How would you fix the Arizona Immigration law?

[GunnyFreedom]

I was approached by William Gheen, founder of ALIPAC, regarding the possibility for introducing a refined version of the Arizona Immigration law in NC. I told him 'possibly' but that with a stress on the "refined" as I am deeply concerned about the civil liberty implications of the Arizona law -- while I recognize that illegal immigration is creating a serious drain on any potential recovery especially in states like North Carolina.

I would like to be able to propose changes to the Arizona law that would still be acceptable as a measure against illegal immigration, but more importantly would be acceptable to us.

So let me know, how would you change the Arizona Immigration law to comport with the civil liberty concerns of our community?

I would like to pass on these suggested modifications to Mr Gheen ASAP. Thanks!

[heavenlyboy34]

privatize all the land. Allow landowners to build a fence. There was a farmer down south who built a few miles of fence himself, and it actually worked a bit. The feds have no incentive to take care of the problem.

Also, end the drug war and NAFTA/CAFTA.

[Zippyjuan]

We have a fence in California. Hundreds of miles of it. Concrete and barbed wire with "neutral ground" between it and another one. They sail around in boats, dig tunnels under it, cut holes, and even go over it. In one place they found a ramp which would allow a fully loaded semi over it. Somebody once said "Build me a ten foot wall and somebody will come along with an eleven foot ladder." In some places they took land from private owners to build the wall. Fencing may slow some down but it certainly won't stop anything. Most of it moved further east.

[GunnyFreedom]

privatize all the land. Allow landowners to build a fence. There was a farmer down south who built a few miles of fence himself, and it actually worked a bit. The feds have no incentive to take care of the problem.

Also, end the drug war and NAFTA/CAFTA.

I like it, and I agree. Problem is that as a single legislator without majority support or a friendly governor, you are talking about a 15 or 20 year plan. People want this Arizona thing here because it provides relief NOW. NC used to be listed as a sanctuary state, and especially now that is hurting citizens who are more recently looking for lower paying jobs and finding them already occupied, or not paying enough just to eat once you take out the taxes.

NC is not a border state. Nothing remotely like a fence would even begin to work here. What I am looking for is a means to amend the existing model of Arizona law to 1) push directly towards the true voluntary solution on the horizon while 2) providing some immediate relief for the work and pay shortages caused by the presence of the additional population, plus the wider effects of their lack of taxation, downmarket pay, and unfunded services provided them by government.

I agree that total real property privatization is the conceptual "final solution" to illegal immigration - and to just about everything else too for that matter - but from here to there is not a short road, and if we try to take it all in one step, then I think the acceleration will leave us like just a red grease spot.

Nor is it an easy connection to demonstrate to the majority of an Assembly that we need to turn around tomorrow and cede all real property with allodial title in the State of North Carolina to individual citizens who will then be regarded as locally sovereign.

And which citizens get what property? :)

Anyway, some questions in the hope of charting an azimuth from here to the horizon:

In a non-border state, how exactly will absolute property rights solve the market and service imbalances created by undocumented immigrants? Remembering that the real problem making people ache is the market and service imbalances more than the immigrants...How far down that azimuth will a Republican State Assembly be willing to go (to vote - remember we will need to carry almost all the Republicans) if it indeed turns out to be an immediate solution for "that problem?"

Demonstrate the logical process by which total property rights will solve "the illegal immigration problem." (the hope here is to chart the destination, determine the origin, and eventually to use legislation to create a "path" in the correct direction towards the optimum goal)

NAFTA and CAFTA are bad, and need to go, but how exactly have they increased illegal immigration (is this a process we can monkey-wrench at the State level?), and what can be done at the State level to block NAFTA and CAFTA in such a way to have an effect on those market imbalances created by undocumented immigrants?

[GunnyFreedom]

We have a fence in California. Hundreds of miles of it. Concrete and barbed wire with "neutral ground" between it and another one. They sail around in boats, dig tunnels under it, cut holes, and even go over it. In one place they found a ramp which would allow a fully loaded semi over it. Somebody once said "Build me a ten foot wall and somebody will come along with an eleven foot ladder." In some places they took land from private owners to build the wall. Fencing may slow some down but it certainly won't stop anything. Most of it moved further east.

In any case, a fence isn't even up for discussion in a non-border state. Who do we fence off, SC? TN? VA? lol. VA is a good choice -- most of that DC crap comes downhill from up there yonder. :D

[fj45lvr]

Does the AZ law require immigration check of anyone arrested? That seems reasonable.

[GunnyFreedom]

Does the AZ law require immigration check of anyone arrested? That seems reasonable.

I think that's the basic idea, but there were civil liberty concerns wrt identity checks, and profiling, making proof of citizenship etc. The concern RPF's and Judge Napolitano had were related to casual contact with a police officer becoming grounds for a citation because you "look mexican" and the cop wanted a citizenship check. IE, that a police officer would promote ordinary "casual contact" into an "official contact" in order to have grounds to demand citizenship checks.

I agree that this is a frightening scenario, and if the Arizona law really does open the door for it, then how can it be amended to shut that door (potential abuse) for good, and yet still be effective as a law?

ETA: I know really this would be a question best posed to Judge Nap, but I really want to get back to Mr Gheen by Tuesday on this.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If it is important to the people of Arizona, the people of Arizona must be willing to bear the costs of enforcement.

Organize the citizen militia and state National Guard to enforce trespassing along Arizona borders. In the debate people can decide if the citizen militia will receive compensation or be a 100% volunteer force.

The state should clearly authorize the citizen militia to use force and articulate the trespass process. The citizen militia should detain a trespasser, issue a notice of trespass, and transport the trespasser to the nearest federal point of entry for deportation.

The state could also consider using cameras, satellite technology, and a network of property owners along the border to greatly improve policing and response efficiency.

If the people of Arizona are unwilling to organize a citizen militia among themselves along with their National Guard to address a problem in Arizona then they don't really want to solve the problem. They just want other people to solve the problem.

Arizona doing the right thing may inspire other states to follow and doing the right thing would be an inspiration to set the right tone for a federal debate about state borders.

[RonPaulCult]

Some say that the Arizona bill only allows police to check for citizenship AFTER a legal police stop. I've read the bill and I feel it leaves the door wide open for police to stop anybody they SUSPECT to be an illegal immigrant. To me, this is a violation of the 4th amendment. Your skin color does not indicate you are breaking the law. And therefore, without probable cause to make a legal stop - this could turn Arizona into a "papers please" police state. NOT good.

So I would make it clear that police have the right and duty to check a person's citizenship, but only after stopping them for something they would be stopping somebody for anyway. It has to be unrelated to immigration. It could be a traffic stop - not a problem. Anything that the courts have rule previously that the police have a right to find out your identity.

Just make that clear and keep everybody's right to privacy!

Also, just a tip - I would have them add in something about out-of-state drivers licenses. To my knowledge, 4 states allow illegals to get driver liceneses. It could be more than that - I'm not sure. But in Arizona - ANY out-of-state license is considered proof, even the ones that allow illegals to have it. I've read that those 4 states are getting quite a few people coming to their DMV's looking for a license since the Arizona bill has passed. Very interesting.

I think illegal immigration is a serious problem and I welcome states doing something about it since the federal government refuses to. But it's extremely important that we don't violate anything in the constitution along the way. All people have these God given rights - even immigrants and we must not trade away these rights even for something we believe in and want.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If you want to stop the size of immigration and the quality of immigrants we have coming across right now building a fence, harassing citizens, requiring more intrusive police measures, etc. will not work. If you are truly serious about this the only solution is the abolition of State-welfare. I am fucking dead serious Gunny. Even if you started shooting the people coming across the borders, the people DYING to get here from the caribbean, other parts of the world, etc. they would still come, period. Why? All the free-benefits which make their standard of living vastly better than where they come from they are willing to die for.

It is the same reason it didn't work in East Germany, in the USSR, etc. A free society does not compute with ID's, with constant police checks for no crime other than just being here (Which isn't a crime at all), etc.

I will personally never go to any state which enacts an even heavier police state than what we all ready have. If you thought cops were bad now, just wait until you even give them more power! No way Gunny, no way.

If you want some proof -- just talk to any CG member who has done migrant operations. These people cram hundreds deep in the most unsanitary boats known to man to get here. We have a large network of cutters and intelligence centers, etc. to stop these guys and they still come across in even greater numbers. We may get at best 2-5% of those who come across in boats. How the hell do you plan to stop them Gunny? Increase CG funding by one-hundred billion? What the hell is the difference between that and them using Welfare? If I had a choice I would much rather if we had to, spend the money on actually helping people, not sending them back to their deaths.

[GunnyFreedom]

If it is important to the people of Arizona, the people of Arizona must be willing to bear the costs of enforcement.

Organize the citizen militia to enforce trespassing along Arizona borders. In the debate people can decide if the citizen militia will receive compensation or be a 100% volunteer force.

The state should clearly authorize the citizen militia to use force and articulate the trespass process. The citizen militia should detain a trespasser, issue a notice of trespass, and transport the trespasser to the nearest federal point of entry for deportation.

The state could also consider using camera or satellite technology to greatly improve policing and response efficiency.

If the people of Arizona are unwilling to organize a citizen militia among themselves to address a problem in Arizona then they don't really want to solve the problem. They just want other people to solve the problem.

Arizona doing the right thing may inspire other states to follow and doing the right thing would be an inspiration to set the right tone for a federal debate about state borders.

OK good, I like this too. Now change the paradigm to a non-border former sanctuary state like NC. By the time they are here it is not an incursion, but the end result of a long infiltration. Identity problems are 1000x worse here than in Arizona. By the time they arrive here there may be a fake social security card, a fake ID, or a valid drivers license issued by another sanctuary state.

I think the problem posed which the AZ law seeks to address, is more complicated here.

What happens when authorized civilians just start gunning down latinos that don't produce their papers fast enough?

I'm looking for a perpendicular kind of solution like, say for the sake of illustration: "Only US citizens can own real property in NC." (ie: Real estate) as a "horizon point" and then use that fixed point to establish a structure of removing illegal aliens from the marketplace. For instance a next logical step from here to there would be "only citizens and visaholders can rent real property, (to include foreign business interest visas)" Now you have a real and immediate impact on illegal immigration in the form of something that almost looks like a law. The effect is "If you are neither a citizen or a visitor, you cannot rent housing."

That was for the sake of illustration. I don't think it is a right solution because the horizon-pint chosen "Only US citizens can own real property in NC." is clearly not the ideal -- it is protectionist and would probably come with consequences.

The process is the same though. What is the ideal point at which the free market provides a solution for the crisis caused by illegal immigration, and how do we bridge the gap from here to there within a legislative framework?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

OK good, I like this too. Now change the paradigm to a non-border former sanctuary state like NC. By the time they are here it is not an incursion, but the end result of a long infiltration. Identity problems are 1000x worse here than in Arizona. By the time they arrive here there may be a fake social security card, a fake ID, or a valid drivers license issued by another sanctuary state.

I think the problem posed which the AZ law seeks to address, is more complicated here.

What happens when authorized civilians just start gunning down latinos that don't produce their papers fast enough?

I'm looking for a perpendicular kind of solution like, say for the sake of illustration: "Only US citizens can own real property in NC." (ie: Real estate) as a "horizon point" and then use that fixed point to establish a structure of removing illegal aliens from the marketplace. For instance a next logical step from here to there would be "only citizens and visaholders can rent real property, (to include foreign business interest visas)" Now you have a real and immediate impact on illegal immigration in the form of something that almost looks like a law. The effect is "If you are neither a citizen or a visitor, you cannot rent housing."

That was for the sake of illustration. I don't think it is a right solution because the horizon-pint chosen "Only US citizens can own real property in NC." is clearly not the ideal -- it is protectionist and would probably come with consequences.

The process is the same though. What is the ideal point at which the free market provides a solution for the crisis caused by illegal immigration, and how do we bridge the gap from here to there within a legislative framework?

Start by repealing State-Welfare. That has the added benefit of being pro-liberty and helping solve the immigration problem (In fact it is the only true solution). Without welfare people would actually have to provide for themselves or find people who are willing to voluntarily help them. (E.g. no more moochers -- which is afterall the main complaint of "illegal" immigration isn't it?) Now, if you are against all immigration no matter what, then sure, enact East Germany -- Iron Curtain part duex, but I know you Gunny, and you wouldn't consider doing that (I hope not).

[RonPaulCult]

Why not make the fine for employers SO high - I mean CRAZY high that nobody will hire illegals? Companies will stop hiring illegals. Then if they are in your state - they can afford to be there without a job or if they can't - they will leave. No more welfare for illegals in your state.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why not make the fine for employers SO high - I mean CRAZY high that nobody will hire illegals? Companies will stop hiring illegals. Then if they are in your state - they can afford to be there without a job or if they can't - they will leave. No more welfare for illegals in your state.

Having a job is not welfare. I don't see how it is pro-liberty to tell property owners who they can hire and who they can't do you? This sort of rhetoric implies you are a nativist, anti-private property statist. Do you think expanding State-power to tell what property owners can do and can't do is beneficial?

[RonPaulCult]

Having a job is not welfare. I don't see how it is pro-liberty to tell property owners who they can hire and who they can't do you? This sort of rhetoric implies you are a nativist, anti-private property statist. Do you think expanding State-power to tell what property owners can do and can't do is beneficial?

No I'm not as you described me - our society just happens to be set up like this. Short of making everything pro-liberty, which would be great, I'd at least like to go after business owners instead of the illegals.

Everybody always wants to go after the brown people. I say if you are go after anybody at all - go after the Americans that are hurting their own country.

Property owners are already forbidden to hire who they want. I'd be fine with getting rid of that. But so long as that's on the book - why not make the fines crazy high? At least then the laws on the books would be followed.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No I'm not as you described me - our society just happens to be set up like this. Short of making everything pro-liberty, which would be great, I'd at least like to go after business owners instead of the illegals.

Everybody always wants to go after the brown people. I say if you are go after anybody at all - go after the Americans that are hurting their own country.

Property owners are already forbidden to hire who they want. I'd be fine with getting rid of that. But so long as that's on the book - why not make the fines crazy high? At least then the laws on the books would be followed.

Because that is not moving the football to the goal at all, in fact it is getting sacked for a 10 yard loss...No, just no. I don't want to go after the brown people -- I want to go after State-Welfare which heavily incentivizes the massive immigration you see everywhere there is State-Welfare! Besides, how can you say property owners hiring immigrants is hurting America? That is just absurd.

[RonPaulCult]

Because that is not moving the football to the goal at all, in fact it is getting sacked for a 10 yard loss...No, just no. I don't want to go after the brown people -- I want to go after State-Welfare which heavily incentivizes the massive immigration you see everywhere there is State-Welfare! Besides, how can you say property owners hiring immigrants is hurting America? That is just absurd.

We all know welfare is the problem. Obviously that would be the best thing to go after. But it will be a LONG time before the people of this country want to get rid of things like food stamps and educating the children of illegals. I dare say this country will never move that far.

Hiring ILLEGAL immigrants is hurting America because if they weren't hired, they wouldn't come here. If they didn't come here, we wouldn't be paying out all of the welfare.

[GunnyFreedom]

If you want to stop the size of immigration and the quality of immigrants we have coming across right now building a fence, harassing citizens, requiring more intrusive police measures, etc. will not work. If you are truly serious about this the only solution is the abolition of State-welfare. I am fucking dead serious Gunny. Even if you started shooting the people coming across the borders, the people DYING to get here from the caribbean, other parts of the world, etc. they would still come, period. Why? All the free-benefits which make their standard of living vastly better than where they come from they are willing to die for.

It is the same reason it didn't work in East Germany, in the USSR, etc. A free society does not compute with ID's, with constant police checks for no crime other than just being here (Which isn't a crime at all), etc.

I will personally never go to any state which enacts an even heavier police state than what we all ready have. If you thought cops were bad now, just wait until you even give them more power! No way Gunny, no way.

If you want some proof -- just talk to any CG member who has done migrant operations. These people cram hundreds deep in the most unsanitary boats known to man to get here. We have a large network of cutters and intelligence centers, etc. to stop these guys and they still come across in even greater numbers. We may get at best 2-5% of those who come across in boats. How the hell do you plan to stop them Gunny? Increase CG funding by one-hundred billion? What the hell is the difference between that and them using Welfare? If I had a choice I would much rather if we had to, spend the money on actually helping people, not sending them back to their deaths.

OK, this is closer to the heart of it, I think; I agree with you and Ron Paul that the root cause of illegal immigration is the welfare state.

Obviously we can't just throw a switch and turn it off. Too many people have built up a dependency and will end up devouring Meatwasp's fruit trees. But take the model I've been drawing and see if we can find a workable increment.

It would probably be pretty easy to attach an immigration investigation team to welfare and services, no? I hate the idea of actually paying for something new, but if it cuts illegal aliens out of the welfare and services, then it should pay dividends.

It's an awful lot easier to winnow out illegal aliens drawing food stamps and welfare than on the side of a dark highway, I think, and also a lot easier to preserve Constitutional and civil libertarian boundaries during a welfare-fraud investigtion than at a traffic stop, no?

So, maybe apply the Arizona idea towards "barring all undocumented or fraudulently documented aliens from all government welfare, assistance, and services." and then authorize two to ten people per county to seek out and investigate welfare-citizenship fraud (punishable if found guilty in a court of law by deportation).

Now you are moving in the right direction, it provides at least some immediate relief, it does kinda look like a law if you squint at it hard enough, and it's a small enough pill to sell to a Republican State House. :D

Of course, once we reach the dot on the horizon, once ALL of the welfare state has been abolished once and for all, then not only will the illegal immigration not matter as much, but there won't be so much demand for it. :D A law that slowly obsoletes itself as we approach the goal-point of "no more welfare state." :D

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

OK, this is closer to the heart of it, I think; I agree with you and Ron Paul that the root cause of illegal immigration is the welfare state.

Obviously we can't just throw a switch and turn it off. Too many people have built up a dependency and will end up devouring Meatwasp's fruit trees. But take the model I've been drawing and see if we can find a workable increment.

It would probably be pretty easy to attach an immigration investigation team to welfare and services, no? I hate the idea of actually paying for something new, but if it cuts illegal aliens out of the welfare and services, then it should pay dividends.

It's an awful lot easier to winnow out illegal aliens drawing food stamps and welfare than on the side of a dark highway, I think, and also a lot easier to preserve Constitutional and civil libertarian boundaries during a welfare-fraud investigtion than at a traffic stop, no?

So, maybe apply the Arizona idea towards "barring all undocumented or fraudulently documented aliens from all government welfare, assistance, and services." and then authorize two to ten people per county to seek out and investigate welfare-citizenship fraud (punishable if found guilty in a court of law by deportation).

Now you are moving in the right direction, it provides at least some immediate relief, it does kinda look like a law if you squint at it hard enough, and it's a small enough pill to sell to a Republican State House. :D

Of course, once we reach the dot on the horizon, once ALL of the welfare state has been abolished once and for all, then not only will the illegal immigration not matter as much, but there won't be so much demand for it. :D A law that slowly obsoletes itself as we approach the goal-point of "no more welfare state." :D

I suppose I could go for ending Welfare for "illegal" immigrants as a first step. Just don't go around messing with property owners who decide to hire them, or any other such measures.

To be honest, we are so completely far down the road that only radical measures will return us to a free society. Perhaps this means a reset button (ala independence), but this is a start I suppose.

I am not familiar with the welfare process as I refuse to ever accept a penny of it...what sort of ID do you have to show? What would be the criteria? Birth Certificate / Visa/Green card?

Also, I hope you introduce legislation like the one in GA to get rid of drivers licenses.

[GunnyFreedom]

Start by repealing State-Welfare. That has the added benefit of being pro-liberty and helping solve the immigration problem (In fact it is the only true solution). Without welfare people would actually have to provide for themselves or find people who are willing to voluntarily help them. (E.g. no more moochers -- which is afterall the main complaint of "illegal" immigration isn't it?) Now, if you are against all immigration no matter what, then sure, enact East Germany -- Iron Curtain part duex, but I know you Gunny, and you wouldn't consider doing that (I hope not).

The immigrants are not the problem, the unbalancing effect their presence has on the market is the real crisis. The true solution is the end of the welfare state, and the obvious problem is the question of illegal immigrants unbalancing the markets.

So draw the hard line. You have to be a citizen or a visitor (visa holder) to get food stamps. Full stop. You are starting to unwind the welfare state, and the citizens at large will percieve a 'benefit' from the beginning of that process.

The other issue that would need to be addressed is taxes and compensation. Obviously the ideal world would revoke taxation altogether so that everybody is on a level playing field. Well, we can't just throw the switch on taxes either. Until then, the illegal immigrant usually claims S9 or whatever on his W2 and so he can survive a lot better on an untaxed $7/hr than you or I can on our taxed $12/hr. That's another imbalance caused by illegal immigration. The tax inequity depresses market wages.

[RonPaulCult]

I suppose I could go for ending Welfare for "illegal" immigrants as a first step. Just don't go around messing with property owners who decide to hire them, or any other such measures.

To be honest, we are so completely far down the road that only radical measures will return us to a free society. Perhaps this means a reset button (ala independence), but this is a start I suppose.

I am not familiar with the welfare process as I refuse to ever accept a penny of it...what sort of ID do you have to show? What would be the criteria? Birth Certificate / Visa/Green card?

Also, I hope you introduce legislation like the one in GA to get rid of drivers licenses.

You can disagree with the law that says private property owners can't hire who they want to. I'll even AGREE with you that private property owners should be able to hire whoever they want.

But as long as it's ON THE BOOKS like that - people breaking the law will have an unfair advantage in business while the good, honest, law-abiding business owners will lose their profits and sometimes the business because they are unable to compete.

It's complete bullshit. Why should the good business owners who follow the law be punished?

Or are you going to suggest those people should become law breakers?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The immigrants are not the problem, the unbalancing effect their presence has on the market is the real crisis. The true solution is the end of the welfare state, and the obvious problem is the question of illegal immigrants unbalancing the markets.

So draw the hard line. You have to be a citizen or a visitor (visa holder) to get food stamps. Full stop. You are starting to unwind the welfare state, and the citizens at large will percieve a 'benefit' from the beginning of that process.

The other issue that would need to be addressed is taxes and compensation. Obviously the ideal world would revoke taxation altogether so that everybody is on a level playing field. Well, we can't just throw the switch on taxes either. Until then, the illegal immigrant usually claims S9 or whatever on his W2 and so he can survive a lot better on an untaxed $7/hr than you or I can on our taxed $12/hr. That's another imbalance caused by illegal immigration. The tax inequity depresses market wages.

This is why I like immigrants. They open flaunt the tax system -- something that everyone should do. I am an agorist, so obviously I support any and every way to get around taxation.

Sure, the way they are treated is worse because they have no where to go to pursue legal recourse against practices that obviously would be handled in court in a free-society, however, what are you going to do to go after these people? The answer is you shouldn't. You probably would save more money by firing all the tax agents and other personal involved in such activities than having these people try and "find" the 'tax-evaders'. Market wages are set by the employer and the employee. Whatever they decide upon is the market wage. If you want to help people start by getting rid of minimum wage, and the State income tax.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You can disagree with the law that says private property owners can't hire who they want to. I'll even AGREE with you that private property owners should be able to hire whoever they want.

But as long as it's ON THE BOOKS like that - people breaking the law will have an unfair advantage in business while the good, honest, law-abiding business owners will lose their profits and sometimes the business because they are unable to compete.

It's complete bullshit. Why should the good business owners who follow the law be punished?

Or are you going to suggest those people should become law breakers?

Why are they good and the ones who hire who they want bad? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Following bad laws does not make you good. It makes you complicent. Yes, I actively call for everyone to disobey bad laws, and bad laws are any that violate your liberty.

[RonPaulCult]

Why are they good and the ones who hire who they want bad? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Following bad laws does not make you good. It makes you complicent. Yes, I actively call for everyone to disobey bad laws, and bad laws are any that violate your liberty.

Well you're living in a dream world then. When you've been in business for 30 years and you've spent your whole life building up a business from a time when things weren't quite as fucked up as they are now it's not so easy to risk EVERYTHING just to make a point or to fight the good fight.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well you're living in a dream world then. When you've been in business for 30 years and you've spent your whole life building up a business from a time when things weren't quite as fucked up as they are now it's not so easy to risk EVERYTHING just to make a point or to fight the good fight.

I suppose people doing the courageous thing is living in a dream world. There used to be a time where Americans did live that way, but I guess not anymore. Why do you guys even bother if you have no hope? This sort of defeatist attitude astounds me..Where is the fire in your belly? Are you that afraid to confront the tyrants? You even go so far as to defend those who follow every little fiat law that is passed that violates our natural rights. Well you can go ahead and do that, but I'll be the American who would have been the first on the front lines with the Sons of Liberty openly defying fiat edicts (I have done so, and continue to do so).

If you aren't willing to take a risk then you have nothing to gain, and frankly I think anyone who isn't willing to take a risk has no room to complain.

It sure is easy hitting that paypal button to throw 20$ into a political race. It is a whole 'nother scenario to put everything on the line for what you believe in. (And I am not even saying they are mutually exclusive) What sort of person are you? Until people are willing to sacrifice everything, then not much will change. When the time comes where people are willing to sacrifice everything, then the type of change we want will start happening.

[GunnyFreedom]

I suppose I could go for ending Welfare for "illegal" immigrants as a first step. Just don't go around messing with property owners who decide to hire them, or any other such measures.

There is some culpability for employers who wink and nod past this, because of the wage depressing effect of the imbalanced taxation. When an IA has a higher net wage at $12/hr than I have at $20/hr, then he can always underbid me due to the weak position the burden of the state has placed on me. That damages the position of the other employees, and gives the employer an unfair (if not fraudulent) marketplace advantage. I don't want to turn employers into state tax informants, and wage controls are commie claptrap. How do you suggest to address the culpability of those who use the taxation imbalance to take an unfair advantage in market share?


To be honest, we are so completely far down the road that only radical measures will return us to a free society. Perhaps this means a reset button (ala independence), but this is a start I suppose. I think the "reset button" has to come after demonstrating to people that this way actually works better than what we have been doing for the last century. It's a lot easier to sell the people on the reset button when they look at a couple things we've done and say, "yeah, hey, that actually did make things better, huh?"

Radical measures will become more acceptable as the transformation accelerates back towards a free society. In the initial stages, a millimeter will look like a mile. in the final stages, a mile will look like a millimeter.


I am not familiar with the welfare process as I refuse to ever accept a penny of it...what sort of ID do you have to show? What would be the criteria? Birth Certificate / Visa/Green card? I've never participated myself, frankly, so I have no idea. I imagine they already accept certain identifications and consider that proof of citizenship. That's why "fraud" is the natural angle to take. It's also one of the safest approaches I can think of for identifying IA's without pissing on civil liberties. "Hey, Mr. John Doe, you are under investigation for welfare fraud for receiving benefits as an undocumented alien. During your next normal meeting (I dunno if these are weekly, monthly, what?) please bring proof of citizenship or visa status to the office with you and we can straighten all this out."

Almost anybody who is an actual citizen can produce proof of that within a week, no? It's a f'n hassle, but so is my tax dollars paying for his munchies a hassle. It's an easy investigation to clear up, and any actual IA's will probably just flee.


Also, I hope you introduce legislation like the one in GA to get rid of drivers licenses.I'd sure like to. I think that's something that requires timing and a sense of atmosphere to make it actually work (the goal is the bill actually passing into law, no? Just introducing to introduce doesn't actually do anything AFAIK). The NC libdems would FREAK! I don't quite have the finesse for something that audacious yet, maybe the 2012 session. :D If someone else introduces it I'll cosponsor in 2011 though.

[RonPaulCult]

I suppose people doing the courageous thing is living in a dream world. There used to be a time where Americans did live that way, but I guess not anymore. Why do you guys even bother if you have no hope? This sort of defeatist attitude astounds me..Where is the fire in your belly? Are you that afraid to confront the tyrants?

If you aren't willing to take a risk then you have nothing to gain, and frankly I think anyone who isn't willing to take a risk has no room to complain.

Please tell me you don't pay any taxes. I'm not afraid to confront the tyrants but you have to pick your battles. There's too much to fight back against to fight it all.

The bottom line is, people hiring illegals usually aren't trying to confront the tyrants. They are selfishly taking advantage of cheap labor at the expense of the American tax payer. Granted, those hiring didn't set up the welfare state. But they can't be ignorant of the strain they are putting on their country.

Some business owners are patriotic and mindful of their fellow citizens enough not to hire illegals for their own selfish profit.

We all agree the welfare state is the problem. But short of going after that (it may never happen) we have to choose - do we go after the illegals or those who hire the illegals? I refuse to choose the illegals because they are just trying to feed their families.

I choose the businesses that want to take advantage of law breakers by being law breakers. I'm all for changing the laws - but we are still a nation of laws. There is nothing wrong with enforcing the laws on the books until the day we hopefully change them. Our nation would be a lot better off if laws were enforced.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Please tell me you don't pay any taxes. I'm not afraid to confront the tyrants but you have to pick your battles. There's too much to fight back against to fight it all.

The bottom line is, people hiring illegals usually aren't trying to confront the tyrants. They are selfishly taking advantage of cheap labor at the expense of the American tax payer. Granted, those hiring didn't set up the welfare state. But they can't be ignorant of the strain they are putting on their country.

Some business owners are patriotic and mindful of their fellow citizens enough not to hire illegals for their own selfish profit.

We all agree the welfare state is the problem. But short of going after that (it may never happen) we have to choose - do we go after the illegals or those who hire the illegals? I refuse to choose the illegals because they are just trying to feed their families.

I choose the businesses that want to take advantage of law breakers by being law breakers. I'm all for changing the laws - but we are still a nation of laws. There is nothing wrong with enforcing the laws on the books until the day we hopefully change them. Our nation would be a lot better off if laws were enforced.

I vehemently disagree. Every unjust law should be opposed, and that means defying it.

You are calling following King's Laws (I will just use this term from now on to identify fiat edicts), being patriotic. I am sorry, not following them is the patriotic thing to do. Nothing more needs to be said.

[GunnyFreedom]

In my experience, a company that refuses to pay payroll taxes, doesn't last very long.

[RonPaulCult]

I vehemently disagree. Every unjust law should be opposed, and that means defying it.

You are calling following King's Laws (I will just use this term from now on to identify fiat edicts), being patriotic. I am sorry, not following them is the patriotic thing to do. Nothing more needs to be said.

You are really missing the point. Every time a business owner hires an illegal he or she is not only breaking the King's Law - he or she is complicit in the government's scheme of taking money out of the rest of our pockets.

The more illegals hired - the more we will be taxed and the more we will have stolen from us. If you know this is the result of your action, and hire illegals anyway, are you not contributing to the theft of your fellow man? Do you not have any responsibility to prevent this?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You are really missing the point. Every time a business owner hires an illegal he or she is not only breaking the King's Law - he or she is complicit in the government's scheme of taking money out of the rest of our pockets.

The more illegals hired - the more we will be taxed and the more we will have stolen from us. If you know this is the result of your action, and hire illegals anyway, are you not contributing to the theft of your fellow man? Do you not have any responsibility to prevent this?

You really love to blame the victim. I am sure you are Anti-Boston Tea Party though. Similarly, Anti-defiance of the Stamp Act and Townsend Acts. I mean those damn people who made the King have to steal more from others to recoup expenses because these guys refused to be stolen from. Blame the perpetuator not the victim!!!

I also challenge the assertion that everyone who does not pay taxes, necessarily increases the taxes for others. Tax rates are often times arbitrary and decided on whims, and political sway. They aren't a reflection of the income required to sustain Government programs, because the Government can borrow money. Similarly, I doubt every single illegal immigrant is on welfare. A lot? Sure.

Besides, the more people who don't follow the laws, the faster they will either get repealed, or just not even acted upon. If you follow the laws you have all ready lost. They own the system. Ghandi realized this. He was obviously more successful with outside the system activism (E.g. civil disobedience, non-compliance, etc.), than in-the-system. Same with the lead up to, and the American Revolution. How did our petitions go? Not good at all. How did not following the laws go? Many were either repealed or not actively acted upon by British Authorities.

I reflect on what works and what doesn't, and the historical record is clear. If you can afford it, pitch in and help people like Gunny, and other liberty-advocates, but don't expect anything to really change if that is all you do.

[GunnyFreedom]

Besides, the more people who don't follow the laws, the faster they will either get repealed, or just not even acted upon. If you follow the laws you have all ready lost. They own the system. Ghandi realized this. He was obviously more successful with outside the system activism (E.g. civil disobedience, non-compliance, etc.), than in-the-system. Same with the lead up to, and the American Revolution. How did our petitions go? Not good at all. How did not following the laws go? Many were either repealed or not actively acted upon by British Authorities.

The more people murder, the sooner murder will be legalized or ignored?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The more people murder, the sooner murder will be legalized or ignored?

Are you being facetious Gunny? I mean how you go from Thoreau & La Boetie to that, well I don't know.

[GunnyFreedom]

Are you being facetious Gunny? I mean how you go from Thoreau & La Boetie to that, well I don't know.

No, I'm actually serious. What kind of laws are we talking about, only those covering stuff that doesn't violate the NAP? he NAP applies to the marketplace too, no?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No, I'm actually serious. What kind of laws are we talking about, only those covering stuff that doesn't violate the NAP? he NAP applies to the marketplace too, no?

I am talking about any law that violates liberty. Have you never read The Law by Bastiat?

[GunnyFreedom]

I am talking about any law that violates liberty. Have you never read The Law by Bastiat?

Every law violates liberty. "Do not murder" violates my liberty to murder.

[RonPaulCult]

I have to go to bed, because despite your assumption that all I do is throw 20 bucks towards liberty candidates and go about my law-abiding slave life - I have to get up in the morning and work all day for a liberty candidate.

You make some fine points and you have me thinking about some things in a different way.

But I will leave you with this: you act as if everybody hiring illegals is doing it as a statement against the tyrants. This is a pretty silly assumption. My assumption is that nearly all of them are after increased profits - and an advantage over their competitors. It is their greed that causes them to break the laws - not some sort of Gandhi like stand.

How are THEY the victims? They are having their way and making shit loads of money in the process. Doesn't sound like they are getting raped.

No, it is the tax payer that is the victim of THEIR actions given the society we are living within thanks to the shitty government.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Every law violates liberty. "Do not murder" violates my liberty to murder.

No it doesn't. You are confusing freedom and liberty. Liberty is mutual, freedom is not.

[CCTelander]

Are you being facetious Gunny? I mean how you go from Thoreau & La Boetie to that, well I don't know.


I doubt it. He once told me that not voting and encouraging others to not vote was an initiation of force. I'm still speechless over that one. :eek:

[GunnyFreedom]

I have to go to bed, because despite your assumption that all I do is throw 20 bucks towards liberty candidates and go about my law-abiding slave life - I have to get up in the morning and work all day for a liberty candidate.

You make some fine points and you have me thinking about some things in a different way.

But I will leave you with this: you act as if everybody hiring illegals is doing it as a statement against the tyrants. This is a pretty silly assumption. My assumption is that nearly all of them are after increased profits - and an advantage over their competitors. It is their greed that causes them to break the laws - not some sort of Gandhi like stand.

How are THEY the victims? They are having their way and making shit loads of money in the process. Doesn't sound like they are getting raped.

No, it is the tax payer that is the victim of THEIR actions given the society we are living within thanks to the shitty government.

marketplace aggression usually comes in the form of fraud, vendor to customer. using the tax imbalance from hiring illegal aliens in order to gain a marketplace advantage is a kind of extortion. You are in effect threatening the competition with State violence or go bankrupt. You are telling your competitor, "you either hire illegal aliens and risk getting shot by police and raped and shived in prison, or you can just go bankrupt while I undersell you hahaha." It's an extortion racket.

If it's wrong for a government to threaten someone with State violence lest they comply, then why is it OK for this business owner to threaten his competition with State violence lest they comply (ie stop competing with you).

[GunnyFreedom]

No it doesn't. You are confusing freedom and liberty. Liberty is mutual, freedom is not.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberty
Noun
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=liberty&i=0&h=00000#c) (n) autonomy (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=autonomy), liberty (immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence)
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=liberty&i=1&h=00000#c) (n) liberty (freedom of choice) "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=liberty&i=2&h=00000#c) (n) liberty (personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression)
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=liberty&i=3&h=00000#c) (n) shore leave (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=shore+leave), liberty (leave granted to a sailor or naval officer)
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=liberty&i=4&h=00000#c) (n) familiarity (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=familiarity), impropriety (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=impropriety), indecorum (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=indecorum), liberty (an act of undue intimacy)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. In feudal times, a liberty was an area of allodial land in which regalian rights had been waived.

[GunnyFreedom]

I doubt it. He once told me that not voting and encouraging others to not vote was an initiation of force. I'm still speechless over that one. :eek:

If a liberty candidate puts $50,000 into a district and you run around telling every like-minded person not to vote, then yeah, I would call that an act of aggression. :)

Now can you explain to me what this has to do with the Arizona law on immigration? :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberty
Noun
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=liberty&i=0&h=00000#c) (n) autonomy (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=autonomy), liberty (immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence)
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=liberty&i=1&h=00000#c) (n) liberty (freedom of choice) "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=liberty&i=2&h=00000#c) (n) liberty (personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression)
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=liberty&i=3&h=00000#c) (n) shore leave (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=shore+leave), liberty (leave granted to a sailor or naval officer)
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=liberty&i=4&h=00000#c) (n) familiarity (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=familiarity), impropriety (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=impropriety), indecorum (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=indecorum), liberty (an act of undue intimacy)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. In feudal times, a liberty was an area of allodial land in which regalian rights had been waived.

So, I take it the right of life which is liberty, is not actually mutual? Gunny you need to brush up on your philosophical underpinnings. Liberty has always been a mutual rights philosophy. Freedom on the other hand has always been the ability to do as you want or please.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If a liberty candidate puts $50,000 into a district and you run around telling every like-minded person not to vote, then yeah, I would call that an act of aggression. :)

Now can you explain to me what this has to do with the Arizona law on immigration? :)

So boycotts are acts of aggression? Come on Gunny.

[GunnyFreedom]

So, I take it the right of life which is liberty, is not actually mutual? Gunny you need to brush up on your philosophical underpinnings. Liberty has always been a mutual rights philosophy. Freedom on the other hand has always been the ability to do as you want or please.

LMAO will you stop with the elitist claptrap trying to deflect the debate from ideas into authors you know very well I have read, and tell me why you think aggression in the marketplace is OK? Should fraud even be a crime at all?

[GunnyFreedom]

So boycotts are acts of aggression? Come on Gunny.

How is that not obvious?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

LMAO will you stop with the elitist claptrap trying to deflect the debate from ideas into authors you know very well I have read, and tell me why you think aggression in the marketplace is OK? Should fraud even be a crime at all?

Yes of course, it should. Refusing to pay taxes is not fraud. Where have I ever said fraud is ok?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

How is that not obvious?

Yes, not participating and encouraging others to not buy a product is an act of aggression...I guess pricing your products lower and out competing your rival is an act of aggression also, since you are 'stealing' their profits. Gunny, once you have come this far from a reasonable position you know you should reflect on your position.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes of course, it should. Refusing to pay taxes is not fraud. Where have I ever said fraud is ok?

Good, so at least one form of marketplace aggression is verboten. :)

What about extortion then?

And how is a businessman forcing his competition to break the law or go bankrupt through his own violation of the law, not a form of extortion?

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, not participating and encouraging others to not buy a product is an act of aggression...I guess pricing your products lower and out competing your rival is an act of aggression also, since you are 'stealing' their profits. Gunny, once you have come this far from a reasonable position you know you should reflect on your position.

Yes, you are right because you say so. And yet when thousands of people have invested millions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of hours of sweat blood and tears into the accomplishment of a cause, and then you would invest work to prevent the fruition of that cause, it's an act of aggression against those who have so invested. A legal and protected form of aggression, but hard-core aggression nonetheless.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Good, so at least one form of marketplace aggression is verboten. :)

What about extortion then?

And how is a businessman forcing his competition to break the law or go bankrupt through his own violation of the law, not a form of extortion?

No, it isn't. Your argument would be reduced to having the same exact tax rates throughout the world. If there is any difference than goods and services should be banned from that territory because it would be extortion to the businesses practicing in a less commercial environment. You aren't taking that position are you? I mean, businesses in NH have a better environment than in most states. Would you say NH businesses are extorting New York businesses? Really Gunny?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, you are right because you say so. And yet when thousands of people have invested millions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of hours of sweat blood and tears into the accomplishment of a cause, and then you would invest work to prevent the fruition of that cause, it's an act of aggression against those who have so invested. A legal and protected form of aggression, but hard-core aggression nonetheless.

Non-sense. I have not violated anyones rights. I am not afraid to debate the merits of either position. I would actually like my position to be openly challenged so I can strengthen my arguments. I am suspect of those who wish no debate. Anyways, I am done for the night.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, it isn't. Your argument would be reduced to having the same exact tax rates throughout the world. If there is any difference than goods and services should be banned from that territory because it would be extortion to the businesses practicing in a less commercial environment. You aren't taking that position are you? I mean, businesses in NH have a better environment than in most states. Would you say NH businesses are extorting New York businesses? Really Gunny?
Since when does extortion not require a violation of law?

And for goodness sake, with you f'n STOP with this holier than thour elitist shit you primp around to try and make yourself look better? I can play that game better than you but I don't because it's a shitty form of rhetorical bullshit. "Oh come on, Haven't you ever read Plato's description of the Socratic method?" :D

[GunnyFreedom]

Non-sense. I have not violated anyones rights. I am not afraid to debate the merits of either position. I would actually like my position to be openly challenged so I can strengthen my arguments. I am suspect of those who wish no debate. Anyways, I am done for the night.

Then why is it every time you get challenged, you start pretending that you are the only one with any education, and then you start pretending everybody else is just stupid and doesn't get it? When we get specific you come back "Haven't you read Bastiat?" as if I am ignorant of Acton, Locke, and all that crowd.

Man, you need to polish that halo a little...

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

OK good, I like this too. Now change the paradigm to a non-border former sanctuary state like NC. By the time they are here it is not an incursion, but the end result of a long infiltration. Identity problems are 1000x worse here than in Arizona. By the time they arrive here there may be a fake social security card, a fake ID, or a valid drivers license issued by another sanctuary state.

I think the problem posed which the AZ law seeks to address, is more complicated here.

What happens when authorized civilians just start gunning down latinos that don't produce their papers fast enough?

I'm looking for a perpendicular kind of solution like, say for the sake of illustration: "Only US citizens can own real property in NC." (ie: Real estate) as a "horizon point" and then use that fixed point to establish a structure of removing illegal aliens from the marketplace. For instance a next logical step from here to there would be "only citizens and visaholders can rent real property, (to include foreign business interest visas)" Now you have a real and immediate impact on illegal immigration in the form of something that almost looks like a law. The effect is "If you are neither a citizen or a visitor, you cannot rent housing."

That was for the sake of illustration. I don't think it is a right solution because the horizon-pint chosen "Only US citizens can own real property in NC." is clearly not the ideal -- it is protectionist and would probably come with consequences.

The process is the same though. What is the ideal point at which the free market provides a solution for the crisis caused by illegal immigration, and how do we bridge the gap from here to there within a legislative framework?

Do you believe in self government or not? Shouldn't the people of New York decide if they want visitors and tourists? Are you advocating one size fits all immigration solutions? Contrary to people in Arizona I like immigrants and have no interest in discriminating against just the poor ones. There is no bigger testament to Land Of Opportunity than a poor immigrant achieving success.

[JoshLowry]

Non-sense. I have not violated anyones rights. I am not afraid to debate the merits of either position. I would actually like my position to be openly challenged so I can strengthen my arguments. I am suspect of those who wish no debate. Anyways, I am done for the night.

If you kept your posts in the philosophy subforum then you wouldn't have to feel like a victim.

I'm sure some members would come in and happily debate you. Problem solved? I honestly hope so. Like I said in the off topic split, I'd love to keep ya'll around but too much friction is being caused.

[GunnyFreedom]

Do you believe in self government or not? Shouldn't the people of New York decide if they want visitors and tourists? Are you advocating one size fits all immigration solutions? Contrary to people in Arizona I like immigrants and have no interest in discriminating against poor ones. There is no bigger testament to Land Of Opportunity than a poor immigrant achieving success.

I believe in the individual sovereigns who come together to delegate some of their powers to the State, who in turn delegate some of their powers to the Nation.

One of those Federally delegated powers is immigration and naturalization. It is reserved to the Fed but the Fed is not doing it. It is not prohibited to the States, so if the Fed will not, the States have their right to.

Something that is an issue for 70% of my district HAS to be an issue for me or I am not representing them.

I have been in many places around the nation, and it's not so bad in other places as it is here. You make it sound like xenophobia when for most of these people it's more like survival.

I am not talking about Federal law, but State. NC used to be (and some argue still is) a sanctuary state, but without the population of a New York City to offset the market disruptions.

[Zippyjuan]

Back to the topic for a moment.

Most immigrants come for the jobs- not the welfare. Though I would not be opposed to not offering any welfare to those here illegally- I don't think they should be entitled to it. That is a states issue- they are not elgible for Federal programs like Medicare and Social Security. Ending all programs for illegal aliens would not prevent them from continuing to come. Not as long as they can find better money and opportunity than they can in their home countries.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I believe ...

One of those Federally delegated powers is immigration

Can you illustrate where that has been delegated in the Constitution?

[Southron]

Man this thread got de-railed fast.

If people are calling for an Arizona style law, then just having citizenship checked when you are legally stopped is fine by me.

If you don't trust law enforcement not to profile, there isn't much more you can do. If they are going to profile, they will do it regardless of any new immigration law.

In eastern NC, the farms just house the illegals, so you would never break then up unless you raided the place or came in and did some sort of immigration check.

[Brian4Liberty]

Gunny,

On the text of the Arizona law, I found the "without a warrant" language to be objectionable. How can a State legislate away the 4th Amendment? Either a warrant is required as determined by the Supreme Court, or it isn't.

A post I made on the modification of the AZ Law:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2697874&postcount=20

[Brian4Liberty]

I prefer less laws, not more.

If I were a legislator, I would want to research existing laws on the subject. Is there really a need for a new law? Is there a loophole that needs closing? Can multiple laws be consolidated? Can some be eliminated, especially redundant, outdated, or conflicting laws? How can it all be simplified?

What can legislators do if there are existing laws that are not being enforced?

Sorry, no answers, just more questions. ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

And of course, any new law should be Constitutional! :)