. There is significant relevance to a uniform Rule of Naturalization. This express delegated power is extremely important because it provides Congress the power to create a uniform rule to establish allegiance. This was deemed an important enough power to expressly delegate because the founders desired people participating in the democratic political process in every state to have uniform allegiance to the Constitution. The power to regulate people moving across state borders was not delegated. Obviously the founders delegated power to the federal government to raise armies to secure the defense of the several states and as such the power to enforce trespassing state borders was clearly not needed to preserve the union. By clearly omitting this power from the Constitution the founders knew trespassing state borders was a matter best left to individual states.

You can't cite it because the power to regulate immigration or enforce trespassing of state borders was not delegated. You just want it to be regulated and use the monopoly of force to get your way. Advocating for powers that are not expressly delegated is not advocating the Constitution. Since you are not advocating the Constitution I don't know what you are advocating but I think I prefer voluntaryism over something inconsistent or undefined.

[Deborah K]

End everything previously mentioned and end farm subsidies. I started at concrete solutions and it has drifted because there seems to be some disagreement U.S. farm subsidies have not helped put rural Mexican farming out of business. You pretty much wrote a long winded reply that I am full of shit and a corrupt Mexican government is the problem. That position defies the reality of history.


My position that the Mexican gov't is corrupt "defies the reality of history"? I suggest you do a google of mexican gov't corruption and get back to me on that. I'm not going to do your work for you.


Yes you do. No point of something has no relevance to express delegated power. Furthermore I find your argument to be complete hogwash. There is significant relevance to a uniform Rule of Naturalization. This express delegated power is extremely important because it provides Congress the power to create a uniform rule to establish allegiance. This was deemed an important enough power to expressly delegate because the founders desired people participating in the democratic political process in every state to have uniform allegiance to the Constitution. The power to regulate people moving across state borders was not delegated. Obviously the founders delegated power to the federal government to raise armies to secure the defense of the several states and as such the power to enforce trespassing state borders was clearly not needed to preserve the union. By clearly omitting this power from the Constitution the founders knew trespassing state borders was a matter best left to individual states.

You can't cite it because the power to regulate immigration or enforce trespassing of state borders was not delegated.

Uh, yes I can cite it. It has been put in the hands of the fed gov because it would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. And it has been ruled on by the SCOTUS in Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). And given that the SCOTUS was put in place to interpret the Constituion, then at present, the federal gov't, according to the SCOTUS is constitutionally mandated to enforce immigration laws.

Your argument seems to be that the enforcement of immigration laws should be left to the states and not the fed. I actually don't care who enforces immigration laws. But as of right now, it's the Fed gov's job and I expect them to do their job.


You just want it to be regulated and use the monopoly of force to get your way. Advocating for powers that are not expressly delegated is not advocating the Constitution. Since you are not advocating the Constitution I don't know what you are advocating but I think I prefer voluntaryism over something inconsistent or undefined.

I think I just debunked this wild assumption. I believe in the rule of law and that our gov't was instituted to follow that law and to protect our rights. That it hasn't is a testament to our complacency - not to my beliefs being "inconsistent or undefined". I strongly believe had the people held their duly elected and paid for representatives' feet to the fire as it pertains to adherence to the Constitution, that we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, in this country.

If you really believe in liberty, then perhaps you should try a little harder to stop pigeon-holeing, and demonizing everyone who doesn't completely agree with your philosophy.

[Deborah K]

I want to take a second to clarify that I respect your practical position on this. You see, I tend to deal mostly in the philosophical (this is no admission that my views aren't practical - ;) ).

Where we diverge is that I accept a definition of government that admits that all government is force.

Again, I don't oppose restricting illegal immigration, given our current set of circumstances.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I respect your position as well.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You are not going to like this reply and the harsh truth contained herein.


My position that the Mexican gov't is corrupt "defies the reality of history"? I suggest you do a google of mexican gov't corruption and get back to me on that. I'm not going to do your work for you.

I am not the one in need of research as I am not the one claiming the only reason is because the Mexican government is corrupt and dismissing the impact of farm subsidies.

Study by USCD:

Conclusion

As the study’s results demonstrate, billions of dollars of federal subsidies for American-grown corn are largely responsible for the economic displacement of Mexico’s corn farmers. The impact of U.S. corn subsidies has severely transformed the lives of people who have no influence on U.S. policies. This economic vulnerability of Mexican farmers was initiated through the approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The inclusion of the agricultural sector within the agreement’s broader agenda of trade liberalization exposed Mexicans employed in agriculture to U.S. domestic economic policies. (It is important to note that U.S.-Canada side of the agreement contrastingly maintains significant restrictions to protect the Canadian agricultural sector). Although these subsidies produced an increase in the corporate ownership of corn production, a decrease in corn prices, and dwindling numbers of employed corn farmers–not to mention the displacement and forced migration of Mexican corn farmers–Mexican voters have no voice in congressional deliberations regarding the approval of federal subsidies for American-grown corn.

http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/04/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers/




Uh, yes I can cite it.

Ok... this ought to be interesting...



It has been put in the hands of the fed gov because it would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.

And given that the SCOTUS was put in place to interpret the Constituion, then at present, the federal gov't, according to the SCOTUS is constitutionally mandated to enforce immigration laws.

That is your argument? Well fuck me lets just advocate government do everything that makes sense even if it is not an expressly delegated power. As long as it is backed up by SCOTUS it's all good! While your at it why don't you tell Ron Paul:

1. To stop saying these wars are undeclared because he is full of shit. Congress passed a resolution authorizing the President to use force. It is not u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l unless the courts say so and until then I do not appreciate him lying.

2. To stop saying health care is u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l. The shit was passed by Congress and the courts have not declared anything about health care to be u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l. It does not make sense for the federal government to discriminate and only provide health care to old people. I want to be taken care of too. Health care is common sense.

3. To put his boy Tom Woods back in the anarchist box he came from and stop talking about this nullification bullshit. It can only be u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l if the courts say so. The states have no business declaring anything that makes sense to anyone u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l that contradicts the Supreme Court.

4. To stop using the fucking word u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l because all of the shit he talks about as u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l makes common sense AND has been backed up by the courts. Like the Commerce Clause for starters.



And it has been ruled on by the SCOTUS in Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]).

These are the facts of the case you cite:


Each of the five plaintiffs was denied federal employment solely because of his or her alienage. They were all Chinese residents of San Francisco and each was qualified for an available job.

After performing satisfactory work for the Post Office Department for 10 days, respondent Kae Cheong Lui was terminated because his personnel record disclosed that he was not a citizen. 2 Respondents Mow Sun Wong and Siu Hung Mok also demonstrated their ability to perform on the job; they both participated in the California Supplemental Training and Education Program (STEP) and were assigned to federal agencies until the STEP program ended. As a noncitizen, Mow Sun Wong, who had been an electrical engineer in China, was ineligible for employment as a janitor for the General Services Administration. Siu Hung Mok, who had 18 years' experience as a businessman in China, could not retain his job as a file clerk with the Federal Records Center of GSA.

Respondent Francene Lum was not permitted to take an examination for a position as evaluator of educational programs in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Her background included 15 years of teaching experience, a master's degree in education, and periods of graduate study at four universities. Anna Yu, the fifth plaintiff, who is not a respondent because she did not join in the appeal from the adverse decision of the District [426 U.S. 88, 92] Court, sought a position as a clerk-typist, but could not take the typing test because she was not a citizen.

Two of the plaintiffs, Mow Sun Wong and Siu Hung Mok, had filed declarations of intent to become citizens; the other three had not. They were all lawfully admitted, Francene Lum in 1946, Anna Yu in 1965, Siu Hung Mok and Kae Cheong Lui in 1968, and Mow Sun Wong in 1969.

Which have absolutely ZERO relevance on immigration. The case you cited and are toting around as some authority of divine SCOTUS revelation is about:


The Civil Service Commission (CSC) regulation barring noncitizens, including lawfully admitted resident aliens, from employment in the federal competitive civil service held unconstitutional as depriving such resident aliens of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Again... ZERO relevance on immigration. This case is about discrimination.

This is what the issue is about:


This citation is from a 2007 Kansas State Supreme Court ruling.

8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (2000) declares an alien's unsanctioned entry into the United States to be a crime. The statute provides:

"Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to [*12] the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

While in this country one whose presence is unlawful remains subject to the full range of obligations imposed by our laws. However, while Congress has criminalized the illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported and has again entered this country illegally. 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (2000) makes it a felony for an alien who has been deported to thereafter reenter the United States or at anytime thereafter be found in the United States.

Those persons who enter this country illegally are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (2000). Martinez' counsel acknowledged this possibility at the plea hearing. Deportation may be based upon any number of factors, including the alien's initial entry into this country contrary [*13] to law or acts while in this country, such as the commission of certain crimes. However, while an illegal alien is subject to deportation, that person's ongoing presence in the United States in and of itself is not a crime unless that person had been previously deported and regained illegal entry into this country. See United States v. Rincon-Jimenez, 595 F.2d 1192, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 1979). As noted by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405, 408 n.6, 2 L. Ed. 2d 873, 78 S. Ct. 875 (1958), when it commented on 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and similar statutes: "Those offenses are not continuing ones, as 'entry' is limited to a particular locality and hardly suggests continuity."

Now that I am educating you... you should know what kind of SCOTUS citation you are looking for.

You are looking for SCOTUS rulings where the facts of the petitioner deal with illegal entry. SCOTUS has referred to it in this 1982 ruling as:


Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).

Let me know when you find a case where a petitioner was caught in the act of illegal entry and petitioned the court objecting to deportation or objecting to being detained. You might find a case of the former of where someone claimed they were a political refugee and their life would be in danger if deported.

If the petitioner was not caught in the act of illegal entry (entry being a term the courts have defined, and a definition you should look up) then the courts will be most likely dealing with a case of discrimination or a removable offense (that is probably a term you should get very familiar with so you can understand exactly what it means).

Maybe the ruling cited in this quote will help your research:

The Government argues that, from a constitutional perspective, alien status itself can justify indefinite detention, and points to Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953), as support. That case involved a once lawfully admitted alien who left the United States, returned after a trip abroad, was refused admission, and was left on Ellis Island, indefinitely detained there because the Government could not find another country to accept him. The Court held that Mezei’s detention did not violate the Constitution. Id., at 215—216.

Although Mezei, like the present cases, involves indefinite detention, it differs from the present cases in a critical respect. As the Court emphasized, the alien’s extended departure from the United States required him to seek entry into this country once again. His presence on Ellis Island did not count as entry into the United States. Hence, he was “treated,” for constitutional purposes, “as if stopped at the border.” Id., at 213, 215. And that made all the difference.

Since it took the federal government 100 years to create this power I suggest you look at rulings starting from the late 19th century to find SCOTUS rulings detailing how it was substantiated.



Your argument seems to be that the enforcement of immigration laws should be left to the states and not the fed. I actually don't care who enforces immigration laws. But as of right now, it's the Fed gov's job and I expect them to do their job. I think I just debunked this wild assumption.

My Constitutional argument is pretty damn identical to Ron Paul... original intent. Either words mean what words mean (original intent) or Congress can define the meaning of words in the Constitution (your argument). Debunk that! The thing that has driven me from listening to Rush Limbaugh and waving flags almost 20 years ago to voluntaryism... is listening to two decades of endless bullshit arguments like yours shitting on the Constitution and original intent.

I plainly articulated the power that has been expressly delegated and the importance of allegiance which is what a uniform Rule of Naturalization is about. It has nothing to do with immigration. It was never interpreted that way and it took the federal government 100 years to create a power that was never delegated.

I might differ with Dr. Paul on whether unlawfully ratified amendments are law. I do not think they are. According to Constitutional principles if something is not lawful it is NULL and VOID. I can't say because I do not know what his views are on unlawfully ratified amendments.


I believe in the rule of law and that our gov't was instituted to follow that law and to protect our rights.

Obviously not since it is perfectly ok with you if Congress redefines what the words mean in the law.



That it hasn't is a testament to our complacency - not to my beliefs being "inconsistent or undefined". I strongly believe had the people held their duly elected and paid for representatives' feet to the fire as it pertains to adherence to the Constitution, that we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, in this country.

Of course. Let us blame anyone but the people breaking the law trading security for freedom and shitting on the Republic at the same time. Would you mind starting by looking in the mirror? No offense.

In a Republic do you know whose duty it is to hold people accountable to the law? I'll give you a hint. It is not done at the ballot box and it is not done by the majority of people who are breaking the law imposing their democratic will on a free minority.

Reality is you are too afraid to reconcile that. I don't hold it against you. I have the same fear. I used to fight government but as an individual it is a no win scenario because of a judicial cartel most people never think about. The only thing that ever resulted from it is 1) I got smarter in the law 2) It would just cost me time or money 3) I would forfeit property or liberty. I have had to change my tyranny resistance strategies.

Regarding educating people... bah what a joke. If after 3 years of debating everyone on this forum was educated and held the same truths there would be no disagreements. It just isn't gonna happen. I only wait for people to realize it but many will probably have to experience it on their own.

When people reach some kind of consensus the only sensible course of action is to pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to each other... liberty will have a chance. We will resist tyranny and be left alone in peace or we will have to defend the very existence of liberty on this earth.



If you really believe in liberty, then perhaps you should try a little harder to stop pigeon-holeing, and demonizing everyone who doesn't completely agree with your philosophy.

I am appalled the constitutionality of immigration has to be repeatedly debated over and over on this forum. It's bullshit. Ron Paul supporters who advocate it should have a firm grasp on the Constitution and know exactly what is expressly delegated and what isn't.

If you really believe in the Constitution perhaps you should get together with some of your unconstitutional pro-illegal buddies and take a course on the Constitution to learn how immigration powers were created a century after the ratification of the document.

You can also just send me a check for bragging you were not going to do my work for me. I am no longer educating you for free. Where do I send the bill?

[Deborah K]

You are not going to like this reply and the harsh truth contained herein.

Wow! You really went to a lot of effort on this. You spent hours in the middle of the night on it. I'm not sure what the motive was behind it, but I'm quite impressed. I'm going to try to clear up some misunderstandings.



I am not the one in need of research as I am not the one claiming the only reason is because the Mexican government is corrupt and dismissing the impact of farm subsidies.

Study by USCD:

Conclusion

As the study’s results demonstrate, billions of dollars of federal subsidies for American-grown corn are largely responsible for the economic displacement of Mexico’s corn farmers. The impact of U.S. corn subsidies has severely transformed the lives of people who have no influence on U.S. policies. This economic vulnerability of Mexican farmers was initiated through the approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The inclusion of the agricultural sector within the agreement’s broader agenda of trade liberalization exposed Mexicans employed in agriculture to U.S. domestic economic policies. (It is important to note that U.S.-Canada side of the agreement contrastingly maintains significant restrictions to protect the Canadian agricultural sector). Although these subsidies produced an increase in the corporate ownership of corn production, a decrease in corn prices, and dwindling numbers of employed corn farmers–not to mention the displacement and forced migration of Mexican corn farmers–Mexican voters have no voice in congressional deliberations regarding the approval of federal subsidies for American-grown corn.

http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/inde...-corn-farmers/

My assertion is that Mexican gov't corruption is at the root of why most mexicans seek a better life in America. Your conclusion seems to be that mexican gov't corruption is NOT at the root. Yet, your own article states that "the economic vulnerability of Mexican farmers was initiated through the approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement". Are you implying that the U.S. strong-armed the Mexican gov't into NAFTA? Because the SPP would prove otherwise.


Ok... this ought to be interesting...

That is your argument? Well fuck me lets just advocate government do everything that makes sense even if it is not an expressly delegated power. As long as it is backed up by SCOTUS it's all good! While your at it why don't you tell Ron Paul:

1. To stop saying these wars are undeclared because he is full of shit. Congress passed a resolution authorizing the President to use force. It is not u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l unless the courts say so and until then I do not appreciate him lying.

2. To stop saying health care is u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l. The shit was passed by Congress and the courts have not declared anything about health care to be u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l. It does not make sense for the federal government to discriminate and only provide health care to old people. I want to be taken care of too. Health care is common sense.

3. To put his boy Tom Woods back in the anarchist box he came from and stop talking about this nullification bullshit. It can only be u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l if the courts say so. The states have no business declaring anything that makes sense to anyone u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l that contradicts the Supreme Court.

4. To stop using the fucking word u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l because all of the shit he talks about as u-n-c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-a-l makes common sense AND has been backed up by the courts. Like the Commerce Clause for starters.

I personally think there is a difference, between what is NON-Constitutional (not in the Constitution) and UN-Constitutional (goes against what IS in the Constitution). Now I am of the understanding, based on what I've read by Bastiat, (I think it was) that our Constitution is rooted in common law which dictates that if a thing is not expressly written as against the law, it is not forbidden - as opposed to Napoleonic law, which dictates that if a thing is not expressly allowed, it is forbidden. This speaks to "implied powers", which most Jeffersonians hate, but was established by Hamilton. I tend to think it can work in the favor of the people, if applied correctly, but as recent history has proven, it is usually applied for self-serving reasons.

I did err in laziness by using the example of Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976] And, I made it sound like it was the end-all-be-all ruling, but I disagree that it is only about discrimination. I used it because it was an example of Congressional power to regulate immigration, by controlling the visa process. I humbly admit that you have shown me better examples with which to make my case.

This apparently set you off on a tangent about the SCOTUS. For the record, I don't like that they sometimes legislate from the bench. I am against the Roe v. Wade decision, for example. But, as in the case of immigration regulation, and as I stated before, I don't care who regulates it, but right now it's their job, and they need to do it.


Now that I am educating you... you should know what kind of SCOTUS citation you are looking for.

You have masterfully made my case by citing instances over the last one hundred years as to how Congress assumed the power over immigration through SCOTUS. Thank you.


My Constitutional argument is pretty damn identical to Ron Paul... original intent. Either words mean what words mean (original intent) or Congress can define the meaning of words in the Constitution (your argument). Debunk that! The thing that has driven me from listening to Rush Limbaugh and waving flags almost 20 years ago to voluntaryism... is listening to two decades of endless bullshit arguments like yours shitting on the Constitution and original intent.

I plainly articulated the power that has been expressly delegated and the importance of allegiance which is what a uniform Rule of Naturalization is about. It has nothing to do with immigration. It was never interpreted that way and it took the federal government 100 years to create a power that was never delegated.

I might differ with Dr. Paul on whether unlawfully ratified amendments are law. I do not think they are. According to Constitutional principles if something is not lawful it is NULL and VOID. I can't say because I do not know what his views are on unlawfully ratified amendments.

Yet Dr. Paul has never argued about immigration being enforced by the federal gov't as being unconstitutional. Neither has Judge Napolitano. And this was your initial demand, that I cite something that gives credence to Congress having authority over immigration. In fact, Dr. Paul seems to disagree with you on the matter of illegal immigration (correct me if I'm wrong about this, but you're open borders - right?):


".....there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous."

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm


When people reach some kind of consensus the only sensible course of action is to pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to each other... liberty will have a chance. We will resist tyranny and be left alone in peace or we will have to defend the very existence of liberty on this earth.

The only way people will reach some kind of concensus is through reasonable discourse. That is truly lacking in these forums. There is way too much, "my way or the highway, or my way or you're an idiot" talk going on here, and I'm sorry to say, you are among those who make reasonable discourse difficult as is evidenced by your rudeness in your response to me.

We will never agree on how to solve the problem of illegal immigration, but I thank you for the research you have done on the issue of whether Congress has the Constitutional right to regulate it. I still don't care who regulates it, but at least it is plain that they got the authority to do so from SCOTUS rather than usurping it as they have done on so much else.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am truncating a reply down to the only important item.


This speaks to "implied powers", which most Jeffersonians hate, but was established by Hamilton. I tend to think it can work in the favor of the people, if applied correctly, but as recent history has proven, it is usually applied for self-serving reasons.

Government is not limited under a doctrine of implied powers.

Since I am selling out, I not only support your doctrine of implied power dating back to McCullogh v. Maryland but I will advocate it. I am 100% behind the implied powers of health care for the general welfare. When people get desperate they do desperate things so something like government mandated health care will reduce the amount of stupid unhealthy people willing to loot me directly. Since I intend to economically plunder the intellectually handicapped I envision lobbying for a few implied powers of my own choosing to stifle competition. You have my promise I will correctly apply implied power to benefit the people, including me. :)

[Pericles]

Meanwhile, in the real world:

FORT HANCOCK - They can't keep burying the bodies here. Not just because the small cemetery in this remote desert town can't handle the volume - because somebody could get killed.

On a still, sunny spring morning in Fort Hancock, about 60 miles east of El Paso, two elderly Hispanic men sit on the tailgate of a pickup, surrounded by graves.

Francisco Estrada and Alberto Rosales munch on pieces of fruit, legs dangling above the dusty earth where many former residents of this rural outpost make their final repose. As caretakers for the Fort Hancock Cemetery, they put in about 20 hours a week. It's mostly quiet work, meant to occupy their aging minds and bodies.

This spring, though, as the drug war enveloped Fort Hancock's Mexican sister city, El Porvenir, their stress levels spiked. "What they're starting over there, they're going to finish here," Estrada frets.

Estrada and Rosales point to white and yellow silk flowers that adorn one of the most recent additions to the cemetery: the resting place of Manuel Morales Lerma, who was shot at his home in El Porvenir. Fearing cartel leaders would next target his family, Morales Lerma's relatives moved his funeral to Fort Hancock's tiny cemetery.

People here describe the ceremony like a scene out of a spaghetti western. Sheriffs' deputies from all around came to stand guard. Some mourners hid in the bushes with guns, says Hudspeth County Judge Becky Dean Walker.

Fewer than 20,000 people live in the Valle de Juárez, a 60-mile stretch of small villages that line the highway from Juárez to El Porvenir. In what was once a peaceful if desperately poor farming community, more than 75 people have fallen victim to the raging drug war so far this year.

It's an astonishing death rate. If the pace of killings continues this year, the murder rate could reach 1,600 homicides for every 100,000 people (in New Orleans, the 2009 murder rate was 52 per 100,000, the highest in the nation, according to FBI data).

Cartel leaders have told entire towns to vacate or be decimated. They've burned homes and churches and left in their wake residents paralyzed with fear. The aftershocks extend far from the epicenter of the violence, bringing fear and confusion - along with legions of armed guards, and refugees from the bloodbath - to Fort Hancock and other rural Texas border outposts.

Morales Lerma's funeral passed without another murder; the slaughter to the south has yet to bleed across the border.

Yet no one disputes the need to be prepared: As El Porvenir and the rest of the Juárez Valley have descended into chaos, law enforcement has crushed into the small towns of Hudspeth County. More officers - state, local and federal - work more hours with more firepower during every hour of the day.

Though Hudspeth County residents fret for their southern neighbors - especially family members who cannot escape to the United States - many welcome the protection from the nightmare just across the Rio Grande.

The number of uniforms in the Juárez Valley has increased, too. Mexican military troops set up checkpoints on the highway and patrol the villages with automatic weapons at the ready. Mexican federal police are ever present.

But petrified residents say their presence has done little to curb the killing. Some believe the soldiers are at least complicit in the cartels' dirty work and may be actively doing drug lords' bidding.

"The population is fearful of the soldiers," one El Porvenir resident says. "They are always beating people up for information."

Valle de muerte

Death and terror rule Highway 2, or Carretera Porvenir-Ciudad Juárez - the stretch of road that links the small towns of the Juárez Valley. Just east of Juárez, the sign on the highway says "Colonia de Esperanza." It means Colony of Hope.

Less than a hundred yards away, the blistered black shell of a pink cinderblock home sits idle. The frame of what used to be a single dining room chair sits outside the home, as if someone once sat there and watched the traffic fly by.

A block past, a single porch light illuminates an abandoned home; whoever fled must have left it on. Next door, the burned frame of another pink cinderblock home sits empty, ashes still piled on the ground. Across the street, another charred house. Black scars surround barred windows where flames licked out from within.

A small military convoy passes on the highway. A pickup loaded with soldiers gripping automatic rifles follows a drab olive-green semi-truck with military gear. Two women walk along the shoulder with three small children toting backpacks. They hardly notice. A couple of miles down the road, cars maneuver around two loose horses trotting along the road.

In Guadalupe, one of the largest town in the Valle de Juárez with about 9,000 people, a group of young factory workers gathers at a bus stop, waiting for a ride into Juárez.

Federal police sit on benches at the edge of a park plaza, where a few children shoot hoops and romp around on bright colored play equipment. The town's mayor, Jesús Manuel Lara Rodríguez, was shot down in Juárez last month. Two members of the town council were killed in 2009, according to the El Paso Times.

For decades, residents in these tiny, poor towns have toiled either in the cotton and alfalfa fields or in the giant maquilas of Juárez. If they wanted more than the paupers' wages of the farm and factory, they worked for the drug cartels. Yet these communities remained peaceful until early this year, when the Juárez drug war bled into the farmland.

The terror fell perhaps hardest on El Porvenir.

Off the highway, the only paved street, stray dogs prowl dusty roads. Plywood covers the windows in modest houses, mostly stucco and cinderblock, painted in pastels. Drying clothes swing in the light breeze. A padlock shuts off the park. The closet-sized police station - dark and barred shut, with a foot-long hole in its side - houses no police. The church has been burned. Many here have seen family members perish at the hands of the cartels.

On a sunny May afternoon, two men sitting on a bench near the town square are among the few people out in the daylight. They agree, nervously, to talk with reporters. "No names," they say over and over again, constantly scanning the area for suspicious vehicles or people

A young man with a scraggly beard and a bejeweled Playboy bunny necklace says he has lived here all his life. All the soldiers, he says, don't make a difference. The killings continue; he believes the soldiers work with the murderers.

"They don't do anything; they're just cruising," he says. He's married and he has a job here in El Porvenir, so he can't leave.

No one here knows who can be trusted, the older man says. Some work for the Army or the cartels as informants. And if anyone talks to someone whose name appears on a hit list, they risk having their own name added. Everyone here knows who is on the list, he says.

Someone - he doesn't know who - writes up the names, copies them and distributes them on fliers strewn around town. "They say, we are going to kill you one by one," the older man says.

It didn't used to be this way. This used to be a happy place, the two men say. Music filled the streets every weekend. People drank and danced. Now, only fear remains.

Mayberry of yesteryear

When he was a little boy, Jose Franco would ride his bicycle across the border into El Porvenir to play with friends. Now, as superintendent of the 540-student Fort Hancock Independent School District, he sees young boys and girls who come from El Porvenir so traumatized they can't stand being in the same room with other children.

"Ah, these kids could tell you stories," he says, shaking his head. One teenager saw his mother shot and his grandfather attacked with an ice pick. A young girl getting ready for her quinceañera watched her father get executed while her grandmother was strapped to a chair, Franco says.

A disabled elementary student saw television footage of his mother's beaten and suffocated corpse wrapped in plastic. "The violence," he says. "These guys are ruthless."

This year, the tiny school district has seen its student population grow more than 10 percent. Fifty-four of the 63 new students are from Mexico, Franco says.

They come to his schools years behind academically, shredded emotionally from what they've seen, what they still see in their minds every day. The children imagine horrors befalling their uncles, their fathers, their sisters, those who can't come join them on the other side, Franco says.

He met with state officials to coordinate social services for the new students, and he hired a special teacher to help immerse them in their new language and academic culture. The district has also hired its own security, a constable who patrols the small campus.

"I have a very compassionate staff," Franco says, "and they pretty much do whatever it takes to help these children."

The students are among dozens who call Fort Hancock their new home - at least part of the time. When the sun sets, a steady stream of cars make their way across the two-lane international bridge that joins El Porvenir and Fort Hancock, says Hudspeth County Deputy Sheriff Keith Hughes.

One of the many ramshackle mobile homes that line Fort Hancock's unpaved streets becomes a haven for as many as 16 people each night. "It's hard to find a vacant house, and there are a lot of Mexican plates," Hughes says.

It's hard to know which of the nightly residents are victims and which are running from their own involvement in the drug trade. The uncertainty has made Fort Hancock's residents a vigilant bunch. Though the violence has not crossed, Hughes gets calls all the time from people worried about suspicious vehicles and activities.

Hughes is one of 17 Hudspeth County deputies - up from 12 five years ago - who are working 16-hour days seven days a week to patrol the massive border county. Sheriff Arvin West has received grants from Gov. Rick Perry totalling nearly $3.6 million to hire more deputies and pay them for overtime patrols, and he's used those dollars to beef up security as the violence in El Porvenir gets ever closer.

In May, a shootout erupted right on the river. One person died on the Mexican side; four others were injured. The wounded made it across the river and had to be transported, with a sheriff's escort, to the hospital in El Paso.

West has moved all the men and money he can to Fort Hancock, he says. He has told the cotton farmers whose fields line the Rio Grande to arm themselves - not that they needed the prodding. "This used to be Mayberry," says West, his own pistol perched in a holster around his paunchy waist.

The U.S. Border Patrol has surged here, too. Hundreds more agents in green uniforms man highway checkpoints and patrol back roads.

Doug Mosier, spokesman for the Border Patrol's El Paso Sector, which encompasses most of Hudspeth County, would not disclose the total number of agents in the area, but West estimates about 400 agents patrol here, twice as many as a few years ago. The increased presence has made a difference, Mosier says. Drug busts have slowed to a trickle, and agents are apprehending only about five illegal crossers a day.

Unlike the feared police presence in El Porvenir, the infusion of law enforcement comforts most of the residents of Fort Hancock. But some of the officers go too far, says Bill Addington, whose family owns farmland in Sierra Blanca, another tiny Hudspeth County border town.

"Everywhere we go, we're stopped," he says. County Commissioner Jim Ed Miller says agents have repeatedly torn up his farm property by driving through it. And though he's lived here for decades, farming cotton and alfalfa in the now majority-Hispanic town, agents regularly pull him over and ask if he's a citizen. "I was stopped for making a 'suspicious turn,'" he says. "Seven units put the habeas grabbus on me."

No room in the cemetery

Estrada and Rosales slide off the back of the pickup to resume weed-pulling and flower-tending duties at the cemetery. Estrada, only half-joking, tells Rosales in Spanish that they need to start getting the place ready for all the new residents.

"They just spray bullets; they don't care who's around," Estrada says of the cartels.

The two have lived in this area for decades. Estrada says he used to do his shopping just across the bridge in Mexico, where goods were cheaper and more plentiful. Now he travels to El Paso. Rosales used to live in El Porvenir. His son still lives there, and Rosales fears for his safety.

Recently, when his son came to Fort Hancock for a visit, he returned to Mexico to find his home had been set on fire, though federal police doused the blaze before it engulfed the whole house. Rosales says his son can't seek asylum in the United States, because he has a family, a job and a home he can't sell in El Porvenir.

"I'm scared for him, but what can I do?" he asks in Spanish. "Nobody's going to buy that house."

In a way, Estrada hopes the violence in Mexico continues, because he worries that the cartel leaders will bring their fight north. Already, he says, they have buried too many people from El Porvenir.

"It's hard over there, but poor people can't come over here," he says.

Since the Morales Lerma funeral, Estrada and Rosales say the number of uniformed officers in the region has spiked. And the board that oversees the cemetery has for the most part stopped burials from Mexico. The two say they feel safer.

The cemetery board now enforces a longstanding rule that only people who lived in town, or had a relative there, could be buried in the Fort Hancock Cemetery, says Mary Miller, a member of the board.

"It's real sad, because I have friends over there who encourage people from here not to come over there, because they're shooting people at funerals," Miller says.

No one's real sure how many people are buried among the tall, skinny pine trees and sparse brush of the cemetery. In the 1950s or 1960s, Miller says, a flood exhumed many of the bodies, and they floated away. What they do know, she says, is that the cemetery is too small to accommodate the death toll across the border.

"The way they're killing 'em in Juárez and El Porvenir," she explains, "there wouldn't be any room left."

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Meanwhile, in the real world:

Looks like it sucks to be there. I don't have that problem where I am at so I'm not concerned about it.