Ron Paul on Immigration. Do you agree or disagree with Ron Paul?

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration.



Border Security (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/)


A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:



1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.


The facts on the ground are being created right now. Every day that passes makes it more difficult to reverse the damage that has already been done.

YouTube - RON PAUL 101 - IMMIGRATION (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJFcSF80dE&feature=player_embedded)


SOURCE:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/


============




Ron Paul on Immigration:


The Immigration Question (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html)


Ron Paul
April 4, 2006


The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.

We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care.

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html



YouTube - Ron Paul on Immigration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwZsBiZYocg&feature=related)

[low preference guy]

'88 Ron Paul or 2008 Ron Paul?

[FrankRep]

'88 Ron Paul or 2008 Ron Paul?
The older and wiser Ron Paul of 2008.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This thread is meaningless. How many times are we going to rehash this non-sense? If we spent one tenth the energy attacking the Welfare State we'd be well on our way.

[Fredom101]

this thread is meaningless. How many times are we going to rehash this non-sense? If we spent one tenth the energy attacking the welfare state we'd be well on our way.

+1000

[Flash]

See my post here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2800242&postcount=697

If you want to reduce illegal immigration then lets work together at something we can all agree on.

[Anti Federalist]

I agree with Ron Paul.

[BuddyRey]

This thread is meaningless. How many times are we going to rehash this non-sense? If we spent one tenth the energy attacking the Welfare State we'd be well on our way.

Frickin' A! As evidenced by the "Immigration Consensus" thread, almost all of us agree that, if there is an immigration problem, it's mostly a result of the welfare state. Combating immigrants, some of whom actually want to work here and not just be welfare sponges, would be trying to treat a symptom rather than the disease, IMO.

[Deborah K]

This thread is meaningless. How many times are we going to rehash this non-sense? If we spent one tenth the energy attacking the Welfare State we'd be well on our way.

The issue is afoot in this nation right now and, as I've always predicted. will be the flash point when/if amnesty is passed. Those who are not directly affected by it, don't really understand its significance to the welfare of the country. We all agree the goodies should stop, but I personally don't believe illegal immigration will ever end until gov't corruption in those countries ends. And yes >sigh< we have a corrupt gov't as well, but the difference is, people are clamoring to get in - not out of - our country.

[low preference guy]

This thread is meaningless. How many times are we going to rehash this non-sense? If we spent one tenth the energy attacking the Welfare State we'd be well on our way.

agree. this is a lame waste of time thread.

[Kludge]

I´d vote for yongrel over Ron Paul. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242082)


(Yeah - I´d actually VOTE!)
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242082)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The issue is afoot in this nation right now and, as I've always predicted. will be the flash point when/if amnesty is passed. Those who are not directly affected by it, don't really understand its significance to the welfare of the country. We all agree the goodies should stop, but I personally don't believe illegal immigration will ever end until gov't corruption in those countries ends. And yes >sigh< we have a corrupt gov't as well, but the difference is, people are clamoring to get in - not out of - our country.

Yeah, all those people fleeing from worst countries to come to America should be told to go home because of your precious "jobs". You have no right to a job. You also have no right to point a gun at someone (e.g. an employer) and demand that one type of person must get a job over another type of person. Do you believe in natural rights?

I would welcome with open arms those coming from a tyrannical impoverished country. Think about the 19th Century here in America. Almost all of us can trace our roots back. Imagine if all those oppressed by the Monarchies (e.g. those of religious backgrounds not recognized by the State), were disbarred from coming to America, or that only a small quota was allowed.

Of course immigration will never end, unless of course you like a despotic government akin to North Korea.

I'm sorry, but I am not really affected by unskilled labor. I also recognize the right of an employer to hire anyone he wants without going to the bureaurocrat to ask permission.

[ChaosControl]

I disagree with him. Oh noes! The fires of hell will now consume me.

[axiomata]

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.

This may be a factual statement, but that doesn't mean the overwhelming majority of Americans know what's best. Paul doesn't say that he wants immigration reduced.

[thehunter]

Too often, the question of immigration is tied up in whether or not the rule of law should stand in the case of migration.

[Deborah K]

Yeah, all those people fleeing from worst countries to come to America should be told to go home because of your precious "jobs". You have no right to a job. You also have no right to point a gun at someone (e.g. an employer) and demand that one type of person must get a job over another type of person. Do you believe in natural rights?

I would welcome with open arms those coming from a tyrannical impoverished country. Think about the 19th Century here in America. Almost all of us can trace our roots back. Imagine if all those oppressed by the Monarchies (e.g. those of religious backgrounds not recognized by the State), were disbarred from coming to America, or that only a small quota was allowed.

Of course immigration will never end, unless of course you like a despotic government akin to North Korea.

I'm sorry, but I am not really affected by unskilled labor. I also recognize the right of an employer to hire anyone he wants without going to the bureaurocrat to ask permission.


You assume too much. This isn't just about jobs. It's about overcrowding prisons, hospitals, and schools. It's about draining tax payer dollars through social services. It's also about criminal elements crossing over. Our fugitives from the law cross into their country and they have a right to deal with them, so should we. It's a problem much bigger than you know.

When someone you know gets mowed down and killed at the tender age of 22 by an illegal driving a company truck DRUNK with FOUR priors - look me up - you'll be singing a different tune.

[constituent]

The older and wiser Ron Paul of 2008.

But wait, the article you posted was from 2006.

Does anyone know what Ron Paul's current stance on immigration is?

[FrankRep]

Does anyone know what Ron Paul's current stance on immigration is?

2007 Video of Ron Paul campaigning for the elections.

YouTube - Ron Paul on Immigration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwZsBiZYocg&feature=related)

[Deborah K]

This may be a factual statement, but that doesn't mean the overwhelming majority of Americans know what's best. Paul doesn't say that he wants immigration reduced.

What's best is for America is to NOT become China or India with a population in the billions and not enough resources to handle it.

[FrankRep]

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.


This may be a factual statement, but that doesn't mean the overwhelming majority of Americans know what's best. Paul doesn't say that he wants immigration reduced.

People want legal and controlled Immigration, which does slow immigration down some.



Legal Mexican Immigrants Standing Up Against Illegal Immigration, Amnesty


YouTube - • Crash Politics • Legal Hispanic American Stand Against Illegal Immigration! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIY6XUFVBsk&feature=player_embedded)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You assume too much. This isn't just about jobs. It's about overcrowding prisons, hospitals, and schools. It's about draining tax payer dollars through social services. It's also about criminal elements crossing over. Our fugitives from the law cross into their country and they have a right to deal with them, so should we. It's a problem much bigger than you know.

When someone you know gets mowed down and killed at the tender age of 22 by an illegal driving a company truck DRUNK with FOUR priors - look me up - you'll be singing a different tune.

If a drunk pedophile mows down my son or daughter, I won't call for the deportation of all pedophiles, I will call for justice to be done on the person who commited the crime.

If a drunk frenchman mows down my son or daughter, I won't call for the deportation, of all the french in the country, nor would I call for tens of thousands of troops on the border to stop the french coming into the country because a percentage of french who come across have committed a murder.

Do you get where I am going with this? You don't punish an entire group for an individuals crime! Nor do you restrict anothers liberty because he is associated with a group who may or may not commit an overwhelming number of crimes. Let's take blacks for example. Proportionally they commit more crimes than any other ethnic group. Should we then restrict the immigration of blacks into the country?

I thought you looked at people as individuals and not groups, I guess I was wrong. I am also truly sorry for your loss, but what you propose is no different than the tyranny foisted upon us from our lords in DC.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What's best is for America is to NOT become China or India with a population in the billions and not enough resources to handle it.

We have plenty of resources. They are just tied up by the State. The State owns something like 60% of the land in the west, and around 30-40% of the total land mass of the US! Moreover, the stringent regulations and taxation take up a vast percentage of our productivity.

The USA could easily hold 3 billion people if the market was left to its devices. Thats why the solution is not to go to the gun, but to let go of the gun and let individuals live freely, with their natural rights intact.

[Ekrub]

Hate to say it, because the liberarian in me wants open boarders, but we just can't do it.

Open borders would lead to an influx of people who by a large margin vote democrat over republican. If you want a socialist utopia, by all means, argue for your open boarders. There are some things that our "libertarian utopia" just can't handle.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hate to say it, because the liberarian in me wants open boarders, but we just can't do it.

Open borders would lead to an influx of people who by a large margin vote democrat over republican. If you want a socialist utopia, by all means, argue for your open boarders. There are some things that our "libertarian utopia" just can't handle.

Wait a second....you actually think the Republicans are any different than the Democrats? :confused:

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul on Border Security (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/)


Ron Paul.com:


A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:



1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.


The facts on the ground are being created right now. Every day that passes makes it more difficult to reverse the damage that has already been done.

YouTube - RON PAUL 101 - IMMIGRATION (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJFcSF80dE&feature=player_embedded)


SOURCE:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

[Deborah K]

If a drunk pedophile mows down my son or daughter, I won't call for the deportation of all pedophiles, I will call for justice to be done on the person who commited the crime.

If a drunk frenchman mows down my son or daughter, I won't call for the deportation, of all the french in the country, nor would I call for tens of thousands of troops on the border to stop the french coming into the country because a percentage of french who come across have committed a murder.

Do you get where I am going with this? You don't punish an entire group for an individuals crime! Nor do you restrict anothers liberty because he is associated with a group who may or may not commit an overwhelming number of crimes. Let's take blacks for example. Proportionally they commit more crimes than any other ethnic group. Should we then restrict the immigration of blacks into the country?

I thought you looked at people as individuals and not groups, I guess I was wrong. I am also truly sorry for your loss, but what you propose is no different than the tyranny foisted upon us from our lords in DC.

I am looking at this the way I have always looked at this: illegal immigration!!! Rule of law!!!! P.E.R.I.O.D. !!!

[Ekrub]

Wait a second....you actually think the Republicans are any different than the Democrats? :confused:

Not necessarily, but thats all the more of a problem. With an influx of immigrants comes an influx of politicians pandering to what they want. Immigrants tend to come to America in search of a better life, and in search of government programs (welfare, SS, medicare, etc...) Problem is the Republicans will pander to that too.

[Deborah K]

We have plenty of resources. They are just tied up by the State. The State owns something like 60% of the land in the west, and around 30-40% of the total land mass of the US! Moreover, the stringent regulations and taxation take up a vast percentage of our productivity.

The USA could easily hold 3 billion people if the market was left to its devices. Thats why the solution is not to go to the gun, but to let go of the gun and let individuals live freely, with their natural rights intact.

Where is your evidence that America has the resources to handle 3 billion people.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I am looking at this the way I have always looked at this: illegal immigration!!! Rule of law!!!! P.E.R.I.O.D. !!!

All right if you cannot be reasoned with I'll quit the conversation as there is no point in yelling in the wind.

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul is right.


1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

[Deborah K]

All right if you cannot be reasoned with I'll quit the conversation as there is no point in yelling in the wind.

I can be reasoned with. I just don't agree with you so in your mind, I can't be reasoned with. :rolleyes:

We have differing philosophies with regard to illegal immigration. So be it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I can be reasoned with. I just don't agree with you so in your mind, I can't be reasoned with. :rolleyes:

We have differing philosophies with regard to illegal immigration. So be it.

I'm not the one who thinks every single illegal immigrant is a violent criminal. You do. You honestly think your position is reasonable? Besides, aren't you a social conservative? You would love the Mexicans! Mexicans are extremely socially conservative and were a large voting bloc along with blacks to shoot down Prop 9. Aren't you happy?

[Fredom101]

I am looking at this the way I have always looked at this: illegal immigration!!! Rule of law!!!! P.E.R.I.O.D. !!!

Deborah, this is equivalent to covering your ears and screaming. You didn't respond to his points. I'm actually interested in what you have to say about the points he made. Otherwise, it's not a debate, and it makes you look very closed-minded.

[FrankRep]

I'm not the one who thinks every single illegal immigrant is a violent criminal. You do. You honestly think your position is reasonable? Besides, aren't you a social conservative? You would love the Mexicans! Mexicans are extremely socially conservative and were a large voting bloc along with blacks to shoot down Prop 9. Aren't you happy?

Stereotype much, Austrian Econ Disciple?
....


Legal Mexican Immigrants Standing Up Against Illegal Immigration, Amnesty


YouTube - • Crash Politics • Legal Hispanic American Stand Against Illegal Immigration! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIY6XUFVBsk&feature=player_embedded)

[Ekrub]

Deborah, this is equivalent to covering your ears and screaming. You didn't respond to his points. I'm actually interested in what you have to say about the points he made. Otherwise, it's not a debate, and it makes you look very closed-minded.

You can't make claims that the US has the resources to handle 3 billion people and not have some sort of proof and then ask her to respond to that. Fact is, open boarders aren't possible. No matter how nice it sounds, it just can't happen.

[FrankRep]

Fact is, open boarders aren't possible. No matter how nice it sounds, it just can't happen.

Ron Paul says (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/), "A nation without borders is no nation at all."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You can't make claims that the US has the resources to handle 3 billion people and not have some sort of proof and then ask her to respond to that. Fact is, open boarders aren't possible. No matter how nice it sounds, it just can't happen.

At which point then are you willing to institute a law banning a woman from having more than one child?

I wager we could easily support 3 billion in the free-market because as of now, we support around 350 million with an extremely small fraction of land used for farming, along with subsidies which pay farmers not to farm as much, and which crowd out competition. Not to mention that technology is at a point where you don't even need to use soil to grow food. (Hydroponics)

Moreover, it wouldn't only be resources in the US, with free-trade we have access to the worlds resources. Then again, if the protectionists had their way, only the resources in the US would be used to sustain the US which, in this scenario...they probably cannot see the US supporting 3 billion.

And if there is one thing I am certain of is human ingenuity. Then again, I'm talking in the ideal system of governance, and not what we have now. There is no way we can support 3 billion with our current state of affairs.

PS: He wasn't talking about this point I made, but the ones about having my hypothetical daughter/son killed by an illegal immigrant.

[Kregisen]

This thread is meaningless. How many times are we going to rehash this non-sense? If we spent one tenth the energy attacking the Welfare State we'd be well on our way.

People come here primarily for jobs, not welfare and goodies.

Why do people think if you take away food stamps or what not most illegals will leave or not come? Simply nonsense.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

People come here primarily for jobs, not welfare and goodies.

Why do people think if you take away food stamps or what not most illegals will leave or not come? Simply nonsense.

Because there would not be enough unskilled labor jobs to support the numbers of unskilled laborers in America. Without welfare, they would be forced to return, or go to other countries where such labor is needed.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Eliminate all of their public benefits but make them pay property or income taxes to support our schools, hospitals, and other public institutions.

I support the rule of law which means the law is what I say it means based on the doctrine of implied power and I say these spic illegal alien bastards need to be slaves or they have to go!

Elect me and I will give all American citizens a license to shoot spics illegal aliens on the spot to reduce spic illegal alien costs. Screw the Constitution, let's get spics illegal aliens under control.

[Kregisen]

You assume too much. This isn't just about jobs. It's about overcrowding prisons, hospitals, and schools. It's about draining tax payer dollars through social services. It's also about criminal elements crossing over. Our fugitives from the law cross into their country and they have a right to deal with them, so should we. It's a problem much bigger than you know.

When someone you know gets mowed down and killed at the tender age of 22 by an illegal driving a company truck DRUNK with FOUR priors - look me up - you'll be singing a different tune.



That's a very neo-con-ish argument. That argument right there is against IMMIGRATION, not illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is wrong because of national security reasons.....why even bring up jobs, taxes and crimes? ALL immigratns affect that.....very horrible argument. (which is why the neo-cons use it)

[ClayTrainor]

I agree with the young Ron Paul.

YouTube - Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWukDvcVAKw&feature=player_embedded)

[Kregisen]

Because there would not be enough unskilled labor jobs to support the numbers of unskilled laborers in America. Without welfare, they would be forced to return, or go to other countries where such labor is needed.

Up until the recession, there have been more than enough jobs for all of them (I work with some, I see literally dozens standing on street corners around here...)

The wage for labor jobs in much of Mexico is about $3 a day....even in a recession like now, most are still taking their chances landing a job that pays 20 times more.

What's all the welfare they're even getting? Everyone also takes vaguely about the welfare state the reason why they're coming, but never even mention what exactly they're coming for.

Food stamps? Unemployment checks? What? (I don't even know what our welfare state entails....I've never received any of it)

[Fredom101]

You can't make claims that the US has the resources to handle 3 billion people and not have some sort of proof and then ask her to respond to that. Fact is, open boarders aren't possible. No matter how nice it sounds, it just can't happen.

This isn't an argument either. We have to get back to first principles. Why are people trying to get into this country illegally? Welfare! Why in the world would we want to focus our efforts on preventing these people from coming here when the root cause of the problem is the welfare state? Preventing people from getting here is anti-liberty, and it keeps our focus on the wrong thing.

Start with the welfare state, otherwise, you're just promoting statism.

[Fredom101]

Up until the recession, there have been more than enough jobs for all of them (I work with some, I see literally dozens standing on street corners around here...)

The wage for labor jobs in much of Mexico is about $3 a day....even in a recession like now, most are still taking their chances landing a job that pays 20 times more.

What's all the welfare they're even getting? Everyone also takes vaguely about the welfare state the reason why they're coming, but never even mention what exactly they're coming for.

Food stamps? Unemployment checks? What?

Free schools, free healthcare, unemployment checks, actual welfare checks, and yes, food stamps...very easy to obtain a SS# once they get here, but even if they don't, they still get a lot of goodies from the gubmint.

[charrob]

What's best is for America is to NOT become China or India with a population in the billions and not enough resources to handle it.

+1 -very much agree with you: in my lifetime the population has gone from about 150 million to, today, over 300 million: so it's more than doubled. Almost all of this overpopulation has come from immigration. And increases in population correlate to decreases in standard of living. (Years ago, with a decreased population, life was more pleasant imo.)

If it were up to me, i'd stop all legal and illegal immigration. The country is full.

[BuddyRey]

Ron Paul says (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/), "A nation without borders is no nation at all."

For crying out loud, man, you say that like it's a bad thing!

Governments/nation-states are the biggest extinguishers of personal and economic liberty. Peaceful exchange and free enterprise are the most effective tools for the preservation of same.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

+1 -very much agree with you: in my lifetime the population has gone from about 150 million to, today, over 300 million: so it's more than doubled. Almost all of this overpopulation has come from immigration. And increases in population correlate to decreases in standard of living. (Years ago, with a decreased population, life was more pleasant imo.)

If it were up to me, i'd stop all legal and illegal immigration. The country is full.

This is non-sense. Why is the Chinese standard of living rising if they keep increasing their population in a smaller landmass than that of the US? So infuriating!!! It's economic policies that are causing our standard of living to decline, not some amount of people (and I'm not even going to address how ridiculous it is to assume that we have had 150 million immigrants arrive in the country in the last 50 years).

[The Patriot]

I strongly agree with Ron Paul. Eliminate services for illegals, secure the border, and end birthright citizenship.

[Fredom101]

+1 -very much agree with you: in my lifetime the population has gone from about 150 million to, today, over 300 million: so it's more than doubled. Almost all of this overpopulation has come from immigration. And increases in population correlate to decreases in standard of living. (Years ago, with a decreased population, life was more pleasant imo.)

If it were up to me, i'd stop all legal and illegal immigration. The country is full.

Would you be willing to shoot people that try to get in?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Would you be willing to shoot people that try to get in?

No, most people aren't. That's why they give the State permission to do it in their place. Most people don't rob people, but people don't hesitate to let someone else rob for them, etc.

I think this forum reinforces my belief that this country is not ready for a revolution. Some of their ideas are in complete contradiction, and actually undermine what their supposed beliefs are.

[charrob]

The USA could easily hold 3 billion people if the market was left to its devices. Thats why the solution is not to go to the gun, but to let go of the gun and let individuals live freely, with their natural rights intact.
.


are you out of your mind? who would want to live in that infestation of humans? dear God, we wouldn't be able to move!

[Fredom101]

No, most people aren't. That's why they give the State permission to do it in their place. Most people don't rob people, but people don't hesitate to let someone else rob for them, etc.

I think this forum reinforces my belief that this country is not ready for a revolution. Some of their ideas are in complete contradiction, and actually undermine what their supposed beliefs are.

BINGO!! Exactly. This is what it all comes down to. Frustrating, I know, but think on the positive side, of all the posters here on a POLITICAL forum who get it, and understand what true freedom is. It's actually encouraging.

[Kregisen]

Free schools, free healthcare, unemployment checks, actual welfare checks, and yes, food stamps...very easy to obtain a SS# once they get here, but even if they don't, they still get a lot of goodies from the gubmint.

Free schools and free healthcare? Obviously emergency room can be free, and public schools are heavily subsizided but are they free?

[dannno]

I agree with Ron Paul, I don't believe in open borders or amnesty in our current situation, though I wouldn't be against either if we returned to a more free society with no welfare state.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I agree with Ron Paul, I don't believe in open borders or amnesty in our current situation, though I wouldn't be against either if we returned to a more free society with no welfare state.

How exactly does imposing a Berlin-esque Wall help us return to a more free society? I've asked this question so many times. What policies are people willing to institute to cut down on illegal immigration? Employer databases? Biometic IDs? Papers you have to carry with you at all times with a stamp of approval from the State? What is your solution?

[FrankRep]

Free schools and free healthcare? Obviously emergency room can be free, and public schools are heavily subsizided but are they free?

77 border state hospitals declare bankruptcy due to illegal immigration (http://www.alipac.us/article281.html)

Illegal immigrants are bankrupting our hospitals (http://www.examiner.com/a-1510775~Illegal_immigrants_are_bankrupting_our_hos pitals.html)

Hospitals Feeling Strain From Illegal Immigrants (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/us/hospitals-feeling-strain-from-illegal-immigrants.html)

L.A. Emergency Rooms Full of Illegal Immigrants (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html)

Rising health care costs put focus on illegal immigrants (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm)

The news stories go on and on.

[Kregisen]

77 border state hospitals declare bankruptcy due to illegal immigration (http://www.alipac.us/article281.html)

Illegal immigrants are bankrupting our hospitals (http://www.examiner.com/a-1510775~Illegal_immigrants_are_bankrupting_our_hos pitals.html)

Hospitals Feeling Strain From Illegal Immigrants (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/us/hospitals-feeling-strain-from-illegal-immigrants.html)

L.A. Emergency Rooms Full of Illegal Immigrants (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html)

Rising health care costs put focus on illegal immigrants (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm)

The news stories go on and on.




Ummmm......yeah we established that.


Obviously emergency room can be free

[charrob]

This is non-sense. Why is the Chinese standard of living rising if they keep increasing their population in a smaller landmass than that of the US?

perhaps i should have said "quality of life". China is an overcrowded cesspool, irregardless of their abilities to own materialistic items. When living in a 20-story ant colony, no materialistic item could ever equate to the ability to put a house on a 10-acre piece of property with a stream running through it, deer grazing, and birds singing. THIS: the Chinese will never have because they're overpopulated.


(and I'm not even going to address how ridiculous it is to assume that we have had 150 million immigrants arrive in the country in the last 50 years).


For every white American who dies, one white American is born. (exactly replacement rate).
For every hispanic American who dies, nine hispanics are born.

[heavenlyboy34]

For crying out loud, man, you say that like it's a bad thing!

Governments/nation-states are the biggest extinguishers of personal and economic liberty. Peaceful exchange and free enterprise are the most effective tools for the preservation of same.

You are a WINNER, sir! :D:cool: (you left out private ownership of land, though)

[Ekrub]

This is non-sense. Why is the Chinese standard of living rising if they keep increasing their population in a smaller landmass than that of the US? So infuriating!!! It's economic policies that are causing our standard of living to decline, not some amount of people (and I'm not even going to address how ridiculous it is to assume that we have had 150 million immigrants arrive in the country in the last 50 years).

The Chinese have population controls, and you never addressed the point I made about our country turning more socialist with an influx of immigrants. What's your take on how we handle something like that?

[ClayTrainor]

77 border state hospitals declare bankruptcy due to illegal immigration Welfare state (http://www.alipac.us/article281.html)

Illegal immigrants Welfare State is bankrupting our hospitals (http://www.examiner.com/a-1510775~Illegal_immigrants_are_bankrupting_our_hos pitals.html)

Hospitals Feeling Strain From Illegal Immigrants Welfare State (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/25/us/hospitals-feeling-strain-from-illegal-immigrants.html)

L.A. Emergency Rooms Full of Illegal ImmigrantsWelfare recipients (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html)


Fixed titles for accuracy.



The news stories go on and on.

Trust the media! :rolleyes:

[charrob]

Would you be willing to shoot people that try to get in?


If we put up proper border securities, they wouldn't be able to get in.

I harbor no bad feelings towards immigrants; my anger is against Americans who hire them. I'd like to see penalities and prison-time increased for any person who hires them; that is the easiest way for them to leave; no deportations necessary.

[axiomata]

If we put up proper border securities, they wouldn't be able to get in.

I harbor no bad feelings towards immigrants; my anger is against Americans who hire them. I'd like to see penalities and prison-time increased for any person who hires them; that is the easiest way for them to leave; no deportations necessary.
The proper border securities don't happen to be M240s do they?

[ClayTrainor]

The anti-free-market sentiment is strong in this thread.

[dannno]

I harbor no bad feelings towards immigrants; my anger is against Americans who hire them. I'd like to see penalities and prison-time increased for any person who hires them; that is the easiest way for them to leave; no deportations necessary.

Well the problem is that most here have no problem with voluntary transactions, including myself. Hiring somebody is a voluntary transaction. You support putting somebody in prison for participating in a voluntary transaction and in my mind that makes you immoral. You are kidnapping them and putting them in a cage when they didn't hurt anybody else.

You have to look to the reasons why people hire immigrants - it is because legal employment costs are too high. If it didn't cost so much to hire somebody legally (required insurance, payroll taxes, etc) then it wouldn't be beneficial to hire immigrants in favor of non-immigrants for most jobs.

It's the government's fault.. not the immigrants, and most certainly not those who provide jobs for said immigrants.

[AlexMerced]

If we put up proper border securities, they wouldn't be able to get in.

I harbor no bad feelings towards immigrants; my anger is against Americans who hire them. I'd like to see penalities and prison-time increased for any person who hires them; that is the easiest way for them to leave; no deportations necessary.

I still don't understand people fixation with nominal wages, lower wages arn't bad.

In the recession of 1920 wages droped 11% but prices dropped 40% due to tax decreases and wage decreases, which equals a raise...

[ClayTrainor]

If we put up proper border securities, they wouldn't be able to get in.

How many machine guns, communist style walls, and land mines do you think it will take?



I harbor no bad feelings towards immigrants; my anger is against Americans who hire them.

They hire them because they work cheaper than Americans. what do you think will happen to the price of the goods and services that these businesses provide, when you get your wish?


I'd like to see penalities and prison-time increased for any person who hires them; that is the easiest way for them to leave; no deportations necessary.

Wow... how tyrannical of you.

I think cages are for violent people that harm others, not entrepreneurs that try to provide products and services to society, at a reasonable cost.

[Deborah K]

Deborah, this is equivalent to covering your ears and screaming. You didn't respond to his points. I'm actually interested in what you have to say about the points he made. Otherwise, it's not a debate, and it makes you look very closed-minded.

His whole diatribe involved stereotyping. Why should I respond to it when my issue is singular?

[charrob]

How many machine guns, communist style walls, and land mines do you think it will take?

not many. Once enough employers are penalized, illegals will no longer come in the numbers they now come.



They hire them because they work cheaper than Americans. what do you think will happen to the price of the goods and services that these businesses provide, when you get your wish?

-hopefully these goods and services will go up in price so that low-skilled Americans can once again earn a living wage.

[ClayTrainor]

not many. Once enough employers are penalized, illegals will no longer come in the numbers they now come.

When you penalize drug dealers, does that stop people from dealing or buying drugs?

Also, it's going to take a lot of guns and violence to force people to do what you want and throw them into cages, whether you want to admit it or not.



-hopefully these goods and services will go up in price so that low-skilled Americans can once again earn a living wage.

They will go up, and poor people will also pay the higher prices. I guess you probably don't care too much about them though, as long as employers are getting thrown behind bars.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Well the problem is that most here have no problem with voluntary transactions, including myself. Hiring somebody is a voluntary transaction. You support putting somebody in prison for participating in a voluntary transaction and in my mind that makes you immoral. You are kidnapping them and putting them in a cage when they didn't hurt anybody else.

You have to look to the reasons why people hire immigrants - it is because legal employment costs are too high. If it didn't cost so much to hire somebody legally (required insurance, payroll taxes, etc) then it wouldn't be beneficial to hire immigrants in favor of non-immigrants for most jobs.

It's the government's fault.. not the immigrants, and most certainly not those who provide jobs for said immigrants.

If you do not support throwing the Constitution out the window and trumping peoples Constitutional guarantees to voluntarily contract with implied powers you are unAmerican and anti-government filth. You don't have a right to contract. Government hasn't granted you that right.

These people are criminals who do not deserve to live among upstanding citizens.
http://www.commonsensejournal.com/wp-content/images/2008/01/amnesty.jpg

[charrob]

When you penalize drug dealers, does that stop people from dealing or buying drugs?

the analogy is illogical; drug addiction requires medical intervention to effectively treat--there is no such 'addiction' involved for standard employers.


Also, it's going to take a lot of guns and violence to force people to do what you want and throw them into cages.

-hopefully not; hopefully employers will learn real fast that if they want to hire, they must hire citizens legally here.


They will go up, and poor people will also pay the higher prices. I guess you probably don't care too much about them though.

true-- but the 'poor' people will now be able to afford things because they are now making a living wage since they no longer have to compete with illegal immigrants.

[LibertyEagle]

The anti-free-market sentiment is strong in this thread.

Are you implying that Ron Paul is anti-free market?

[axiomata]

the analogy is illogical; drug addiction requires medical intervention to effectively treat--there is no such 'addiction' involved for standard employers.



-hopefully not; hopefully employers will learn real fast that if they want to hire, they must hire citizens legally here.



true-- but the 'poor' people will now be able to afford things because they are now making a living wage since they no longer have to compete with illegal immigrants.
your use of the phrase 'living wage' scares me

[Kludge]

Just out of curiosity, do any females here support open borders (less the obvious one ;) )? I never realize we have more than a couple female members until either an immigration or abortion thread comes up.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration.



Ron Paul on Border Security (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/)


Ron Paul.com:


A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:



1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.



Ron Paul is right.

[LibertyEagle]

I have a question. How many of you in this thread who are for open borders, would like to see the Constitution and the U.S., for that matter, dissolved?

Just curious.

[Kludge]

I have a question. How many of you in this thread who are for open borders, would like to see the Constitution and the U.S., for that matter, dissolved?

Just curious.

About a third, I suspect.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=197986

[Deborah K]

That's a very neo-con-ish argument. That argument right there is against IMMIGRATION, not illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is wrong because of national security reasons.....why even bring up jobs, taxes and crimes? ALL immigratns affect that.....very horrible argument. (which is why the neo-cons use it)

No, all immigrants don't affect that. Unless of course you assume they are sponging off the system, which I don't. And my opinion about this is on the record in these forums, I am for legal immigration. They're not the same thing and trying to make them sound like they are is intellectually dishonest on your part.

[axiomata]

About a third, I suspect.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=197986
That assumes all for a liberal immigration policy are anarchists.

[Anti Federalist]

I have a question. How many of you in this thread who are for open borders, would like to see the Constitution and the U.S., for that matter, dissolved?

Just curious.

I don't know what all the upset is over, they've, for all intents and purposes, gotten their wish.

The Constitution is pretty much dead and the borders are a joke, widely disregarded.

Just like "free trade", the consquences are becoming obvious, and the US will soon be a failed state, rife with corruption and heavy handed authoritarianism.

This is not going to be pretty.

[ClayTrainor]

the analogy is illogical; drug addiction requires medical intervention to effectively treat--there is no such 'addiction' involved for standard employers.

It's completely logical, and you ignored the actual point. I'm not talking about drug addiction, I'm talking about the using violence to enforce your opinion on how the market should work. Just because you stick guns in peoples faces telling them not to deal drugs, doesn't mean they're going to stop, it just means the violence and prices are going to escalate.

Just because you stick guns in peoples faces telling them not to hire immigrants, doesn't mean they will stop, it just means the prices and violence are going to escalate.

Prohibition doesn't work!


-hopefully not; hopefully employers will learn real fast that if they want to hire, they must hire citizens legally here.


About as fast as Drug dealers learn that they shouldn't sell drugs.



true-- but the 'poor' people will now be able to afford things because they are now making a living wage since they no longer have to compete with illegal immigrants.

Wages and prices both go up. You've solved nothing.

Also, You put a gun to the employers head an forced him into a cage. Who's going to run the business?

[low preference guy]

About a third, I suspect.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=197986

Nice piece of information.

[Kludge]

That assumes all for a liberal immigration policy are anarchists.

How liberal? I´d like to see a functioning nation with open borders (as LE specifically mentioned).

At the very least, a reasonable nation would probably check its potential immigrants for communicable diseases, check their sanity, and see if they´ve been convicted of anything substantial abroad.

[ClayTrainor]

Are you implying that Ron Paul is anti-free market?

No, I'm implying that many of the posts in this thread are anti-free market. Something tells me that you're looking for a fight, and won't be happy with this response. :o

[LibertyEagle]

I don't know what all the upset is over, they've, for all intents and purposes, gotten their wish.

The Constitution is pretty much dead and the borders are a joke, widely disregarded.

Just like "free trade", the consquences are becoming obvious, and the US will soon be a failed state, rife with corruption and heavy handed authoritarianism.

This is not going to be pretty.

Yeah, I know, AF. It's just rather frustrating to see some of our supposed own cheering it on.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Are you implying that Ron Paul is anti-free market?

Of course he is anti-free market. We need national sovereignty which includes policing national borders. That is protectionism which has nothing to do with the free market. The free market is about open trade, open borders, and the free flow of goods and people. Who in there right mind would claim protectionism = free market. Just ignore these non Ron Paul supporters Liberty Eagle. They don't know what they are talking about.

Remember this?
http://realtybs.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/american-flag-1.jpg

That sucker says SECURE THE BORDERS IMMEDIATELY Constitution be damned. This is an emergency and like any other good emergency we don't give a crap what the Constitution says because the Constitution wasn't written for emergencies! I know national borders aren't written down or documented anywhere but don't worry we will know where to send the troops when they secure the borders.

[ClayTrainor]

I have a question. How many of you in this thread who are for open borders, would like to see the Constitution and the U.S., for that matter, dissolved?

Just curious.

The constitution has been irrelevant and dissolved for longer than I've been alive.

[Deborah K]

I'm not the one who thinks every single illegal immigrant is a violent criminal. You do. You honestly think your position is reasonable? Besides, aren't you a social conservative? You would love the Mexicans! Mexicans are extremely socially conservative and were a large voting bloc along with blacks to shoot down Prop 9. Aren't you happy?

By all means produce the posts where I declare that all illegal immigrants are violent criminals. :rolleyes: Honestly, can you open border types at least TRY to have an honest debate about this?

Don't presume to tell me that I would love Mexicans. I've lived in the southwest my whole life. I speak spanish, I've been immersed in the culture my whole life. I have Mexican friends and relatives. :rolleyes: You need to stop with the stereotyping.

[Deborah K]

The constitution has been irrelevant and dissolved for longer than I've been alive.

But that wasn't her question. She asked if they would like to see the Constitution et.al. dissolved.

[LibertyEagle]

No, I'm implying that many of the posts in this thread are anti-free market. Something tells me that you're looking for a fight, and won't be happy with this response. :o

Do you consider national sovereignty to be "anti free market"?

Do you consider states defending their borders to stop ILLEGAL aliens from entering, if they so choose, to be "anti free market"?

Do you consider following the Rule of Law to be "anti free market"?

Do you consider the U.S. Constitution to be "anti free market"?

Do you consider having a country at all, to be "anti free market"?

[FrankRep]

Of course he [Ron Paul] is anti-free market.

Live_Free_Or_Die, Why are you on Ron Paul Forums if you don't support Ron Paul?

[ClayTrainor]

I don't know what all the upset is over, they've, for all intents and purposes, gotten their wish.

Right right, the state is definitely following anarcho-capitalist principles... :rolleyes:



The Constitution is pretty much dead and the borders are a joke, widely disregarded.


The borders are a mess because of welfare and the war on drugs, to blame it on anything else completely ignores the source of the problem.



Just like "free trade", the consquences are becoming obvious, and the US will soon be a failed state, rife with corruption and heavy handed authoritarianism.


You can't oppose free trade without opposing free markets.



This is not going to be pretty.

No it's not, especially when so many people here think the government is actually a rational solution to these problems.

[ClayTrainor]

But that wasn't her question. She asked if they would like to see the Constitution et.al. dissolved.

irrelevant... it already is.

[Deborah K]

The borders are a mess because of welfare and the war on drugs, to blame it on anything else completely ignores the source of the problem.


If this were true, then Canadians would be crossing by the hoards as well.

[low preference guy]

Yay for waste of time!

[Deborah K]

irrelevant... it already is.

I would agree that it's hanging by a string, but I don't agree that it's already dissolved.

[LibertyEagle]

irrelevant... it already is.

Answer the question, Clay. It's not hard.

[low preference guy]

I would agree that it's hanging by a string, but I don't agree that it's already dissolved.

Only gold and silver can be legal tender.

Not dissolved? Hmmm....

What would it mean to be dissolved?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Live_Free_Or_Die, Why are you on Ron Paul Forums if you don't support Ron Paul?

What are you talking about? I said secure the border Constitution be damned. Implied power trumps the right to contract or travel. I am on your team. Let's deal with the illegal person problem immediately. Let's get illegal persons out of this country using deadly force if necessary. You are not a legal person or have any natural rights unless government says so and clearly we have too many illegal people in this country.

[ClayTrainor]

Do you consider national sovereignty to be "anti free market"?

Nationalism is anti-free market.



Do you consider states defending their borders to stop ILLEGAL aliens from entering, if they so choose, to be "anti free market"?


Do I consider governments creating imaginary lines in the sand, to extort from specifici population anti-free market? Why yes, i do.



Do you consider following the Rule of Law to be "anti free market"?


If it's not natural Law, than yes.



Do you consider the U.S. Constitution to be "anti free market"?


Yes.



Do you consider having a country at all, to be "anti free market"?

Yes, if a country requires a state.

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Civil Disobedience, Self-Government & More with Motorhome Diaries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=4m5s)

[ClayTrainor]

Answer the question, Clay. It's not hard.

I did, you just don't like my answer.

[Kregisen]

No, all immigrants don't affect that.

Not all immigrants do, and not all illegal immigrants do. Besides choosing not to renew their green card, there may be absolutely no difference at all between an illegal or legal immigrants.


Unless of course you assume they are sponging off the system, which I don't. And my opinion about this is on the record in these forums, I am for legal immigration. They're not the same thing and trying to make them sound like they are is intellectually dishonest on your part.

They are not the same thing.....I'm against illegal immigration, and there's a real argument against it. But YOUR argument is against ALL immigration, it has nothing to do with illegals.

[axiomata]

How liberal? I´d like to see a functioning nation with open borders (as LE specifically mentioned).

At the very least, a reasonable nation would probably check its potential immigrants for communicable diseases, check their sanity, and see if they´ve been convicted of anything substantial abroad.

First there is a difference between liberal immigration and liberal naturalization. I favor the former not the later. Migrant workers won't be coming here and voting for more welfare benefits. They won't be getting any and they won't be voting unless they decide to become a permanent resident, give up their previous citizenship, and pledge to obey and uphold the constitution.

I have no issue with checking for communicable diseases, check their sanity, and see if they've been convicted of anything substantial abroad. If this process is streamlined then the minor costs of a minimal amount of paperwork will be less the costs of paying a coyote to take you across the border illegally.

As for a functioning nation with an open immigration policy see the US prior to 1875.

[low preference guy]

Favoring or not favoring the Constitution has nothing to do with being in favor of free markets. There are serious reasoning problems in this thread.

I for instance favor the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, but I'm as hardcore free-marketeer as Mises.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul is a U.S. Congressman and he defines himself as a Constitutionalist.

Don't even try to claim he wants to see the Constitution dismantled and the country to be dissolved. Sheesh.

[LibertyEagle]

I did, you just don't like my answer.

You didn't answer the question.

[ClayTrainor]

You didn't answer the question.

to your satisfaction.

[FrankRep]

What are you talking about? I said secure the border Constitution be damned. Implied power trumps the right to contract or travel. I am on your team. Let's deal with the illegal person problem immediately. Let's get illegal persons out of this country using deadly force if necessary. You are not a legal person or have any natural rights unless government says so and clearly we have too many illegal people in this country.

You said Ron Paul is anti-Free Market because he supports Immigration laws, but Free Markets aren't associated with Open Borders or Immigration Laws.

I viewed you calling Ron Paul anti-Free Market as an attack on Ron Paul. I misunderstood.

[charrob]

Just because you stick guns in peoples faces telling them not to hire immigrants, doesn't mean they will stop, it just means the prices and violence are going to escalate.

that doesn't make sense. The prices will only escalate to what the going rate is for a legal citizen to do that work; once it's reached that point, the illegal immigrant is no longer needed. problem solved.


Wages and prices both go up. You've solved nothing.

so how is this different than depressed wages and depressed prices?



Also, You put a gun to the employers head an forced him into a cage. Who's going to run the business?

the business fails-- but, the guy down the road who hires legal citizens, and produces a good but slightly higher in price product, can now compete in this legal market.

[Deborah K]

Not all immigrants do, and not all illegal immigrants do. Besides choosing not to renew their green card, there may be absolutely no difference at all between an illegal or legal immigrants.



They are not the same thing.....I'm against illegal immigration, and there's a real argument against it. But YOUR argument is against ALL immigration, it has nothing to do with illegals.

I think I would know what I am for and what I am against. :rolleyes: A properly enforced immgration system would allow for the proper number of immigrants in on a yearly basis. Immigration enhances America when it is done properly. You need a reality check:

YouTube - Immigration Gumballs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ)

[ClayTrainor]

Ron Paul is a U.S. Congressman and he defines himself as a Constitutionalist.
I didn't deny that


Don't even try to claim he wants to see the Constitution dismantled and the country to be dissolved. Sheesh.

I didn't claim that, but in his own words... he's not completely against it...


MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ron Paul is a U.S. Congressman and he defines himself as a Constitutionalist.

Don't even try to claim he wants to see the Constitution dismantled and the country to be dissolved. Sheesh.

Who is claiming that? We are advocating the government exercise implied power that was not expressly delegated because we don't like illegal persons. Who gives a crap what the Constitution says. It doesn't matter. Implied powers can be whatever we want them to be when we get elected.

Since implied powers ARE Constitutional it does not matter what anything else in the Constitution says. Implied power trumps it. We need to secure the borders immediately and get rid of illegal persons. They don't belong here.

[Deborah K]

Only gold and silver can be legal tender.

Not dissolved? Hmmm....

What would it mean to be dissolved?

As soon Obama becomes dictator. As soon as there is a violent revolution and martial law is enacted. As soon as we refer to ourselves as North Americans instead of Americans. Should I go on?

[low preference guy]

As soon Obama becomes dictator. As soon as there is a violent revolution and martial law is enacted. As soon as we refer to ourselves as North Americans instead of Americans. Should I go on?

Obama can order the assassination of American Citizens without a trial. In my book, he is a dictator already.

[ClayTrainor]

that doesn't make sense.
It does if you understand economics 101.



The prices will only escalate to what the going rate is for a legal citizen to do that work; once it's reached that point, the illegal immigrant is no longer needed.

The prices are based on how much it costs to produce the product, period. The cost of wages is included in the price. By using guns and prohibition of certain kinds of labor to regulate production, you drive the cost of the product up.


problem solved.

Sorry but shoving non-violent people into cages at gun point is not a rational solution to anything.



so how is this different than depressed wages and depressed prices?

Because those prices are voluntarily established. Your "legal" prices are arrived at through gunpoint. See the difference? ;)



the business fails-- but, the guy down the road who hires legal citizens, and produces a good but slightly higher in price product, can now compete in this legal market.

Awesome... so you force businesses to fail at the point of a gun, drive prices up, and solve nothing. :)

[Kregisen]

I think I would know what I am for and what I am against. :rolleyes: A properly enforced immgration system would allow for the proper number of immigrants in on a yearly basis. Immigration enhances America when it is done properly. You need a reality check:

YouTube - Immigration Gumballs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ)

I've done plenty of research on this issue....believe me, I've lived my whole life just a few hours north of the border. It's been the main issue here for the past decade.

I've seen immigration gumballs too. It's a pretty good vid but the guy isn't giving a fair view to both sides.....he said when the population doubles, that means we have to double the roads too. That's simply not true at all. He didn't take into account many services that wouldn't have to go up proportionately in price as to the number of people coming, such as roads. (vast majority of roads are not packed to the point where you can't fit more people on them...therefore costs don't go up when population rises for a certain road)

He never even bothered to mention tax revenue also goes up.....he ONLY focused on additional costs. That's called being biased.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You said Ron Paul is anti-Free Market because he supports Immigration laws, but Free Markets aren't associated with Open Borders or Immigration Laws.

I viewed you calling Ron Paul anti-Free Market as an attack on Ron Paul. I misunderstood.

I said he is anti free market as a nationalist who advocates protectionist policy. The free market is not about erecting obstacles to impede the flow of goods or people. What is the debate? This is fact.

[someperson]

I doubt his actual position has changed any from that which Clay linked to from 20 years ago.

However, a lot of the positions that he has publicized recently are transitional in nature. For example, he's recently stated that he wonders why healthcare benefits "for children" are targeted for cutting before excessive military spending. He's also said on several occasions that he's one of the few with a plan to save social security, by redirecting some of said military spending in order to shore it up. Finally, he's said that he doesn't want the rest of the entitlement programs, like medicare and medicaid, cut overnight, and would phase them out by making them, along with social security, opt-in.

He has suggested that troops could guard the borders - not because he likes the idea, but because they would, in transition, need somewhere to go as they're brought back from all over the world. During the 2008 campaign, he lamented the vote about the construction of a border fence... we all remember these things, don't we? I can't be the only one.

Based on all of the above, you'd have to be atypically disingenuous to believe that he desires the redistribution of wealth, or that he loves the social security system, or that he supports government healthcare "for children." The statements referred to in this thread, likewise, don't mean he's for sealed borders.

Even if he was for sealed borders, which he obviously isn't, I don't understand why so many individuals are, in a sense, appealing to his authority, in order to manufacture some kind of division around this position. Let each individual come to their own conclusion. This isn't johnmccainforum.com or barackobamaforum.com; the last thing we need around here are ideological drones and group conformists.

[someperson]

I doubt his actual position has changed any from that which Clay linked to from 20 years ago.

However, a lot of the positions that he has publicized recently are transitional in nature. For example, he's recently stated that he wonders why healthcare benefits "for children" are targeted for cutting before excessive military spending. He's also said on several occasions that he's one of the few with a plan to save social security, by redirecting some of said military spending in order to shore it up. Finally, he's said that he doesn't want the rest of the entitlement programs, like medicare and medicaid, cut overnight, and would phase them out by making them, along with social security, opt-in.

He has suggested that troops could guard the borders - not because he likes the idea, but because they would, in transition, need somewhere to go as they're brought back from all over the world. During the 2008 campaign, he lamented the vote about the construction of a border fence... we all remember these things, don't we? I can't be the only one.

Based on all of the above, you'd have to be atypically disingenuous to believe that he desires the redistribution of wealth, or that he loves the social security system, or that he supports government healthcare "for children." The statements referred to in this thread, likewise, don't mean he's for sealed borders.

Even if he was for sealed borders, which he obviously isn't, I don't understand why so many individuals are, in a sense, appealing to his authority, in order to manufacture some kind of division around this position. Let each individual come to their own conclusion. This isn't johnmccainforum.com or barackobamaforum.com; the last thing we need around here are ideological drones and group conformists.

Here's the video that Clay linked to:

YouTube - Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWukDvcVAKw&feature=player_embedded)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think I would know what I am for and what I am against. :rolleyes: A properly enforced immgration system would allow for the proper number of immigrants in on a yearly basis. Immigration enhances America when it is done properly. You need a reality check:

YouTube - Immigration Gumballs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ)

What is the proper number? How do you, Deborah know what the proper number is? For that matter how does a centralized bureaucrat know the proper number? Have you learned nothing of the follies of central planning?! Only the market can decide the proper supplies of labor, not you, not a bureaucrat.

What is properly enforced? ID cards? Biometics? Papers? Skin color? How are you going to tell who is a citizen and who isn't? Am I going to get harassed walking down the street if my skin color is brown? What about on the Northern border? What about down in Florida? How do you plan to enforce thousands and thousands of miles of borders? What about illegals hopping on planes shipping goods? You going to inspect every single container that enters the country? The CG catches probably 5% of the migrants from the Caribbean.

If you want to talk about vague plans.....:rolleyes:

[Deborah K]

Who is claiming that? We are advocating the government exercise implied power that was not expressly delegated because we don't like illegal persons. Who gives a crap what the Constitution says. It doesn't matter. Implied powers can be whatever we want them to be when we get elected.

Since implied powers ARE Constitutional it does not matter what anything else in the Constitution says. Implied power trumps it. We need to secure the borders immediately and get rid of illegal persons. They don't belong here.

This is a misunderstanding of what implied powers means. And I'm sure you're being facetious. Implied powers permits Congress to identify and use powers that are logical extensions or implications of the other powers delegated in the Constitution, i.e. naturalisation/immigration. It's not a free-for-all. Although arguably the gov't of the last 100 years seems to think it is.

[Deborah K]

What is the proper number? How do you, Deborah know what the proper number is? For that matter how does a centralized bureaucrat know the proper number? Have you learned nothing of the follies of central planning?! Only the market can decide the proper supplies of labor, not you, not a bureaucrat.

What is properly enforced? ID cards? Biometics? Papers? Skin color? How are you going to tell who is a citizen and who isn't? Am I going to get harassed walking down the street if my skin color is brown? What about on the Northern border? What about down in Florida? How do you plan to enforce thousands and thousands of miles of borders? What about illegals hopping on planes shipping goods? You going to inspect every single container that enters the country? The CG catches probably 5% of the migrants from the Caribbean.

If you want to talk about vague plans.....:rolleyes:

Still waiting for your evidence that our country can handle 3 billion people. :rolleyes:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Still waiting for your evidence that our country can handle 3 billion people. :rolleyes:

I all ready responded to that, but are you going to respond to my questions?

[someperson]

While I'm at it, I'll mention that he doesn't even want the Fed abolished, as he has stated that such an action would likely result in chaos. He, instead, supports the idea of introducing competition to the Fed, through competing currencies. I doubt anyone would suggest that he's pro-fed because of this. Back to the borders, he's always been against protectionism in trade, which placed him opposite that guy on Morning Joe.... Mr. Buchanan? for many years.

About the fence:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ron_paul_on_immigration.html

Stossel: You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?
Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

I don't even know why I have to search for all of this stuff; most here should remember all of this lol

[Deborah K]

I all ready responded to that, but are you going to respond to my questions?

Where is it. Can't find it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This is a misunderstanding of what implied powers means. And I'm sure you're being facetious. Implied powers permits Congress to identify and use powers that are logical extensions or implications of the other powers delegated in the Constitution, i.e. naturalisation/immigration. It's not a free-for-all. Although arguably the gov't of the last 100 years seems to think it is.

I am with you we extended allegiance to policing borders defined in state constitutions. One obviously has nothing to do with the other. And now we have extended policing borders defined in state constitutions to killing people. Now that is has been logically extended lets start killing illegal people and get rid of them using our new president endorsed implied powers.

[FrankRep]

While I'm at it, I'll mention that he doesn't even want the Fed abolished, as he has stated that such an action would likely result in chaos. He, instead, supports the idea of introducing competition to the Fed, through competing currencies.

Ron Paul knows it's impossible to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight. You must slowly dismantle it over many many years. Incrementalism.

[ClayTrainor]

Ron Paul knows it's impossible to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight. You must slowly dismantle it over many many years. Incrementalism.

How did that Audit the Fed bill workout?

[Deborah K]

This is non-sense. Why is the Chinese standard of living rising if they keep increasing their population in a smaller landmass than that of the US? So infuriating!!! It's economic policies that are causing our standard of living to decline, not some amount of people (and I'm not even going to address how ridiculous it is to assume that we have had 150 million immigrants arrive in the country in the last 50 years).

Is this your answer? Because this doesn't address natural resources.

[low preference guy]

How did that Audit the Fed bill workout?

How did whatever you're doing to abolish the Fed work out?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ron Paul knows it's impossible to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight. You must slowly dismantle it over many many years. Incrementalism.

Some of our non statist friends might claim Ron Paul advocates market solutions that involve competition but we know they are full of poop because Ron Paul is the Champion of the Constitution and would only force people to use Congressionally defined legal tender or a Constitutional metal standard to pay taxes.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Is this your answer? Because this doesn't address natural resources.

I've answered the question, you can ask Charrob if you want. Now, will you answer my questions? Stop trying to pussyfoot around the issue at hand.

[ClayTrainor]

How did whatever you're doing to abolish the Fed work out?

I supported the effort, I just know there is no way the state is going to audit itself, I'm sure Ron Paul knew this too. I prefer the End The Fed motto, to the Audit the Fed then End It motto.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

http://r3publican.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/end-fed.jpg

[charrob]

The prices are based on how much it costs to produce the product, period. The cost of wages is included in the price. By using guns and prohibition of certain kinds of labor to regulate production, you drive the cost of the product up.

right-- the product price now reflects the true value of the material+labor that went into that product; when the labor is from the labor-pool of legal citizens. This reflects our values of worker-safety, overtime-pay, etc., which are not reflected for labor paid under the table for illegals.


Sorry but shoving non-violent people into cages at gun point is not a rational solution to anything.

it's a rational solution to illegal immigration. Additionally, I don't see these employers as "non-violent": in fact, i see them as very violent. They are suppressing the wages of low-skilled Americans who now barely survive; they are profitting substantially at my expense and because of them they are violently making me pay for the schools and services of this society which these illegal aliens use.


Awesome... so you force businesses to fail at the point of a gun, drive prices up, and solve nothing. :)

on the contrary: this allows legal businesses who hire legal American citizens to open up new businesses: they couldn't compete before because of the business hiring illegals; now that that guy is behind bars, the legal business can profit by selling products at their true cost. Additionally, this solves the problem of illegal immigration; all our taxes go down substantially (over 90% of my state taxes are for schools) and people can afford even more.

[Deborah K]

I all ready responded to that, but are you going to respond to my questions?

As to your questions, first of all had you watched the clip you'd know that the Census bureau and demographers determine appropriate population growth.

As to your other questions, my answer to illegal immigration is to enforce existing immigration laws - no need to add new ones. Make working here legally easier. Secure the borders. Secure, not CLOSE. These have always been my solutions.

And Mexicans, as well as citizens of other countries with corrupt gov'ts should rise up. I believe people would be happy to live in the countries of their origin if their gov'ts weren't so damned corrupt.

[ClayTrainor]

right-- the product price now reflects the true value of the material+labor that went into that product; when the labor is from the labor-pool of legal citizens. This reflects our values of worker-safety, overtime-pay, etc., which are not reflected for labor paid under the table for illegals.



it's a rational solution to illegal immigration. Additionally, I don't see these employers as "non-violent": in fact, i see them as very violent. They are suppressing the wages of low-skilled Americans who now barely survive; they are profitting substantially at my expense and because of them they are violently making me pay for the schools and services of this society which these illegal aliens use.



on the contrary: this allows legal businesses who hire legal American citizens to open up new businesses: they couldn't compete before because of the business hiring illegals; now that that guy is behind bars, the legal business can profit by selling products at their true cost. Additionally, this solves the problem of illegal immigration; all our taxes go down substantially (over 90% of my state taxes are for schools) and people can afford even more.

Can someone else deal with these economic fallacies, please? I gotta head out for the night, and am going to be quite busy over the next couple of days.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

right-- the product price now reflects the true value of the material+labor that went into that product; when the labor is from the labor-pool of legal citizens. This reflects our values of worker-safety, overtime-pay, etc., which are not reflected for labor paid under the table for illegals.



it's a rational solution to illegal immigration. Additionally, I don't see these employers as "non-violent": in fact, i see them as very violent. They are suppressing the wages of low-skilled Americans who now barely survive; they are profitting substantially at my expense and because of them they are violently making me pay for the schools and services of this society which these illegal aliens use.



on the contrary: this allows legal businesses who hire legal American citizens to open up new businesses: they couldn't compete before because of the business hiring illegals; now that that guy is behind bars, the legal business can profit by selling products at their true cost. Additionally, this solves the problem of illegal immigration; all our taxes go down substantially (over 90% of my state taxes are for schools) and people can afford even more.

I assume you have never read The Law. You have wrapped yourself up in so much legalese you rationalize plunder, tyranny, and violence. Such a pity.

[Deborah K]

I've answered the question, you can ask Charrob if you want. Now, will you answer my questions? Stop trying to pussyfoot around the issue at hand.

Why must you be so rude?

[low preference guy]

right-- the product price now reflects the true value of the material+labor that went into that product; when the labor is from the labor-

wrong. it reflects supply and demand.

if very little labor went into unearthing gold from your backward, but there's huge demand for it, the price is really high.

if you went through a lot of labor to build something, but some people with machines built millions of them, the price will be very low, even if you worked a lot.

what you're doing is arguing for the labor theory of value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Modern_criticisms), which was refuted more than 100 years ago. if you're going to debate economics, please educate yourself first. just reading "Economics in One Lesson" will help you fix many errors in your thinking, including the one you made here.

[someperson]

Ron Paul knows it's impossible to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight. You must slowly dismantle it over many many years. Incrementalism.
Obviously, you realize my point, then. Dr. Paul's goal is the free-entry of individuals and property. His true position on the borders is that individuals should be able to come, work, and go, as they please, as long as no one, citizen and non-citizen, receives assistance from the state. Citizenship wouldn't be granted to the individuals who come to work, but it would be essentially worthless in this system, anyway.

He's stated that the restriction of immigration leads individuals who get here to be incentivized to stay and hide, in order to keep whatever job they get. They wouldn't risk going home, if they knew that they might not be able to get back. This is a critical point to understand his position.

[Deborah K]

Charrob, be warned that most of the anarchists on this forum are very rude. It's their way or the highway. They don't realize that their high and mighty attitudes turn people off to their message.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Can someone else deal with these economic fallacies, please? I gotta head out for the night, and am going to be quite busy over the next couple of days.

It is easier to get a leg up applying intelligence than wasting time explaining. Join the monopoly side of the force, Luke. Become a statist and the world is your oyster. People will be your cattle. Government will be your bodyguard.

[ClayTrainor]

Charrob, be warned that most of the anarchists on this forum are very rude. It's their way or the highway. They don't realize that their high and mighty attitudes turn people off to their message.

It's funny because, the anarcho-capitalist presence has been consistently growing everywhere you find a liberty related forum. We have little tolerance for people who advocate the use of coercion and violence against people who have committed no crime against others. That is the definition of tyranny, and we oppose it unapologetically.

Good night everyone... See you in a couple of days. :)

[Deborah K]

It's funny because, the anarcho-capitalist presence has been consistently growing everywhere you find a liberty related forum. We have little tolerance for people who advocate the use of coercion and violence against people who have committed no crime against others.

Good night everyone... See you in a couple of days. :)

Perhaps they could make their own forum and pat each other on the back. The philosophy, nice as it is, does not fit into the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. We have to work with the tools we have. Utopia cannot be achieved in one giant leap.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Charrob, be warned that most of the anarchists on this forum are very rude. It's their way or the highway. They don't realize that their high and mighty attitudes turn people off to their message.

Actually, we don't promote that you do. If you left us alone. Stopped taxing us. Stopped forcing us to abide by your legal laws. We wouldn't give a shit what you guys did. Somehow I doubt that would work because you would soon turn around and blame us for all of your woes. They're stealing our jobs! They're bringing illegals through the country to arrive at their property! They're criminals because....insert whatever you want here.

I don't tell a politician to point a gun at someone to get them to do what I want them to do. Those who believe in the State do. Leave my just property alone. Leave my natural rights alone. Leave my contracts alone. Leave ME alone. I don't want to abide by your rules. I only want to abide by the one natural law.

You still didn't answer my question. You merely reiterated vague concepts. Secure the borders! HOW!!!!!!!! What happens when illegals get through the borders? What about the illegals that are here now? What about employers who hire illegals? How do we identify illegals from legals? Do we not recognize the fifth amendment for illegals? I could go on and on. You still haven't answered anything. You propose centralized solutions to this. It is up to you to come up with the specifics if you propose such centralized schemes.

I still don't understand how people who proclaim to favor private property wish to piss on a persons property and their rights because they want to be the favorites of the gun....How about I tell you, who you can work for. Who you can hire. What jobs you can work. Etc. I wonder how fast you would change your tune...I wonder what your position will be on immigration when the US becomes a staunch tyranny and every country around the world institutes your immigration schemes. I'm sure you will really love it then! :p

[someperson]

It's funny because, the anarcho-capitalist presence has been consistently growing everywhere you find a liberty related forum. We have little tolerance for people who advocate the use of coercion and violence against people who have committed no crime against others. That is the definition of tyranny, and we oppose it unapologetically.

Good night everyone... See you in a couple of days. :)
Good night Clay :)

[ClayTrainor]

Perhaps they could make their own forum and pat each other on the back.
There's plenty of an-cap forums, but talking to a bunch of people who agree with you doesn't help you learn, or spread the message.



The philosophy, nice as it is, does not fit into the reality of the situation we find ourselves in.
Yes, it does. Getting the constitution to actually do the job that it never did, is a fantasy.



We have to work with the tools we have. Utopia cannot be achieved in one giant leap.

Utopia's don't exist, and will never exist.



Good night Clay :)


Good night. :)

Sorry for lying about that being my last post for the night. THIS is my last post for the night. :p

[Deborah K]

There's plenty of an-cap forums, but talking to a bunch of people who agree with you doesn't help you learn, or spread the message.



Brow beating people is not an effective way to spread the message. Not saying that you do that, Clay. But others on here do it regularly.


Yes, it does. Getting the constitution to actually do the job that it never did, is a fantasy.

Wholeheartedly disagree. If our Constitution was such a failure then why have people clamored to live here from all over the world since its inception?



Utopia's don't exist, and will never exist

Interesting, since anarchists believe that no laws and free markets are end-all-be-all.

[Political Terror]

So let me see if I understand this correctly.

According to this poll the majority of posters on this forum believe that when you are born within a certain "border" you automatically become the property of whomever controls that region/country/state ?

[Fredom101]

Charrob, be warned that most of the anarchists on this forum are very rude. It's their way or the highway. They don't realize that their high and mighty attitudes turn people off to their message.

Most of the voluntaryists on the board I know are very polite and do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks. Why don't we just stick to the topic instead of making mass generalizations about a group here?

[dannno]

Still waiting for your evidence that our country can handle 3 billion people. :rolleyes:


According to the NRI, 5 percent (108.1 million acres) of U.S. land area was considered developed1 as of 2003 (Exhibit 4-5)


http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewInd&lv=list.listByAlpha&r=188236&subtop=225


Current US population:

307,006,550


Estimated US Population with 100% land developed:

6,140,131,000

[Fredom101]

Wholeheartedly disagree. If our Constitution was such a failure then why have people clamored to live here from all over the world since its inception?

How does the fact that people want to come here (which is declining every year) prove that the constitution was a success?

The constitution was designed to limit government, correct?
The U.S. now has the largest government in the history of the world.
How is that anything but a massive failure?

[specsaregood]

So let me see if I understand this correctly.

According to this poll the majority of posters on this forum believe that when you are born within a certain "border" you automatically become the property of whomever controls that region/country/state ?

You understand it incorrectly. Have you ever read Dr. Paul's positions on the subject?

[FrankRep]

The constitution was designed to limit government, correct?
The U.S. now has the largest government in the history of the world.
How is that anything but a massive failure?

conspiracy.

YouTube - Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO8OnxEld3M)

[charrob]

Charrob, be warned that most of the anarchists on this forum are very rude. It's their way or the highway. They don't realize that their high and mighty attitudes turn people off to their message.

note taken. ;) -they argue penalizing employers to be violent; what they forget is that by not penalizing those employers, huge numbers continue to illegally immigrate which steals resources from everyone else (taxes for schools, hospitals, etc.) who play by the rules. This can also be considered "violent".

[low preference guy]

note taken. ;) -they argue penalizing employers to be violent; what they forget is that by not penalizing those employers, huge numbers continue to illegally immigrate which steals resources from everyone else (taxes for schools, hospitals, etc.) who play by the rules. This can also be considered "violent".

they only steal resources if they're given welfare. so to solve the problem you need to get rid of the welfare state, unemployment benefits.

[Political Terror]

You understand it incorrectly. Have you ever read Dr. Paul's positions on the subject?

Thank you for answering my question with a question:rolleyes:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

note taken. ;) -they argue penalizing employers to be violent; what they forget is that by not penalizing those employers, huge numbers continue to illegally immigrate which steals resources from everyone else (taxes for schools, hospitals, etc.) who play by the rules. This can also be considered "violent".

You must really hate me and others who openly defy State edicts vis a vis taxation, regulation, etc.

Those damn Milk farmers who refuse to pastuerize their milk! Those damn tax-evaders -- Irwin Schiff, Ed & Elaine Brown, etc.!

Those damn agorists, and others who don't use FRN's. Lock em all up. They are criminals! They are defying the LAW!

Seriously do you ever think through your positions? Anyone who advocates strict adherence to the law is anti-American! Don't you know the US was built on criminals and traitors. We must rejoin the crown.

[heavenlyboy34]

Charrob, be warned that most of the anarchists on this forum are very rude. It's their way or the highway. They don't realize that their high and mighty attitudes turn people off to their message.

I've had the same experience with minarchists.;)

[specsaregood]

Thank you for answering my question with a question:rolleyes:

No I didn't. I answered your question; then I asked you a related followup question. There were two seperate sentences there.

Here, read this section it should help you get started:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5

[charrob]

wrong. it reflects supply and demand.


When going to the supermarket, an orange costs $.20 when an illegal alien picked it. However i'm paying a ton of money in taxes because that illegal alien has nine kids in public schools, gets food stamps, women-infant-children subsidies, free medical visits, etc. So, the employer gets put behind bars.

The business down the road who employs legal citizens sells oranges for $.35 per orange. Since my taxes are lower since illegals no longer come to this country, I can now afford $.35 for that orange.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Interesting, since anarchists believe that no laws and free markets are end-all-be-all.

Anarchists might, but Anarcho-Capitalists like Clay advocate voluntary contracts. Since every interaction anyone ever has in society is a contract it is not too difficult to see the benefit to an individual living in such a society.

It would hardly be a society without rules. Individuals who did not honor their contracts, injured people, or damaged property without restitution to victims would have a very difficult time functioning in voluntary society and would be ostracized. If through their own failures they resorted to initiating aggression or stealing from people to survive they would end up dead or without liberty.

The market naturally rewards honorable performance and discriminates against dishonorable practices. Stealing from people can only thrive with government intervention and a monopoly of force.

[low preference guy]

When going to the supermarket, an orange costs $.20 when an illegal alien picked it. However i'm paying a ton of money in taxes because that illegal alien has nine kids in public schools, gets food stamps, women-infant-children subsidies, free medical visits, etc.

so get rid of public schools, food stamps, children subsidies, and free medical visits.

stopping them from coming here will not work, because even if you stop them, there are 12,000,000 here already.

but even if you don't have immigrants but still have all the subsidies, unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc., your country will collapse anyway.


So, the employer gets put behind bars.

But the employer didn't commit any violence against anyone. You should go after the people who take money by force from the population to provide food stamps, etc. That's the real crime. And when someone commits a crime, you shouldn't punish the innocent; you should punish the guilty. The system that is required to guarantee that every single worker is an American will cost billions and will destroy any shred of privacy left in this country (if there is any).

[BuddyRey]

When going to the supermarket, an orange costs $.20 when an illegal alien picked it. However i'm paying a ton of money in taxes because that illegal alien has nine kids in public schools, gets food stamps, women-infant-children subsidies, free medical visits, etc. So, the employer gets put behind bars.

But don't you see? You've made the supporters of laissez faire's point on the issue without even realizing it. We support scrapping these welfare carrots dangling in the faces of migrants, so that those who choose to come here will do so out of a desire to get good jobs and benefit the economy rather than sponging off of government healthcare, food stamps, and the like.

We're actually in agreement on so much here, I feel bad that so many don't see it.

[dannno]

note taken. ;) -they argue penalizing employers to be violent; what they forget is that by not penalizing those employers, huge numbers continue to illegally immigrate which steals resources from everyone else (taxes for schools, hospitals, etc.) who play by the rules. This can also be considered "violent".

I don't label myself as an anarchist, I generally advocate for minarchy. I contemplate and can agree that many of the Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism positions are valid, but it is hard for me to say which one is better. However I certainly don't believe in imprisoning people for non-crimes. I don't believe the government should be policing consensual economic activity. When fraud or a crime has been committed against somebody, they report it to the state (less murder, of course), and then the state attempts to mediate. The state doesn't need to be snooping around unless somebody is reported missing. Literally.

Again, the immigration problem is the fault of the government. It's not the fault of the immigrants or those hiring them.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

When going to the supermarket, an orange costs $.20 when an illegal alien picked it. However i'm paying a ton of money in taxes because that illegal alien has nine kids in public schools, gets food stamps, women-infant-children subsidies, free medical visits, etc. So, the employer gets put behind bars.

The business down the road who employs legal citizens sells oranges for $.35 per orange. Since my taxes are lower since illegals no longer come to this country, I can now afford $.35 for that orange.

What line of work are you in? Does it pay more than minimum wage? As a new convert to statism there are a lot of people looking for work and I am very interested in fields that pay more than minimum wage. With the economy being bad, now seems to be a good time to put pressure on some of these higher paying companies with some lower wage paying competition.

[FrankRep]

But don't you see? You've made the Voluntaryists' point on the issue without even realizing it. We support scrapping these welfare carrots dangling in the faces of migrants, so that those who choose to come here will do so out of a desire to get good jobs and benefit the economy rather than sponging off of government healthcare, food stamps, and the like.

We're actually in agreement on so much here, I feel bad that so many don't see it.

The American people will not support dumping all the Government Freebies at once. Weening the American public off of Socialism will take many, many years. Meanwhile, right now, the illegal immigrants exploiting the freebie system and that's a critical problem. Secure the border first, then start low process of dismantling the welfare system.

[low preference guy]

The American people will not support dumping all the Government Freebies at once. Weening the American public off of Socialism will take many, many years. Meanwhile, the illegal immigrants exploiting the freebie system is a major problem NOW. Secure the border first, then start low process of dismantling the welfare system.

Do you also support jailing or fining employers who hire illegals? Do you want to see people who did not do any aggression against anyone to be punished for the sins of politicians?

[someperson]

So let me see if I understand this correctly.

According to this poll the majority of posters on this forum believe that when you are born within a certain "border" you automatically become the property of whomever controls that region/country/state ?
This thread takes Dr. Paul's campaign-time, transitional plan regarding the borders, and redefines it as his absolute position. Any long-time member here who promotes this notion is obviously being disingenuous.

Suggesting that Dr. Paul supports sealed borders, border fences, or protectionism is akin to saying that he supports the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking, and fiat currency because he introduced a transitional plan (Free Competition in Currency Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4248.IH:)), which legalizes competing currencies instead of directly abolishing the Fed. It's like saying he supports Social Security, ponzi schemes, and the redistribution of wealth because he promotes a transitional plan of redirecting funds from excessive military spending toward it, in an attempt to shore it up.

Watch Clay's video and learn about Dr. Paul's actual goal. Disregard the false dichotomy that is being promoted by the poll, and other such fallacious appeals.

From around 5:55:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWukDvcVAKw&feature=player_embedded

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The American people will not support dumping all the Government Freebies at once. Weening the American public off of Socialism will take many, many years. Meanwhile, right now, the illegal immigrants exploiting the freebie system and that's a critical problem. Secure the border first, then start low process of dismantling the welfare system.

How is that critical when the illegals take up approximately about 1/10th of the Welfare State and thats a conservative estimate. If you want to stop Socialism, according to your logic, we might as well round up San Francisco, NY, Seattle, and all the large cities who trend heavy socialist and deport them all. Right? I mean, it wasn't 130 million illegals who voted R/D last election was it? Those 60 million illegals who voted for Obama, right? :rolleyes:

I don't understand why it is always the Statists who say I don't live in reality, when the truth of the matter that the Statist does not live in reality. It isn't the immigrant who is the cause of the Socialism. It is the goddamn educational system. END COMPULSORY EDUCATION. Until you do that, the battle is much tougher to wade through and it is no fault of the immigrants.

[FrankRep]

How is that critical when the illegals take up approximately about 1/10th of the Welfare State and thats a conservative estimate.

Critical problem. Yes.

L.A. Emergency Rooms Full of Illegal Immigrants (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html)

77 border state hospitals declare bankruptcy due to illegal immigration (http://www.alipac.us/article281.html)

Illegal immigrants are bankrupting our hospitals (http://www.examiner.com/a-1510775~Illegal_immigrants_are_bankrupting_our_hos pitals.html)



It isn't the immigrant who is the cause of the Socialism. It is the goddamn educational system. END COMPULSORY EDUCATION. Until you do that, the battle is much tougher to wade through and it is no fault of the immigrants.

Illegal Immigrants exploit the Socialist System. Karl Marx and his Progressive followers implemented this beast of a system.

I agree with dismantling the Department of Education and getting the Government out of school, but that will take a lot of time and effort to enlighten the American people as to why Government education fails.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I don't understand why it is always the Statists who say I don't live in reality, when the truth of the matter that the Statist does not live in reality.

Because we live in a Constitutional Republic that is working perfectly and features the best representation free people can elect.

If we don't have the above then the Constitution is a failure and no one wants to admit that. We will keep pretending the Constitution is not a failure until economic realities catch up with government failures. Even when that happens we will sell people on how wonderful constitutional government is despite it is constitutional government that created the collapse.

[specsaregood]

If we don't have the above then the Constitution is a failure and no one wants to admit that. We will keep pretending the Constitution is not a failure until economic realities catch up with government failures. Even when that happens we will sell people on how wonderful constitutional government is despite it is constitutional government that created the collapse.

How come I always get the impression in these threads that the people against enforcing immigration laws are doing so because they want the system to collapse completely? Visions of MadMax heroism and shit....

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How come I always get the impression in these threads that the people against enforcing immigration laws are doing so because they want the system to collapse completely? Visions of MadMax heroism and shit....

Of course it's that. It could never be because we believe in natural rights..

[specsaregood]

Of course it's that. It could never be because we believe in natural rights..

That's about what I figured. You won't be happy until the constitutional republic is gone, so why would you support anything aimed at keeping it around? That wouldn't be logical.

[low preference guy]

How come I always get the impression in these threads that the people against enforcing immigration laws are doing so because they want the system to collapse completely? Visions of MadMax heroism and shit....

Wanting the system to collapse... doesn't seem smart.

If the awful set of beliefs most Americans held drove us to this situation... why would they magically change once the whole social/economic system collapses? What will most likely happen is that the United States as a whole will ingloriously become a third world country. And stay like that.

A few states will implement smart policies and become successful, just like most third world countries have nice/successful cities to live in. But there won't be massive improvement in the country as a whole, and you might die in the transition.

[specsaregood]

Wanting the system to collapse... doesn't seem smart.

I don't think so either; but I don't hold it against somebody if they believe govt is immoral and should abolished then I can understand them wanting to support policies that will help cause it collapse; but be honest about it. Claiming to want completely open borders compounded with the welfare state and ignoring that it will almost assuredly end in a collapse of our constitutional republic isn't completely honest.

[charrob]

so get rid of public schools, food stamps, children subsidies, and free medical visits.

well of course illegal immigrants should never get such services; the problem is that most have very large families and these children will grow to be uneducated illiterates and that has a direct negative impact on society and our country to have such a large uneducated underclass. Many of these people are already desperately poor (5 and 6 families living in one-room apartments) because of suppressed wages you are willing to pay them. It is not good for our country as a whole imo. It's turning our country into a 3rd world nation.


stopping them from coming here will not work, because even if you stop them, there are 12,000,000 here already.

If employers are not hiring them, most of those here will go home. (btw: many believe there are actually more than 20 million.)




But the employer didn't commit any violence against anyone.

we see differently on this; imo violence was, and has been, perpetrated on the working poor who have had their wages suppressed because of illegal immigration.


The system that is required to guarantee that every single worker is an American will cost billions and will destroy any shred of privacy left in this country (if there is any).

checking social security numbers?

[low preference guy]

we see differently on this; imo violence was, and has been, perpetrated on the working poor who have had their wages suppressed because of illegal immigration.


the question is by whom has the violence been perpetrated? you say all the money goes to food stamps, etc. who took the money? the employers? No, the government, the politicians, and the idiotic population who votes for welfare benefits and unemployment benefits. You want to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty. Despicable.


checking social security numbers?

Like they cannot be faked? If there are 12,000,000, the demand for having people to mess up with the system is pretty big. Social Security administration will become unbelievably corrupt, not to mention people stealing social security numbers and faking identities, if it were to ever be enforced seriously.

Plus it will never happen. I don't know why you are so strongly arguing this, because business interests who get cheaper labor due to immigration will never allow a strong system to stop immigration. So there will be opposition from the right for economic reasons. From the left, it will be opposition for cultural reasons. In other words, there are zero chances that any of the proposals to stop immigration will be implemented.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

How come I always get the impression in these threads that the people against enforcing immigration laws are doing so because they want the system to collapse completely? Visions of MadMax heroism and shit....

ChearleadersForCollapse.com
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/x--Cheerleading--x-cheerleading-446457_360_516.jpg

What do you think?

Now let's address your claims.

Enforce immigration law? With regards to the constitution I have acknowledged the rule of law and original intent - words mean what words mean not Congress defining what words mean creating new powers whenever they want.

What cracks me up about this issue is people who bitch about the commerce clause as unconstitutional citing original intent and then rail about immigration as if it has anything to do with allegiance. Then if you ask them to cite or source Constitutional authority for a power that was created 100 years after the Constitution was signed... they can't. It's a joke. The original intent hypocrites are just plain repugnant.

Next if we want to get into present federal immigration code... it is not illegal to be in the United States once here unless you have committed a removable offense. So again not only do these people not know much of jack shit about the Constitution they don't even know what the current "law" is. In a ruling I cited Congress has only made it illegal to cross the border and it is not a crime, only a deportable offense if you catch people in the act.

So what have I acknowledged. Well I have been in more than one very long immigration thread talking about the fine details of constitutions and Ron Paul's older views and an interview where he mentioned what has changed about his view. I have stated Ron Paul advocates a transition plan and these people that cite Ron Paul as an authority have an agenda to permanently secure borders impeding the free flow of goods or people. If you go back and listen to Dr. Paul one of his biggest criticisms of the present situation is that people were kind of forced into staying here once they got here. If they could simply cross the border they would probably go back to Mexico after the growing season.

Constitutionally trespassing a state border is a state matter. The reason borders are not policed is because residents in border states have never wanted to pay the cost necessary to police their borders. Since it is a state matter I have suggested states raising a militia to police borders. I have also suggested states might not even have to pay if they recognized citizen militias and provided conditional immunity for the use of force.

Many people have suggested ending the welfare state, the drug war, agriculture subsidies, etc. and I fully endorse those actions.

Many people have suggested ending birthright citizenship and enforcing allegiance (ie insure citizenship) when people vote.

If the choices are ignore all of the solutions and create more problems with more intervention I will be waiting for the complete collapse or total tyranny resulting from bigger government. Between total tyranny and complete collapse I prefer the latter.

[charrob]

the question is by whom has the violence been perpetrated? you say all the money goes to food stamps, etc. who took the money? the employers?

yes. -the employers hired illegals at a subsidized amount: i'm paying the subsidy for that employer who is not paying the true cost of that illegal's labor.


-time to call it a night, as it's late. -we will have to agree to disagree. ;)

[specsaregood]

Many people have suggested ending the welfare state, the drug war, agriculture subsidies, etc. and I fully endorse those actions.

Many people have suggested ending birthright citizenship and enforcing allegiance (ie insure citizenship) when people vote.

If the choices are ignore all of the solutions and create more problems with more intervention I will be waiting for the complete collapse or total tyranny resulting from bigger government. Between total tyranny and complete collapse I prefer the latter.

Well, seeing as our current crop of politicians have no intent to try any of the preferred solutions that most agree upon here and you listed above, it seems I was correct in my statement.

[someperson]

So what have I acknowledged. Well I have been in more than one very long immigration thread talking about the fine details of constitutions and Ron Paul's older views and an interview where he mentioned what has changed about his view. I have stated Ron Paul advocates a transition plan and these people that cite Ron Paul as an authority have an agenda to permanently secure borders impeding the free flow of goods or people. If you go back and listen to Dr. Paul one of his biggest criticisms of the present situation is that people were kind of forced into staying here once they got here. If they could simply cross the border they would probably go back to Mexico after the growing season.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who remembers these points. Great points, throughout. Thanks :)

[low preference guy]

yes. -the employers hired illegals at a subsidized amount: i'm paying the subsidy for that employer who is not paying the true cost of that illegal's labor.


-time to call it a night, as it's late. -we will have to agree to disagree. ;)

you can of course "agree to disagree" but it won't change the fact that you want to leave the guilty alone.

you in your own post said that the employers receive subsidized labor. no matter how hard you try to ignore reality or to "agree to disagree" it is still true that the people who made this situation possible is the people who provided the subsidy. and they should all go to jail before you even consider the possibility of jailing employers. what you're doing is refusing to face reality and in consequence advocate for the guilty to be left free. in fact, you're more guilty and deserving of jail than any of those employers, because you advocate for the real guilty party to be left alone, and that's a bigger crime than anything the employers did.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

well of course illegal immigrants should never get such services; the problem is that most have very large families and these children will grow to be uneducated illiterates and that has a direct negative impact on society and our country to have such a large uneducated underclass. Many of these people are already desperately poor (5 and 6 families living in one-room apartments) because of suppressed wages you are willing to pay them. It is not good for our country as a whole imo. It's turning our country into a 3rd world nation.

If aliens pay income, property, and every other tax what is the problem? I have to pay for your and everyone else's kids even if you have eight. I am tired of paying for everyone's kids so don't expect me to help you get the system to a point where it only benefits you and I only have to pay for your kids. Screw that. How does it feel paying for people's kids you don't like? I kind of like the fact you are unhappy about paying for peoples kids.



If employers are not hiring them, most of those here will go home. (btw: many believe there are actually more than 20 million.)

Since you or none of your neighbors are going to get out in a field and pick strawberries sweating or work in animal shit all day plan on food getting a lot more expensive and eating less once immigrant labor is gone.



we see differently on this; imo violence was, and has been, perpetrated on the working poor who have had their wages suppressed because of illegal immigration.

Only in America are people who have air conditioning, tv's, electricity, running water, and a whole bunch of other crap ignorant enough to bitch about being poor and compare America to third world countries.


checking social security numbers?

Great let's make something not required to work in the U.S., mandatory.

[cindy25]

borders, if too strict, can and will be used to keep people in who wish to leave.

it is ridiculous that an American needs a passport to cross the Canadian border, and an Estonian can travel all the way to Spain with none.

take away all the freebies and very few object to Mexicans.

no one cares about Mexicans picking fruit, or waiting on tables. its the free education, healthcare, housing that most people object to.

amnesty-with a vote never, but with permanent residence subject to no benefit rule , then why not?

[low preference guy]

amnesty-with a vote never, but with permanent residence subject to no benefit rule , then why not?

because it's unfair to the people who went through the immigration process using the proper procedure. they should be allowed in first.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Well, seeing as our current crop of politicians have no intent to try any of the preferred solutions that most agree upon here and you listed above, it seems I was correct in my statement.

I don't think it matters. The reason the federal government is out of control is because there are so many assholes in the U.S. that want to tell everyone how to live.

Pro choice/abortion issue fanatics using the federal government when they couldn't get their way at the states.

Welfare addicts using the federal government when the reason health care costs suck in their state is mainly due to all of the interventions in health care by their state.

Border fanatics using the federal government to get their way policing the border because the residents of their state wont pay for it.

Civil right fanatics... the list goes on and on.

For all of the talk about state rights it might be a novel concept but the reality and history of it is that states failed a long time ago. It doesn't even matter if you bring a state partially back from the brink. Assholes will get elected that do what they do best.... tell other people how to live using force.

On C-SPAN today I was listening to callers call in all excited about this chick up for the new consumer protection agency. Flippin superwoman could be appointed but superwoman will not always hold the office. This is the failure of government and monopoly. There is no alternative to shitty people in monopoly power.

If people want to stay in crappy violent border states and bitch about immigration... fine... stay there, get shot.

If people want to bitch about politics and how low the numbers are instead of taking direct citizen action and geographically organize... fine... stay where you are and keep losing elections.

Alternatives have been proposed but few have expressed interest in taking direct citizen action.

[cindy25]

if you send home the parents, and even if 1/10 of the children stay behind as orphans (and like it or not they are, and will continue to be American citizens, regardless of any future law) it would overwhelm the system. imagine millions of hispanic orphans to take care of.

of course its unfair, and they should not be in the USA, but they are. so we have to accept it, move on, and work for the best possible deal.

[ProBlue33]

Does the constitution even address immigration, I don`t think you could be an illegal immigrant when the constitution was written.

How times have changed, since many of these illegals are able to circumvent income taxes, and then make use of government services, it`s a fiscal issue that contributes to more debt, which we don`t need.

I agree with Ron Paul, why reward those that break the law. And what other laws are they prepared to break while they live in America, this is a question worth asking.

[Fredom101]

Does the constitution even address immigration, I don`t think you could be an illegal immigrant when the constitution was written.

How times have changed, since many of these illegals are able to circumvent income taxes, and then make use of government services, it`s a fiscal issue that contributes to more debt, which we don`t need.

I agree with Ron Paul, why reward those that break the law. And what other laws are they prepared to break while they live in America, this is a question worth asking.

Most laws are absurd. If someone broke the income tax law would you say the same thing? Or the one about holding a certain kind of plant?

[youngbuck]

RP is correctemundo once again.

[Fredom101]

RP is correctemundo once again.

So you want to use coercion to prevent businesses from hiring who they please, and prevent people from traveling freely across imaginary lines?

If we don't tackle the welfare state FIRST, government will just get bigger & bigger. :mad:

[someperson]

RP is correctemundo once again.
RP is most certainly correct. Watch from 5:55, then watch the whole thing :)

YouTube - Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWukDvcVAKw&feature=player_embedded)

His campaign-time, transitional plan on the borders has as much bearing on his true goals as his transitional plan to prop up Social Security by redirecting military spending.

[Arion45]

The great thing about Ron Paul is that he has brought many people to the philosophy of liberty. The bad about Ron Paul is that there are many people who are followers and not individuals and thus worship what he advocates. Even though they have been presented with the concepts of "self ownership" and the "non-aggression principle" they reject the ideas for those of state control of their pet projects. Thus they reject liberty and embrace evil.

When are the border advocates going to understand that aggressing against peaceful non-violent individuals is evil. Why not choose more freedom and less government? If one is truly a liberty activist does it make sense to support governmental force for victimless crimes?

Ron Paul's stance on this is morally wrong. If you want to go down the statist road with him then don't be surprised where it leads. Comprising liberty has lead to where this country is today.

Everyone has their own pet project where they think it is imperative for the government to use it force to alter people's behavior. If you support borders and the limiting of free peoples movement then you are no different philosophically from the drug warrior. Ingesting chemicals and crossing imaginary border are both non violent, victimless crimes. The enforce of these "crimes" violate the non-aggression principle.

[.Tom]

I voted "disagree", because I assumed it was referencing Paul's more recent position, but I completely agree with Paul's views when he ran for President as a Libertarian.

[someperson]

The great thing about Ron Paul is that he has brought many people to the philosophy of liberty. The bad about Ron Paul is that there are many people who are followers and not individuals and thus worship what he advocates. Even though they have been presented with the concepts of "self ownership" and the "non-aggression principle" they reject the ideas for those of state control of their pet projects. Thus they reject liberty and embrace evil.

When are the border advocates going to understand that aggressing against peaceful non-violent individuals is evil. Why not choose more freedom and less government? If one is truly a liberty activist does it make sense to support governmental force for victimless crimes?

Ron Paul's stance on this is morally wrong. If you want to go down the statist road with him then don't be surprised where it leads. Comprising liberty has lead to where this country is today.

Everyone has their own pet project where they think it is imperative for the government to use it force to alter people's behavior. If you support borders and the limiting of free peoples movement then you are no different philosophically from the drug warrior. Ingesting chemicals and crossing imaginary border are both non violent, victimless crimes. The enforce of these "crimes" violate the non-aggression principle.
Well said :)

Appeals to authority are never convincing arguments; however, if one chooses to make such a fallacious argument, it would be prudent to at least make sure the authority is arguing for one's position lol. That's not the case here, as Dr. Paul's true stance is, and I quote, "The free market is exactly opposite of isolationism... open borders, free trade, let the people come and go, let the goods flow over the borders..." This quote was from his 1988 Libertarian Party run. It's important to note that, even then, he referred to the concept of borders, just as he does today. However, he obviously doesn't equate borders with walls, as some individuals believe. Rather, the borders are conceptual.

In an interview with Mr. Stossel in 2008, he was asked, "You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?" He responded, "Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive."

From a very recent speech (Feb. 2009), he stated, "Inflationism and corporatism engenders protectionism and trade wars. It prompts scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that result."

As we all know, he is opposed to Real-Id and other such measures, which some misinformed individuals believe would help in ensuring the border is sealed. I think his stance is quite clear, when you put it all together: it's the same as it's always been, which I quoted above. Once again, he was against the "welfare state" for all individuals as the Libertarian Party candidate back in 1988, and he's still against the "welfare state," today. It isn't like he was in support of the coercive redistribution of wealth when he proposed that, in a transition, medicare could continue to be made available for those dependent on the system by funding it with the savings from cutting military waste.

His transitional plans do not represent his true goals; if they did, well, let's start a money bomb to promote the glory of Social Security and healthcare "for the children." No. Stop being emotionally attached to personalities; stop appealing to authorities; stop latching onto parties and labels; start focusing on ideas.

[cindy25]

So you want to use coercion to prevent businesses from hiring who they please, and prevent people from traveling freely across imaginary lines?

If we don't tackle the welfare state FIRST, government will just get bigger & bigger. :mad:

this should be the priority; dismantle the welfare state

[someperson]

this should be the priority; dismantle the welfare state
Yes, and the motivation for doing so shouldn't exclusively be "illegal immigration," as far more "legal" individuals are collecting the "loot" than those labeled as "illegal." The "welfare state" is institutionalized theft, involving the coercive redistribution of resources by the state, which violates the non-aggression principle and the philosophy of domestic non-interventionism. For those infinitely more important reasons, it should be dismantled.

[constituent]

2007 Video of Ron Paul campaigning for the elections.

YouTube - Ron Paul on Immigration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwZsBiZYocg&feature=related)

2007 is current?

Where?

[constituent]

Ron Paul is right.

Cool, just don't bother chanting "constitution, constitution" "for liberty" "the republic" or any of the other idiotic slogans so popular around here if you, like Ron Paul are so willing to shred the constitution for your pet issue. :)

BTW Anti-Fed, any thoughts on this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=253743&highlight=constitution+immigration+state+historica lly)?

[constituent]

You can't make claims that the US has the resources to handle 3 billion people and not have some sort of proof and then ask her to respond to that. Fact is, open boarders aren't possible. No matter how nice it sounds, it just can't happen.

Funny, until the 30's pretty much all of our borders (particularly the Texan border with Mexico) were open.

So, care to tell me again how it isn't possible?

BTW Ekrub, any thoughts on this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=253743&highlight=constitution+immigration+state+historica lly)?

[constituent]

I have a question. How many of you in this thread who are for open borders, would like to see the Constitution and the U.S., for that matter, dissolved?

Just curious.

Funny, I was just wondering the same thing about you... AND Ron Paul!

Or wait, maybe you can show me where in Article I Section 8 Congress is granted the authority to regulate immigration? Maybe Ron Paul will step up and give it a shot?

BTW LibertyEagle, any thoughts on this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=253743&highlight=constitution+immigration+state+historica lly)?

[jmdrake]

See my post here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2800242&postcount=697

If you want to reduce illegal immigration then lets work together at something we can all agree on.

You're totally right. But there are some here that think it's "selfish" to concentrate on the issues that affect everybody and not jump on their pet issue.

[FrankRep]

Many people agree that mass Illegal Immigration is a form of Invasion. The United States is constitutionally obligated to protect against Invasion.


Article Four of the United States Constitution, Clause 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Cla use_2:_Protection_from_invasion_and_domestic_viole nce


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Many people agree that mass Illegal Immigration is a form of Invasion. The United States is constitutionally obligated to protect against Invasion.

Many people agree with health care and the United States providing for the general welfare. Based on this fact are you going to stop complaining health care is unconstitutional?

[jmdrake]

Many people agree with health care and the United States providing for the general welfare. Based on this fact are you going to stop complaining health care is unconstitutional?

Yes or no question. Is the Arizona law unconstitutional? On what grounds? (FTR I don't support the AZ law. But since you're arguing that immigration isn't the pervue of the federal government....)

[Fredom101]

The great thing about Ron Paul is that he has brought many people to the philosophy of liberty. The bad about Ron Paul is that there are many people who are followers and not individuals and thus worship what he advocates. Even though they have been presented with the concepts of "self ownership" and the "non-aggression principle" they reject the ideas for those of state control of their pet projects. Thus they reject liberty and embrace evil.

When are the border advocates going to understand that aggressing against peaceful non-violent individuals is evil. Why not choose more freedom and less government? If one is truly a liberty activist does it make sense to support governmental force for victimless crimes?

Ron Paul's stance on this is morally wrong. If you want to go down the statist road with him then don't be surprised where it leads. Comprising liberty has lead to where this country is today.

Everyone has their own pet project where they think it is imperative for the government to use it force to alter people's behavior. If you support borders and the limiting of free peoples movement then you are no different philosophically from the drug warrior. Ingesting chemicals and crossing imaginary border are both non violent, victimless crimes. The enforce of these "crimes" violate the non-aggression principle.

Awesome post! I couldn't agree more. :D

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Yes or no question. Is the Arizona law unconstitutional? On what grounds? (FTR I don't support the AZ law. But since you're arguing that immigration isn't the pervue of the federal government....)


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Am I free to go?

No.

I exercise all rights including the right to remain silent and invoke all constitutional guarantees including the 5th and 6th amendments.

Given that scenario what grounds are you going to detain or arrest me on?

[LibertyEagle]

Awesome post! I couldn't agree more. :D

WTF are you and Arion45 doing on Ron Paul Forums if you think Ron Paul sucks so much? Just wondering.

[jmdrake]

Am I free to go?

No.

I exercise all rights including the right to remain silent and invoke all constitutional guarantees including the 5th and 6th amendments.

Given that scenario what grounds are you going to detain or arrest me on?

So your basing opposition to the Arizona law on the 5th and 6th amendments? In case law up to this point it hasn't worked. I know because I looked it up. (And I don't support the AZ law). Basically there is a "totality of the circumstances"* test that can be used to establish "probable cause" for a warrant for checking immigration status. And even without a warrant the questioning may be deemed "reasonable". If you're interested in the case law I can look it up and send it to you.

*Circumstances that have been upheld include proximity to the border, difficulty speaking English, an overcrowded van of people headed to work etc. You might disagree with this. I'm just telling what the current state of the law is.

[LibertyEagle]

Since you or none of your neighbors are going to get out in a field and pick strawberries sweating or work in animal shit all day plan on food getting a lot more expensive and eating less once immigrant labor is gone.

I agree with you on that. However, we've always allowed work permits for Mexicans to come here and harvest. However, after it was over, they went back to Mexico.

I see nothing wrong with that, whatsoever. But, we have a very different thing going on today.

[libertarian4321]

WTF are you and Arion45 doing on Ron Paul Forums if you think Ron Paul sucks so much? Just wondering.

Did they say "Ron Paul sucks" or did they say that they disagree with him on this issue? I didn't go through the entire thread, but I didn't get the impression that either of them was saying "Ron Paul sucks"- I think they both simply indicated that they don't agree with Ron Paul's current stance on this issue.

One can disagree with a politician on an issue (or even several issues) without thinking he "sucks."

I know there are some here who worship Ron Paul as if he had come down from Mount Olympus casting lightning bolts, who would never disagree with anything he said.

Others of us see him as the best choice for President, but as a mere mortal, not an infallible God who is not to be questioned. We feel that it is okay to disagree with him when we think he is wrong.

This is one of the few issues where Ron has not been consistent over time. I, too, find myself more in agreement with the 1988 Ron Paul than the 2008 Ron Paul.

That doesn't mean I think "Ron Paul sucks," it means that I disagree with him on this issue.

[libertarian4321]

I agree with you on that. However, we've always allowed work permits for Mexicans to come here and harvest. However, after it was over, they went back to Mexico.


If we have a permit program in place currently, it's broken or woefully inadequate (I thought that program ended decades ago).

One of the few times in 8 years that I agreed with George W. Bush was when he called for issuing work permits to all those farm laborers, etc (and idea which was quickly squashed by the GOP).

Until we can get rid of the welfare state, we need to rationally manage that needed work force. High walls, electrified fences, and machine guns aren't the answer.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This ain't a court of law. So I'm perfectly free to use your silence against you. ;) You want to say the other side is not living up to constitutional principles, yet you aren't willing to be nailed down on exactly what you think those principles are. And yes you are "free" to debate that way. And I'm free to call you out on it. ;)

According to the Constitutional principles I would answer no. However elaboration is required when exercising a privilege (ie. driving) and individuals contract with the state agreeing to follow statuatory rules in exchange for privileges or immunities.

Oh look... I have a citation... from SCOTUS even... :p


HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA

The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445. Hiibel’s refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486. It appears he refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business. While the Court recognizes his strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances. See, e.g., Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549, 555. If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here.


These delegated powers, whether express or implied, are, (1) Those which are exclusively vested in the United States; and, (2) Those which are concurrent in the United States and the respective states.

It is perfectly settled that an affirmative grant of power to the United States does not, of itself, divest the states of a like power. The authorities cited settle this question, and it is no longer open for discussion in his Court.

The powers vested exclusively in Congress are. (1) Those which are granted in express terms. (2) Those which are granted to the United States, and expressly prohibited to the States. (3) Those which are exclusive in their nature.

All powers exclusive in their nature may be included under two heads; (1) Those which have thier origin in the constitution, and where the object of them did not exist previous to the Union. These may be called strictly national powers. (2) Those powers which, by other provisions in the constitution, have an effect an operation, when exercised by a state, without or beyond the territorial limits of the State.

As examples of the first class, may be mentioned the "power to borrow money on the credit of the United States." Here the object of the power (to borrow money for the use of the United States), and the means of executing it (by pledging their credit), have their origin in the Union, and did not previously exist. So as to the power "to establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," the same remark will apply.

Of the second class, the power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization" is an instance. This power was originally in the States, and was extensively exercised by them, and would now be concurrent, except for another provision in the constitution, that "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." It is not held to be exclusive, from the use of the term "uniform rule." This court has held that use of an analogous term, "uniform laws," In respect to the associated subject of bankruptcy, does not imply an exclusive power in Congress over that subject. The true reason why the power of establishing an uniform rule of naturalization is exclusive, must be that a person becomming a citizen in one state, would thereby become a citizen of another, perhaps even contrary to its laws, and the power thus exercised would operate beyond the limits of the state.

I cited both of these previously in this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242407&highlight=arizona&page=4

And have made citations in others on the matter.

[jmdrake]

If we have a permit program in place currently, it's broken or woefully inadequate (I thought that program ended decades ago).

What on earth gave you that idea? :confused:

http://www.doleta.gov/msfw/



One of the few times in 8 years that I agreed with George W. Bush was when he called for issuing work permits to all those farm laborers, etc (and idea which was quickly squashed by the GOP).


You're confusing the migrant worker permit plan which was created before Bush and never expired with Bush's "guest worker" plan which would have turned illegal immigrants into "guest workers".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-08-workers-usat_x.htm



Until we can get rid of the welfare state, we need to rationally manage that needed work force. High walls, electrified fences, and machine guns aren't the answer.

Rationally manage that needed workforce? What role does government have in "managing a workforce"? And why can't we just work on what we all agree with? (Getting rid of the welfare state). But even without a welfare state, the border area which is extremely violent due to drug gangs back by former (and possibly current) members of the Mexican military, needs to be secure. (And yes I'm for ending the federal drug war too. But until that happens these people need to be confronted).

[jmdrake]

According to the Constitutional principles I would answer no. However elaboration is required when exercising a privilege (ie. driving) and individuals contract with the state agreeing to follow statuatory rules in exchange for privileges or immunities.

Oh look... I have a citation... from SCOTUS even... :p





I cited both of these previously in this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242407&highlight=arizona&page=4

And have made citations in others on the matter.

I think we were talking about two different things. I mistakenly thought you were exercising your 5th amendment right not to answer my question. I edited my earlier post to reflect this, but apparently you were in the middle of responding when I did. :o

As for court cases on the issue:

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, (428 U.S. 543) - Immigration service didn't need any probable cause or reasonable suspicion at all because burden on rights from "visual inspection" and "questioning of passengers" didn't outweigh "state interest". Further that case noted that further inspection done "largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry" was ok.

Estrada v. Rhode Island, (594 F.3d 56) - Officer had probable cause to bind passengers over to ICE based on the facts that they were 1) heading to work , 2) had trouble speaking English and 3) many could not provide ID when asked. Circuit noted it hadn't ruled on whether officer had right to ask passengers for ID, but that the immigrants did not bring up that point.

United States v. Lopez-Valdez, 178 F.3d 282 Police didn't have a legitimate reason to stop the car in the first place (the broken tail light was not bad enough to be in violation of Texas law) so they did not have probable cause.

United States v. Galindo-Gonzales, 142 F.3d 1217. A legal immigrant is stopped at a license checkpoint. He has his license, but not his registration. Officer did have reasonable suspicion with regards to passengers based on 6 factors such as the size and tinted windows of the vehicle, the proximity of the checkpoint to the border and that the men had "dark hair and brown skin and spoke Spanish". (Of course "dark hair and brown skin" is precluded from being a factor by the Arizona law. Speaking Spanish presumably is not. What about speaking English with a Spanish accent?)

United States v. Zambrano, 76 Fed. Appx. 848 - Reasonable suspicion for stopping car where driver had not broken any laws upheld. (Officer suspicious because driver starred at police car as they passed and drove 10 miles below speed limit when officer was behind him. I've heard of that being used to justify stops in drug cases.)

United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3d 611 - Passenger is illegal immigrant. Officer finds this out by questioning driver who was speeding. This was upheld.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

But even without a welfare state, the border area which is extremely violent due to drug gangs back by former (and possibly current) members of the Mexican military, needs to be secure. (And yes I'm for ending the federal drug war too. But until that happens these people need to be confronted).

Those are two separate issues.

1. Federal intervention for violence. a) Suggest Arizona petition the federal government for federal assistance against domestic violence within Arizona borders b) Suggest Congress declare war against an invading enemy

2. Federal intervention securing state borders to restrict the flow of goods or people.

[libertarian4321]

Rationally manage that needed workforce? What role does government have in "managing a workforce"? And why can't we just work on what we all agree with? (Getting rid of the welfare state). But even without a welfare state, the border area which is extremely violent due to drug gangs back by former (and possibly current) members of the Mexican military, needs to be secure. (And yes I'm for ending the federal drug war too. But until that happens these people need to be confronted).

Obviously, issuing permits is not the ideal. I'd prefer allowing people to move freely to work- but until we get rid of the welfare state, that won't work well. Issuing work permits is a better solution that putting machine gun nests on the border. And I don't mean the kind of permits that require thousands of dollars and months of effort to obtain- I mean a simple, streamlined program that isn't such a mess that people will simply avoid using it.

You also bring up another issue- the battle between the drug gangs and the drug warriors (US government). The solution to that problem is to end the insane war on drugs, not to put thousands of troops and tanks on the border. End the war on drugs and you will put the drug lords out of business fast.

[jmdrake]

Obviously, issuing permits is not the ideal. I'd prefer allowing people to move freely to work- but until we get rid of the welfare state, that won't work well. Issuing work permits is a better solution that putting machine gun nests on the border. And I don't mean the kind of permits that require thousands of dollars and months of effort to obtain- I mean a simple, streamlined program that isn't such a mess that people will simply avoid using it.

You also bring up another issue- the battle between the drug gangs and the drug warriors (US government). The solution to that problem is to end the insane war on drugs, not to put thousands of troops and tanks on the border. End the war on drugs and you will put the drug lords out of business fast.

Note that I said (And yes I'm for ending the federal drug war too. But until that happens these people need to be confronted).

Just because prohibition of alcohol was wrong didn't mean that Al Capone didn't need to be confronted until prohibition could be repealed.

[libertarian4321]

United States v. Zambrano, 76 Fed. Appx. 848 - Reasonable suspicion for stopping car where driver had not broken any laws upheld. (Officer suspicious because driver starred at police car as they passed and drove 10 miles below speed limit when officer was behind him. I've heard of that being used to justify stops in drug cases.)



Am I reading this right? They had reasonable suspicion because the driver looked at the police car and did NOT exceed the speed limit (of course, if he had exceeded the speed limit, that would have been reasonable suspicion, too). Essentially, any dark skinned person who did not drive exactly at the posted speed limit is "suspicious?"

Good God, why even carry on with the pretense of being fair and reasonable- if the court is going to make it that easy for cops to pull over whoever the Hell they please, just come out and say "the cops can do whatever the Hell they please."

[WaltM]

Am I reading this right? They had reasonable suspicion because the driver looked at the police car and did NOT exceed the speed limit (of course, if he had exceeded the speed limit, that would have been reasonable suspicion, too). Essentially, any dark skinned person who did not drive exactly at the posted speed limit is "suspicious?"

Good God, why even carry on with the pretense of being fair and reasonable- if the court is going to make it that easy for cops to pull over whoever the Hell they please, just come out and say "the cops can do whatever the Hell they please."

it's called "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear"

Furthermore, you don't have a right to be free from harassment, so if you don't want to be asked to prove yourself innocent, STAY HOME.

[WaltM]

note that i said (and yes i'm for ending the federal drug war too. But until that happens these people need to be confronted).

just because prohibition of alcohol was wrong didn't mean that al capone didn't need to be confronted until prohibition could be repealed.

qft

[libertarian4321]

Just because prohibition of alcohol was wrong didn't mean that Al Capone didn't need to be confronted until prohibition could be repealed.

I guess that comes down to who you consider more dangerous- Al Capone or Federal storm troopers.

At this point, I think the average American has more reason to fear from the Federal "drug warrior" storm troopers blasting into houses in the middle of the night, guns blazing, than from the Al Capone's (or their modern day equivalent drug dealers) of the world.

[jmdrake]

Those are two separate issues.

Yes. And I framed them as two separate issues. That's why I said "But even without a welfare state"....



1. Federal intervention for violence. a) Suggest Arizona petition the federal government for federal assistance against domestic violence within Arizona borders b) Suggest Congress declare war against an invading enemy


Arizona has already requested federal assistance for securing the borders. So has all of the other states. You're a little late on that one. ;) Unless you're going to now split hairs over the definition of "petition". Also a declaration of war isn't necessary in this case. This isn't an incident of trying to defeat a foreign government. The most you could claim is that a letter of marque and reprisal was required, but that's even a stretch itself. If you go back and read the federalist papers you'll see that we had garrisons on the frontier even before we had a constitution.



2. Federal intervention securing state borders to restrict the flow of goods or people.

Are you aware of the history of the coast guard?

http://www.uscg.mil/history/

The United States Coast Guard, one of the country's five armed services, is a unique agency of the federal government. We trace our history back to 4 August 1790, when the first Congress authorized the construction of ten vessels to enforce tariff and trade laws and to prevent smuggling. Known variously through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as the Revenue Marine and the Revenue Cutter Service, we expanded in size and responsibilities as the nation grew.

[jmdrake]

Am I reading this right? They had reasonable suspicion because the driver looked at the police car and did NOT exceed the speed limit (of course, if he had exceeded the speed limit, that would have been reasonable suspicion, too). Essentially, any dark skinned person who did not drive exactly at the posted speed limit is "suspicious?"

Good God, why even carry on with the pretense of being fair and reasonable- if the court is going to make it that easy for cops to pull over whoever the Hell they please, just come out and say "the cops can do whatever the Hell they please."

Yes. You read that right. :( And note, I didn't post that to say I agreed with it. It's just a survey of the current state of the law.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

At least there is a discussion here when someone is bringing something to the table. I think some of these cases are worth discussing further and might not fall withing your blanket statement based on the facts involved with each case.


*Circumstances that have been upheld include proximity to the border, difficulty speaking English, an overcrowded van of people headed to work etc. You might disagree with this. I'm just telling what the current state of the law is.



As for court cases on the issue:

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, (428 U.S. 543) - Immigration service didn't need any probable cause or reasonable suspicion at all because burden on rights from "visual inspection" and "questioning of passengers" didn't outweigh "state interest". Further that case noted that further inspection done "largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry" was ok.

Estrada v. Rhode Island, (594 F.3d 56) - Officer had probable cause to bind passengers over to ICE based on the facts that they were 1) heading to work , 2) had trouble speaking English and 3) many could not provide ID when asked. Circuit noted it hadn't ruled on whether officer had right to ask passengers for ID, but that the immigrants did not bring up that point.

United States v. Lopez-Valdez, 178 F.3d 282 Police didn't have a legitimate reason to stop the car in the first place (the broken tail light was not bad enough to be in violation of Texas law) so they did not have probable cause.

United States v. Galindo-Gonzales, 142 F.3d 1217. A legal immigrant is stopped at a license checkpoint. He has his license, but not his registration. Officer did have reasonable suspicion with regards to passengers based on 6 factors such as the size and tinted windows of the vehicle, the proximity of the checkpoint to the border and that the men had "dark hair and brown skin and spoke Spanish". (Of course "dark hair and brown skin" is precluded from being a factor by the Arizona law. Speaking Spanish presumably is not. What about speaking English with a Spanish accent?)

United States v. Zambrano, 76 Fed. Appx. 848 - Reasonable suspicion for stopping car where driver had not broken any laws upheld. (Officer suspicious because driver starred at police car as they passed and drove 10 miles below speed limit when officer was behind him. I've heard of that being used to justify stops in drug cases.)

United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3d 611 - Passenger is illegal immigrant. Officer finds this out by questioning driver who was speeding. This was upheld.

Are any of your cases not within 100 miles of the border? All cases within 100 miles of the border should be in their own classification because the federal government is going to claim jurisdiction based on acts of Congress within 100 miles of the border. Outside of 100 miles it is going to be a different standard such as removable offenses for federal intervention to deport.

I am not going to render an opinion on the 100 miles matter because it is what it is and it is presently backed up by the monopoly of force. I do think it is worthy of its own discussion because if the commerce clause is a perversion some other acts of Congress are too.

[jmdrake]

I guess that comes down to who you consider more dangerous- Al Capone or Federal storm troopers.

At this point, I think the average American has more reason to fear from the Federal "drug warrior" storm troopers blasting into houses in the middle of the night, guns blazing, than from the Al Capone's (or their modern day equivalent drug dealers) of the world.

I think no knock raids are an abomination and should be barred both at the federal and local level. I feel that independent of the war on drugs. That said, ending no knock raids inside the U.S. would not necessarily mean ending of enforcement on the border.

[libertarian4321]

it's called "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear"

Furthermore, you don't have a right to be free from harassment, so if you don't want to be asked to prove yourself innocent, STAY HOME.

This post is utterly absurd.

First off, the cops have frequently killed, beaten and destroyed the property of innocent people. There have been dozens of posts on the RPF of innocent people who have been terrorized by cops- hardly a week goes by when we don't see some atrocity committed by the cops mentioned here. Cops crash through the door at 3 a.m., slam the residents and their children to the ground, blast away at the family pets, tear up the house, then leave, only to find out later they had the wrong address or a "bad tip."

Obviously, "staying home" isn't a very well thought out solution.

Did it ever occur to you that we might have a problem if having cops so out of control that your only recommendation for avoiding brutality is to "stay home?"

[Danke]

it's called "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear"

Furthermore, you don't have a right to be free from harassment, so if you don't want to be asked to prove yourself innocent, STAY HOME.

"The individual stands upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the state since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his property and life. His rights are such as exist by the law of the land that is long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." --- United States Supreme Court, Hale vs. Hinkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74.

Since 1905, the case of Hale vs. Hinkle has been cited by the Supreme Court over 144 times and by the lower federal and state courts over 1,600 times. Hale vs. Hinckle has never been reversed.

[ClayTrainor]

it's called "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear"

Furthermore, you don't have a right to be free from harassment, so if you don't want to be asked to prove yourself innocent, STAY HOME.

psssttt... your love for tyranny is showing.

[jmdrake]

At least there is a discussion here when someone is bringing something to the table. I think some of these cases are worth discussing further and might not fall withing your blanket statement based on the facts involved with each case.


Cool. Please note that I researched these cases in an attempt to argue against the Arizona law. It sometimes gets lost in discussion, but there are actually people in the middle of the immigration question. Anyway, I definitely noted any arguments I could bring up that might help someone distinguish these rulings. That said it's possible that I missed things.



Are any of your cases not within 100 miles of the border? All cases within 100 miles of the border should be in their own classification because the federal government is going to claim jurisdiction based on acts of Congress within 100 miles of the border. Outside of 100 miles it is going to be a different standard such as removable offenses for federal intervention to deport.

I am not going to render an opinion on the 100 miles matter because it is what it is and it is presently backed up by the monopoly of force. I do think it is worthy of its own discussion because if the commerce clause is a perversion some other acts of Congress are too.

That's a good question. I don't know. The Rhode Island case is more than 100 miles from the border....but it's probably within 100 miles of the sea. How would you count that?

[libertarian4321]

I think no knock raids are an abomination and should be barred both at the federal and local level. I feel that independent of the war on drugs. That said, ending no knock raids inside the U.S. would not necessarily mean ending of enforcement on the border.

It's not even just the "no knock" raids anymore. Too often, the cops now knock on the door, then immediately start smashing the door down. Given that these raids usually occur when people are asleep, the "knock" is just a bull shit formality before the blast the door down.

There isn't a chance in Hell that 10 heavily armed and armored drug dealers are going to come crashing into my home at 3 am. But there is a chance that 10 Federal storm troopers or local cops, in full armor and armed with automatic weapons, might.

I can deal with one or two crack heads breaking into my house at night looking for something to steal, but there isn't a thing I can do to stop an army of storm troopers from blasting into my house and killing my dogs or terrorizing my family.

That's why I say that I'd rather take my chances with Al Capone than with the "drug warriors."

It's pretty sad when citizens have more to fear from Government storm troopers than criminals.

[libertarian4321]

it's called "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear"

Furthermore, you don't have a right to be free from harassment, so if you don't want to be asked to prove yourself innocent, STAY HOME.

Er, I assumed you were serious when I wrote my last post, but after re-reading your post, I realized it's so idiotic that it can only be trolling.

You got me, my bad...

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Arizona has already requested federal assistance for securing the borders. So has all of the other states. You're a little late on that one. ;) Unless you're going to now split hairs over the definition of "petition". Also a declaration of war isn't necessary in this case. This isn't an incident of trying to defeat a foreign government. The most you could claim is that a letter of marque and reprisal was required, but that's even a stretch itself. If you go back and read the federalist papers you'll see that we had garrisons on the frontier even before we had a constitution.

Regarding garrisons. Federal territory or within state borders. From a constitutional perspective it matters.

Congress used to entertain petitions so its not like there isn't precedent of procedure. A governor making a formal public request for federal assistance is probably petition enough for a state. However if you are going to take the least path of effort such as a public statement it should be clearly stated the intentions are petitioning for federal intervention and a Congressional failure to respond will result in the state taking action including withholding federal taxes for redress of taking action. Domestic violence calls for bold leadership.



Are you aware of the history of the coast guard?

http://www.uscg.mil/history/

The United States Coast Guard, one of the country's five armed services, is a unique agency of the federal government. We trace our history back to 4 August 1790, when the first Congress authorized the construction of ten vessels to enforce tariff and trade laws and to prevent smuggling. Known variously through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as the Revenue Marine and the Revenue Cutter Service, we expanded in size and responsibilities as the nation grew.

Border patrol also originated under customs and taxing power. Immigrants were taxed for being immigrants.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

it's called "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear"

Furthermore, you don't have a right to be free from harassment, so if you don't want to be asked to prove yourself innocent, STAY HOME.

Who is claiming freedom from harassment. Ask anything you want. I do not have to answer you and I am free to ignore you. You are not free to coerce or use force against me because I do not want to answer you. It's called.. "piss off"...

[jmdrake]

It's not even just the "no knock" raids anymore. Too often, the cops now knock on the door, then immediately start smashing the door down. Given that these raids usually occur when people are asleep, the "knock" is just a bull shit formality before the blast the door down.

There isn't a chance in Hell that 10 heavily armed and armored drug dealers are going to come crashing into my home at 3 am. But there is a chance that 10 Federal storm troopers or local cops, in full armor and armed with automatic weapons, might.

I can deal with one or two crack heads breaking into my house at night looking for something to steal, but there isn't a thing I can do to stop an army of storm troopers from blasting into my house and killing my dogs or terrorizing my family.

That's why I say that I'd rather take my chances with Al Capone than with the "drug warriors."

It's pretty sad when citizens have more to fear from Government storm troopers than criminals.

I guess I should be more specific. I'm in favor of a rule that the cops can't bust in even if they have a warrant unless they give you reasonable warning that they are there. If they knock and you don't answer the door they should get on a bullhorn and say "This is the police. Come on out. We don't want anyone to get hurt." Like they used to do in the movies. (Old old movies). I'm more for the "Andy in Mayberry" cop than the "dirty Harry" cop. Even without the "war on drugs" police abuse needs to be reigned in. But that's a different subject than the border.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That's a good question. I don't know. The Rhode Island case is more than 100 miles from the border....but it's probably within 100 miles of the sea. How would you count that?

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/images/2008/10/22/imagemap.gif

[jmdrake]

Regarding garrisons. Federal territory or within state borders. From a constitutional perspective it matters.

This was written before the Louisiana Purchase. As far as I know there wasn't any "federal territory" at the time. In fact there couldn't have been because this was written before the constitution so there was not a "federal" government, only a "confederation".



Congress used to entertain petitions so its not like there isn't precedent of procedure. A governor making a formal public request for federal assistance is probably petition enough for a state. However if you are going to take the least path of effort such as a public statement it should be clearly stated the intentions are petitioning for federal intervention and a Congressional failure to respond will result in the state taking action including withholding federal taxes for redress of taking action. Domestic violence calls for bold leadership.


So what is enough by your understanding? A letter to the president? A governor addressing a congressional committee? A governor addressing a joint session of congress? A governor writing a letter to his congressional delegation? Just curious.




Border patrol also originated under customs and taxing power. Immigrants were taxed for being immigrants.

Interesting historical note.

[WaltM]

This post is utterly absurd.

Did it ever occur to you that we might have a problem if having cops so out of control that your only recommendation for avoiding brutality is to "stay home?"

Did it ever occur to you that non-libertarian, non-Constitutionalist, non-capitalist, non-educated, non-moral, non-Christian citizens could be so out of control, the only recommendation from me is "more government"?

[JeNNiF00F00]

:D

[WaltM]

"The individual stands upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the state since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his property and life. His rights are such as exist by the law of the land that is long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." --- United States Supreme Court, Hale vs. Hinkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74.

Since 1905, the case of Hale vs. Hinkle has been cited by the Supreme Court over 144 times and by the lower federal and state courts over 1,600 times. Hale vs. Hinckle has never been reversed.

you didn't prove me wrong, stay home, and it doesn't say a person can walk around without being harassed (by another citizen, a soliciting business, or a government worker)

[WaltM]

Thats called bullshit. Do you use blinds or curtains in your house? If so why? If you got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear right? Last time I checked, we were innocent until proven guilty.

tell that for me to the people here who quote RP saying "there's clearly no right to privacy in the Constitution"

as for my curtains, i COULD be doing things I like to hide, but that's not the same as walking on the street and having something to hide.

[libertarian4321]

Lest any of you think I was exaggerating about storm troopers being out of control, look at this article:

http://paralleluniverse.msn.com/comic-con/stormtroopers/story/feature/?Gt1=28140

Those are some heavily armed SOBs.

[Danke]

you didn't prove me wrong, stay home, and it doesn't say a person can walk around without being harassed (by another citizen, a soliciting business, or a government worker)

You can still be harassed at home too. So what is your point I'm trying to prove wrong?

[jmdrake]

Did it ever occur to you that non-libertarian, non-Constitutionalist, non-capitalist, non-educated, non-moral, non-Christian citizens could be so out of control, the only recommendation from me is "more government"?

I thought you were an atheist? :confused:

[libertarian4321]

as for my curtains, i COULD be doing things I like to hide, but that's not the same as walking on the street and having something to hide.

Do you wear pants on the street?

If so, why? Do you have something, however insignificant, to hide?

[John Taylor]

"The individual stands upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the state since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his property and life. His rights are such as exist by the law of the land that is long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." --- United States Supreme Court, Hale vs. Hinkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74..


The holding of Hale v. Hinkle concerns corporations...and it held that the examination of witnesses by a grand jury does NOT have to be preceded by a presentment, an indictment, or any formal charge.

The entire section from which you accurately quoted is:

"
If, whenever an officer or employee of a corporation were summoned before a grand jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of such corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of **379 cases where the illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers. Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.


Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to *75 act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges.


It is true that the corporation in this case was chartered under the laws of New Jersey, and that it receives its franchise from the legislature of that state; but such franchises, so far as they involve questions of interstate commerce, must also be exercised in subordination to the power of Congress to regulate such commerce, and in respect to this the general government may also assert a sovereign authority to ascertain whether such franchises have been exercised in a lawful manner, with a due regard to its own laws. Being subject to this dual sovereignty, the general government possesses the same right to see that its own laws are respected as the state would have with respect to the special franchises vested in it by the laws of the state. The powers of the general government in this particular in the vindication of its own laws are the same as if the corporation had been created by an act of Congress. It is not intended to intimate, however, that it has a general visitatorial power over the state corporations.



"Since 1905, the case of Hale vs. Hinkle has been cited by the Supreme Court over 144 times and by the lower federal and state courts over 1,600 times. Hale vs. Hinckle has never been reversed.

Actually, (and unfortunately because I agree with the statement you quoted in its entirety) Hale was overruled in part by Murphy v. Waterfront Com'n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 1594, (1964).


The weakness of the Hale v. Henkel dictum was immediately recognized both by lower federal courts [FN12] and by this Court itself. In Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 47 S.Ct. 302, 71 L.Ed. 560, decided in 1927 by a unanimous *70 Court, appellant refused to answer certain questions put to him in a deportation proceeding on the ground that they 'might have tended to incriminate him under the Illinois Syndicalism Law * * *.' Id., 273 U.S., at 112, 47 S.Ct., at 306. Instead of deciding the issue on the authority of the Hale v. Henkel dictum, the Court held that the privilege had been waived. The Court then said:


FN12. See, e.g., United States v. Lombardo, 9 Cir., 228 F. 980, aff'd on other grounds, 241 U.S. 73, 36 S.Ct. 508, 60 L.Ed. 897, where the court accepted defendant's contention that if she answered certain questions, she might 'incriminate herself under the criminal laws of Washington.' See also, e.g., Buckeye Powder Co. v. Hazard Powder Co., 2 Cir., 205 F. 827; In re Doyle, 2 Cir., 42 F.2d 686, rev'd without opinion 47 F.2d 1086.


'This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the extent to which the Fifth Amendment guarantees immunity from self-incrimination under state statutes, or whether this case is to be controlled **1605 by Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652; Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 608, 16 S.Ct. 644, 40 L.Ed. 819. Compare United States v. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. 100, 7 L.Ed. 69; Ballmann v. Fagin, 200 U.S. 186, 195, 26 S.Ct. 212, 50 L.Ed. 433.' 273 U.S., at 113, 47 S.Ct., at 306.
In a subsequent case, decided in 1933, this Court said that the question-- whether 'one under examination in a federal tribunal could not refuse to answer on account of probable incrimination under state law'--was 'specifically reserved in Vajtauer v. Commr. of Immigration,' and was not 'definitely settled' until 1931. United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 396, 54 S.Ct. 223, 226, 78 L.Ed. 381.
In 1931, the Court decided United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 52 S.Ct. 63, 76 L.Ed. 210, the case principally relied on by respondent here. Appellee had been indicted for failing to supply certain information to federal revenue agents. He claimed that his refusal had been justified because it rested on the fear of federal and state incrimination. The Government argued that the record supported only a claim of state, not federal, incrimination, and that the Fifth Amendment does not protect against a claim of state incrimination. Appellee did not respond to the latter argument, but instead rested his entire case on the claim that his refusals had in each instance been based on federal as well as state incrimination. In support of *71 its constitutional argument, the Government cited the same two English cases erroneously relied on in the Hale v. Henkel dictum--King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox, supra, which had been overruled, and The Queen v. Boyes, supra, which was wholly inapposite. An examination of the briefs and summary of argument indicates that neither the Government nor the appellee informed the Court that King of the Two Sicilies had been overruled by United States of America v. McRae, supra. [FN13]


FN13. The Government also relied on the North Carolina case of State v. March, supra, which, as previously noted, see note 10, supra, had been discredited by the subsequent case of State v. Thomas, supra.


This Court decided that appellee's refusal to answer rested solely on a fear of state prosecution, and then concluded, in one brief paragraph, that such a fear did not justify a refusal to answer questions put by federal officers.
The Court gave three reasons for this conclusion. The first was that:
'Investigations for federal purposes may not be prevented by matters depending upon state law. Constitution, art. 6, cl. 2.' 284 U.S., at 149, 52 S.Ct., at 64.
This argument, however, begs the critical question. No one would suggest that state law could prevent a proper federal investigation; the Court had already held that the Federal Government could, under the Supremacy Clause, grant immunity from state prosecution, and that, accordingly, state law could not prevent a proper federal investigation. The critical issue was whether the Federal Government, without granting immunity from state prosecution, could compel testimony which would incriminate under state law. The Court's first 'reason' was not responsive to this issue.
The second reason given by the Court was that:
'The English rule of evidence against compulsory self-incrimination, on which historically that contained *72 in the Fifth Amendment rests, does not protect witnesses against disclosing offenses in violation of the laws of another country. King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox, 7 St.Tr.(N.S.) 1050, 1068; Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, 330.' 284 U.S., at 149, 52 S.Ct., at 64.
**1606 As has been demonstrated, the cases cited were in one instance overruled and in the other inapposite, and the English rule was the opposite from that stated in this Court's opinion: The rule did 'protect witnesses against disclosing offenses in violation of the laws of another country.' United States of America v. McRae, supra.
The third reason given by the Court in Murdock was that:
'This court has held that immunity against state prosecution is not essential to the validity of federal statutes declaring that a witness shall not be excused from giving evidence on the ground that it will incriminate him, and also that the lack of state power to give witnesses protection against federal prosecution does not defeat a state immunity statute. The principle established is that full and complete immunity against prosecution by the government compelling the witness to answer is equivalent to the protection furnished by the rule against compulsory self-incrimination. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 12 S.Ct. 195, 35 L.Ed. 1110; Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 606, 16 S.Ct. 644, 40 L.Ed. 819; Jack v. Kansas, 199 U.S. 372, 381, 26 S.Ct. 73, 50 L.Ed. 234. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 68, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652.'
This argument--that the rule in question had already been 'established' by the past decisions of the Court--is not accurate. The first case cited by the Court--Counselman v. Hitchcock--said nothing about the problem of incrimination under the law of another sovereign. The second case--Brown v. Walker-- merely held that the *73 federal immunity statute there involved did protect against state prosecution. The third case--Jack v. Kansas--held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent a State from compelling an answer to a question which presented no 'real danger of a Federal prosecution.' 199 U.S., at 382, 26 S.Ct., at 76. The final case--Hale v. Henkel--contained dictum in support of the rule announced which was without real authority and which had been questioned by a unanimous Court in Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, supra. Moreover, the Court subsequently said, in no uncertain terms, that the rule announced in Murdock had not been previously 'established' by the decisions of the Court. When Murdock appealed his subsequent conviction on the ground inter alia, that an instruction on willfulness should have been given, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of his conviction and said that:
'Not until this court pronounced judgment in United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 52 S.Ct. 63, 76 L.Ed. 210, had it been definitely settled that one under examination in a federal tribunal could not refuse to answer on account of probable incrimination under state law. The question was involved but not decided in Ballmann v. Fagin, 200 U.S. 186, 195, 26 S.Ct. 212, 51 L.Ed. 433, and specifically reserved in Vajtauer v. Commr. of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 113, 47 S.Ct. 302, 71 L.Ed. 560.' United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 396, 54 S.Ct. 223, 226.
Thus, neither the reasoning nor the authority relied on by the Court in United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 52 S.Ct. 63, supports its conclusion that the Fifth Amendment permits the Federal Government to compel answers to questions which might incriminate under state law.
In 1944 the Court, in Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S.Ct. 1082, was confronted with the situation where evidence compelled by a State under a grant of state immunity was 'availed of by the (Federal) Government' and *74 introduced in a federal prosecution. **1607 Jack v. Kansas, 199 U.S., at 382, 26 S.Ct., at 76. This was the situation which the Court had earlier said it did 'not believe' would occur. Ibid. Nevertheless, the Court, in a 4-to-3 decision, upheld this practice, but did so on the authority of a principle which is no longer accepted by this Court. The Feldman reasoning was essentially as follows:
'(T)he Fourth and Fifth Amendments intertwined as they are, (express) supplementing phases of the same constitutional purpose * * *.' 322 U.S. 489--490, 64 S.Ct., at 1083.
'(O)ne of the settled principles of our Constitution has been that these Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the (Federal) Government whose conduct they alone limit.' Id., 322 U.S., at 490, 64 S.Ct., at 1083.
'And so while evidence secured through unreasonable search and seizure by federal officials is inadmissible in a federal prosecution, Weeks v. United States, supra (232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652); * * * incriminating documents so secured by state officials without participation by federal officials but turned over for their use are admissible in a federal prosecution. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048.' 322 U.S., at 492, 64 S.Ct., at 1084.
The Court concluded, therefore, by analogy to the then extant search and seizure rule, that evidence compelled by a state grant of immunity could be used by the Federal Government. But the legal foundation upon which that 4-to-3 decision rested no longer stands. Evidence illegally seized by state officials may not now be received in federal courts. In Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669, the Court held, over the dissent of the writer of the Feldman decision, that 'evidence obtained by state officers during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant's immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible over the defendant's *75 timely objection in a federal criminal trial.' 364 U.S., at 223, 80 S.Ct., at 1447. Thus, since the fundamental assumption underlying Feldman is no longer valid, the constitutional question there decided must now be regarded as an open one.
The relevant cases decided by this Court since Feldman fall into two categories. Those involving a federal immunity statute--exemplified by Adams v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 179, 74 S.Ct. 442, 98 L.Ed. 608--in which the Court suggested that the Fifth Amendment bars use by the States of evidence obtained by the Federal Government under the threat of contempt. And those involving a state immunity statute--exemplified by Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 78 S.Ct. 1302--where the Court, applying a rule today rejected, held the Fifth Amendment inapplicable to the States. [FN14]


FN14. In Mills v. Louisiana, 360 U.S. 230, 79 S.Ct. 980, 3 L.Ed.2d 1193, the Court, without opinion, simply applied the rule announced in Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 78 S.Ct. 1302. In Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 599, 82 S.Ct. 1005, there was no opinion of the Court.


In Adams v. Maryland, supra, petitioner had testified before a United States Senate Committee investigating crime, and his testimony had later been used to convict him of a state crime. A federal statute at that time provided that no testimony given by a witness in congressional inquiries 'shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court * * *.' 62 Stat. 833. The State questioned the application of the statute to petitioner's testimony and the constitutionality of the statute if construed to apply to state courts. The Court, in an opinion joined by seven members, made the following significant statement: 'a witness does **1608 not need any statute to protect him from the use of self-incriminating testimony he is compelled to give over his objection. The Fifth Amendment takes care of that without a statute.' 347 U.S., at 181, 74 S.Ct., at 445. [FN15] This statement suggests *76 that any testimony elicited under threat of contempt by a government to whom the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable (at the time of that decision it was deemed applicable only to the Federal Government) may not constitutionally be admitted into evidence against him in any criminal trial conducted by a government to whom the privilege is also applicable. This statement, read in light of today's decision in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, draws into question the continuing authority of the statements to the contrary in United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141, 52 S.Ct. 63, and Feldman v. United States, supra. [FN16]

FN15. The Court in Adams v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 179, 74 S.Ct. 442, went on to construe the statute as affording more protection than would be provided by the Fifth Amendment alone. It held that the statute applied even where, as there, the witness had not claimed his privilege against self-incrimination before being required to testify. It held, as well, that the statute did, and constitutionally could, prevent use of the testimony in state as well as federal courts.




This overruling is recognized by cases like, for example:

U.S. v. Insurance Consultants of Knox, Inc., 187 F.3d 755 (7th Cir.1999)

Hix Corp. v. National Screen Printing Equipment, Inc., 2000 WL 1026351 (D.Kan. 2000)

Oman v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1131(Ind. Sep 26, 2000) rehearing denied (2001)

Check "n Go of Florida, Inc. v. State, 790 So.2d 454,(Fla.App. 5 Dist. 2001) (NO. 5D00-3055), rehearing denied (Jul 20, 2001)

State ex rel. Goddard v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc., 216 Ariz. 361, 166 P.3d 916, 512 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 31 (Ariz.App. Div. 1, 2007)

Wright v. State, 2008 WL 6124462 (Nev. 2008)