PDA

View Full Version : Ala. governor signs tough immigration law(you can't give rides to illegal immigrants)




aGameOfThrones
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's governor on Thursday signed a tough new illegal immigration crackdown that contains provisions requiring public schools to determine students' immigration status and making it a crime to knowingly give an illegal immigrant a ride.

The bill also allows police to arrest anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant if they're stopped for any other reason. Alabama employers also are now required to use a federal system called E-Verify to determine if new workers are in the country legally.

The legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mary Bauer, said Thursday that she expects a lawsuit to be filed before the provisions of law are scheduled to take effect on Sept. 1.

"It is clearly unconstitutional. It's mean-spirited, racist and we think a court will enjoin it," Bauer said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-06-09-alabama-immigration-law_n.htm

LibertyEagle
06-09-2011, 11:47 AM
Perhaps we should send Thomas Woods' book on Nullification to the good Governor.

More and more states are trying to figure out how to get around the federal mandates to give free education, free healthcare, etc. to illegal aliens. It seems to me that nullification would provide the tool they are seeking to put an end to this.

We need a state to kick this off. Because I think after one does it, a great many more will follow.

dannno
06-09-2011, 11:51 AM
Wow, agreeing with the SPLC makes me sick to my stomach.

dannno
06-09-2011, 11:53 AM
Colorado's undocumented immigrants pay as much in taxes as they consume in mandated social services, according to a study Friday from The Bell Policy Center.

The state's estimated 180,000 undocumented immigrants paid $167.5 million in taxes in 2010, the Denver nonprofit's study said.

The largest share came from sales taxes — $114.6 million — with another $30.9 million paid in income taxes and $22 million in property taxes covered mostly through rent payments.

On the other side of the equation, the state spent $166.5 million in federally required services, the Bell study calculates. Those costs include $107.5 million for K-12 education, $26.5 million for emergency medical care and an estimated $32.5 million in incarceration costs.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_17912122?source=rss

dannno
06-09-2011, 11:56 AM
Why I blame the U.S. Government, and NOT Mexicans, for coming to our country:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?297234-quot-Migrants-quot-Leave-Feces-amp-Urine-Disaster-In-Downtown-El-Paso&p=3325990&viewfull=1#post3325990

LibertyEagle
06-09-2011, 11:57 AM
Wow, agreeing with the SPLC makes me sick to my stomach.

Perhaps you should give that some thought, then. :p

They are ILLEGAL aliens. There is nothing racist or unconstitutional about it.

LibertyEagle
06-09-2011, 11:59 AM
Why I blame the U.S. Government, and NOT Mexicans, for coming to our country:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?297234-quot-Migrants-quot-Leave-Feces-amp-Urine-Disaster-In-Downtown-El-Paso&p=3325990&viewfull=1#post3325990

Of course. It is the government's fault. That doesn't mean we should just sit on our butts and not fight both ends of this thing.

dannno
06-09-2011, 12:00 PM
Perhaps you should give that some thought, then. :p

They are ILLEGAL aliens. There is nothing racist or unconstitutional about it.

It's immoral. It is also unconstitutional because it adversely affects the rights of U.S. citizens and U.S. businesses. It goes against our first amendment rights to freely associate.

I'm ok with keeping the ones who aren't already here out. I'm ok with limiting their social services, even though they ARE paying for them.

I'm not ok with destroying the rights of U.S. citizens, which this bill does. I'm not ok with displacing the ones who are already here. I'm not for amnesty, but we should be able to give them worker permits so they can pay taxes. If they commit violent crimes we can send them back.

BamaAla
06-09-2011, 12:15 PM
You'd think our legislature was too busy outlawing bath salts and giving themselves raises to worry about our labor market...

kahless
06-09-2011, 12:50 PM
It's immoral. It is also unconstitutional because it adversely affects the rights of U.S. citizens and U.S. businesses. It goes against our first amendment rights to freely associate.

I'm ok with keeping the ones who aren't already here out. I'm ok with limiting their social services, even though they ARE paying for them.

I'm not ok with destroying the rights of U.S. citizens, which this bill does. I'm not ok with displacing the ones who are already here. I'm not for amnesty, but we should be able to give them worker permits so they can pay taxes. If they commit violent crimes we can send them back.

Exactly. I can also see this easily being abused against Americans on whether or not you knew the person you gave a ride to was illegal.

On a smaller scale I have seen strict immigrations laws used to punish Americans born here first hand. For example DMV documentation. Out of state drivers license, birth certificate, US passport, high school records and copy of SS were not good enough to prove American citizenship. Was turned away and had to return with an original copy of the social card that takes weeks to get.

LibertyEagle
06-09-2011, 01:03 PM
Hip hip hoorah. Let's all clap for balkanization. Yea!!!!

EDIT: Yes, Kahless, the above is sarcasm.

kahless
06-09-2011, 01:20 PM
Hip hip hoorah. Let's all clap for balkanization. Yea!!!!

I am assuming you are saying that as sarcasm. If so then it is too late, we are already headed that way and you can thank 50 years of immigration policy. What are you going to do, round up millions of people and send them back? Do you really want to pay for that and the immoral humanitarian crisis it would create? If you did believe that it still would not matter since there are already millions more here legally that identify themselves with their mother country more than they do the US. So regardless balkanization is coming.

I think the US should be working towards more open immigration policies for Americans wishing to migrate to Latin America. As an American I should have the same private property ownership opportunies that they have when they come here.

dannno
06-09-2011, 01:29 PM
I am assuming you are saying that as sarcasm. If so then it is too late, we are already headed that way and you can thank 50 years of immigration policy. What are you going to do, round up millions of people and send them back? Do you really want to pay for that and the immoral humanitarian crisis it would create? If you did believe that it still would not matter since there are already millions more here legally that identify themselves with their mother country more than they do the US. So regardless balkanization is coming.

I think the US should be working towards more open immigration policies for Americans wishing to migrate to Latin America. As an American I should have the same private property ownership opportunies that they have when they come here.

Ya I would certainly consider moving to baja with Jesse Ventura..

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/5564/loreto18hm.jpg

But we would need to end the war on drugs and have a more open immigration policy, both ways.

http://www.citypictures.org/data/media/232/La_Paz_Region_Baja_California_Mexico.jpg

kahless
06-09-2011, 01:45 PM
Makes me want to go out and buy Rosetta Stone after seeing those pics. I hope it comes in the right dialect for those parts.

osan
06-09-2011, 02:03 PM
Seems like a wrong-headed way of accomplishing at least some of the right goals.

Bear in mind that we vote these idiots into office. Doesn't say much good about us or our system of governance.

Perhaps the anarchists are right.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-09-2011, 02:23 PM
I am having trouble finding this... Can someone cite where the term Alien or ILLEGAL Alien appears in the Constition?

FrankRep
06-09-2011, 02:31 PM
I am assuming you are saying that as sarcasm. If so then it is too late, we are already headed that way and you can thank 50 years of immigration policy.

History repeats... again.

Chester Copperpot
06-09-2011, 02:32 PM
I am having trouble finding this... Can someone cite where the term Alien or ILLEGAL Alien appears in the Constition?

for what? whats your point?

FrankRep
06-09-2011, 02:32 PM
I am having trouble finding this... Can someone cite where the term Alien or ILLEGAL Alien appears in the Constition?


Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"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."



Massive amounts of illegal immigration is deemed an invasion.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-09-2011, 02:40 PM
Oh look, it's the circus of clowns who can't cite something in the Constitution, advocates war without declarations, and launching the ad hominems.

Southron
06-09-2011, 04:37 PM
Never fear. The federal judiciary is on your side and will smite the foes of illegal aliens everywhere.

Warrior_of_Freedom
06-09-2011, 04:40 PM
oh man, now I need to check ID before letting someone ride with me :P

aGameOfThrones
06-09-2011, 04:57 PM
oh man, now I need to check ID before letting someone ride with me :P


Ha! Every citizen is a checkpoint!

dannno
06-09-2011, 05:05 PM
Massive amounts of illegal immigration is deemed an invasion.

By who?


in·va·sion

1.
an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2.
the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.
entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.


Also, who caused the so called "invasion" to occur and why is it occurring? To me, those are important questions to consider in order to find the best, most moral and humane solution.

PreDeadMan
06-09-2011, 05:47 PM
AHhh HUMAN BEINGS ARE CROSSING IMAGINARY LINES TO ESCAPE THE TYRANNY IN THEIR COUNTRY! QUICK THROW THEM OUT!!! THEY ARE YOUR ENEMY! NEVERMIND THE POLITICIANS STARTING WARS AND SENDING YOU THE BILL!!! THE GUY SELLING APPLES AND ORANGES ON THE STREET CORNER IS YOUR ENEMY TRYING TO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO FEED HIS FAMILY!! AHHH DAMN ILLEGALS!

Humanae Libertas
06-09-2011, 05:48 PM
Limited government FTW. Oh wait...

Southron
06-09-2011, 05:51 PM
AHhh HUMAN BEINGS ARE CROSSING IMAGINARY LINES TO ESCAPE THE TYRANNY IN THEIR COUNTRY! QUICK THROW THEM OUT!!! THEY ARE YOUR ENEMY! NEVERMIND THE POLITICIANS STARTING WARS AND SENDING YOU THE BILL!!! THE GUY SELLING APPLES AND ORANGES ON THE STREET CORNER IS YOUR ENEMY TRYING TO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO FEED HIS FAMILY!! AHHH DAMN ILLEGALS!

I guess you consider my property lines imaginary too.

Dr.3D
06-09-2011, 06:01 PM
I guess you consider my property lines imaginary too.

Well of course not, you would defend yours. :)

AuH20
06-09-2011, 06:04 PM
I am assuming you are saying that as sarcasm. If so then it is too late, we are already headed that way and you can thank 50 years of immigration policy. What are you going to do, round up millions of people and send them back? Do you really want to pay for that and the immoral humanitarian crisis it would create? If you did believe that it still would not matter since there are already millions more here legally that identify themselves with their mother country more than they do the US. So regardless balkanization is coming.

I think the US should be working towards more open immigration policies for Americans wishing to migrate to Latin America. As an American I should have the same private property ownership opportunies that they have when they come here.



No one wants mass deportations for non-lawbreakers who are currently entrenched here. That would be inhumane. But the pipeline must be shut down. We have 1.6 billion people in the world who live below the poverty line and I don't see this urgency to give away citizenship for nothing. We have enough native born knuckleheads as it is.

PreDeadMan
06-09-2011, 06:05 PM
I guess you consider my property lines imaginary too.

Not at all i was referring to the border it's just an imaginary line drawn in the sand... i'm all for property rights. If people want to voluntarily let so called "illegals" onto their property I don't see a problem. These people are human beings for crying out loud. Once again, who is your enemy, people who want to work and provide for their family or the politicians who steal from working people to pay for wars, welfare, education, etc...?

dannno
06-09-2011, 06:09 PM
I guess you consider my property lines imaginary too.

If you allow an illegal alien into your own car, your private property, you can be held criminally liable. How is that protecting private property rights?

AuH20
06-09-2011, 06:10 PM
Not at all i was referring to the border it's just an imaginary line drawn in the sand... i'm all for property rights. If people want to voluntarily let so called "illegals" onto their property I don't see a problem. These people are human beings for crying out loud. Once again, who is your enemy, people who want to work and provide for their family or the politicians who steal from working people to pay for wars, welfare, education, etc...?

You're simplifying the argument. These people are being intentionally used as a wedge against the native born citizens. They are far more receptive to statist solutions because of their paltry income and educational level. Let me reiterate that I have no qualms for their reasons to emigrate but it's simply a numbers issue. Currently, we have 20% of the country on food stamps for Christ's sake. There is simply no proverbial room in the inn, given the onerous tax requirements we're subjected to. In a perfect libertarian world, this might work but no way under the current conditions. It's accelerated national suicide.

dannno
06-09-2011, 06:11 PM
No one wants mass deportations for non-lawbreakers who are currently entrenched here. That would be inhumane. But the pipeline must be shut down.

Actually there are some people who want mass deportations for non-lawbreakers (they call them lawbreakers simply for coming here). But I agree, it would be inhumane.. and I don't have a problem with curtailing the ones flowing in, especially until we can de-magnetize by cutting off social services to illegals (which they pay for, but it's still a big draw for new ones to come here).

nobody's_hero
06-09-2011, 07:09 PM
You're simplifying the argument. These people are being intentionally used as a wedge against the native born citizens. They are far more receptive to statist solutions because of their paltry income and educational level. Let me reiterate that I have no qualms for their reasons to emigrate but it's simply a numbers issue. Currently, we have 20% of the country on food stamps for Christ's sake. There is simply no proverbial room in the inn, given the onerous tax requirements we're subjected to. In a perfect libertarian world, this might work but no way under the current conditions. It's accelerated national suicide.

Those are my concerns, somewhat.

Thomas Jefferson mentioned in his writings a concern that immigrants would bring with them the 'principles of the governments they leave.'

So, I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the people are more receptive to statist solutions because of their poverty or level of education. They'll be more receptive to statist solutions because it's simply what they know.

Given the state of the world, is it reasonable to assume that a massive influx of people coming from other nations are going to be supportive of a libertarian society (which they've likely never heard of) over a government that provides for them? What is their most likely philosophy, if it's all they've ever known?

BamaAla
06-09-2011, 07:39 PM
In a perfect libertarian world, this might work but no way under the current conditions. It's accelerated national suicide.

This isn't some abstract utopian argument. If it were, the argument would have to the other way: "your illegal immigrant bill might work in a perfect world..."

If the idiots in Montgomery wanted to put people to work, they could have passed this bill coupled with welfare reform, but you know they didn't (and won't) go near that with 10 foot poll. All they want to do is pass do nothing bills like this one and the abortion bill they have going through now.

Not one good thing will come from this bill. It will cost the state money to defend it in court, it will cause small businesses to go out of business, and it will drop the revenue of businesses and communities all over the state.

LibertyEagle
06-09-2011, 07:45 PM
You know guys, if there were no people in the world who wanted money and power to rule over others, then doing away with the borders and having one big, happy family might work. The problem is, there ARE people all over the world, ya know, the bad guys, who will not just leave us alone with our own little pieces of property.

It seems to me that the best we can hope for for the foreseeable future is to carve out a bit of land where like-minded people decide to live by the principles which we hold dear. The question then becomes how will we protect it when some major force wants to upset the idyllic life we have?

This is what I believe the U.S. started out to be and boy, did we ever jump the track. For me, at least, that is what I want to restore. Once we get there, I will be open to reducing government even further.

At this point, to agree with allowing unlimited immigration, especially from countries that do not even have a history or foundation of any sort of liberty, is not only reckless it is suicide.


What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21626

It used to be the case that we only allowed people to immigrate to the U.S. who wanted to come to our country for freedom and an opportunity; people who wanted to learn our language and assimilate into our culture. They had to show they wouldn't be a financial burden, or they had to have a sponsor. They also were checked to make sure they weren't bringing some kind of disease into our country. I happen to believe this was a good policy.

I've met many an immigrant who understood more about the principles our country was founded upon than people born here. I'm sure you guys have too. These are the people we want many more of, in my opinion.

low preference guy
06-09-2011, 07:51 PM
drama.

nothing's gonna change regarding immigration.

suoulfrepus
06-09-2011, 07:53 PM
It used to be the case that we only allowed people to immigrate to the U.S. who wanted to come to our country for freedom and an opportunity; people who wanted to learn our language and assimilate into our culture. They had to show they wouldn't be a financial burden, or they had to have a sponsor. They also were checked to make sure they weren't bringing some kind of disease into our country. I happen to believe this was a good policy.

What period are you referring to? There were hardly any restrictions before the 1880s. The first immigration quotas were set in the 1920s. I've never heard about people ever being required to learn English and assimilate.

AuH20
06-09-2011, 08:01 PM
What period are you referring to? There were hardly any restrictions before the 1880s. The first immigration quotas were set in the 1920s. I've never heard about people ever being required to learn English and assimilate.

But there was no such thing as foreign language aids at every turn, cadres of immigration lawyers, public service benefits, sanctuary cities, etc. . It's like night and day when compared to the turn of the century. What he have now is basically Hotel America. Enjoy your stay and don't change a thing. Remove the external pressures of yesteryear and you get a competing culture demanding their so-called share based solely on ethnic identity, as seen with the ridiculous Amnesty marches. Once again the government destroyed the melting pot as it destroys everything it touches.

LibertyEagle
06-09-2011, 08:09 PM
What period are you referring to? There were hardly any restrictions before the 1880s. The first immigration quotas were set in the 1920s. I've never heard about people ever being required to learn English and assimilate.

I never said they were required to learn English. Most wanted to. The government didn't use to print things in multiple languages, etc. People coming here WANTED to become Americans. That is why they wanted to come here to begin with.

EDIT: That is how immigration was during much of my parent's lives and even my childhood.

erowe1
06-09-2011, 08:09 PM
They are ILLEGAL aliens.

How do you know?

cindy25
06-09-2011, 08:43 PM
Perhaps you should give that some thought, then. :p

They are ILLEGAL aliens. There is nothing racist or unconstitutional about it.

but it gives the police an excuse to stop and ask anyone for ID.
and E-verify will become the national ID that they tired in Real ID

civusamericanus
06-09-2011, 08:43 PM
Georgia passed this same law... So if your 18 year old kid gives a ride to a friend from school, not realizing he's illegal, your son can be prosecuted according to this law, with a felony?

The better way to fix this issue is allow business owners and individuals to sponsor people, cut through the immigration red tape, and then as a sponsor, you could be partially accountable if the person you sponsored turns out to be a bad person. Just throwing out an idea, to legislation, which I think could lead to further civil rights violations for the rest of us.

angelatc
06-10-2011, 06:10 AM
Oh look, it's the circus of clowns who can't cite something in the Constitution, advocates war without declarations, and launching the ad hominems.

Stop it with the libertarian silliness. You're arguing a position that Ron Paul doesn't make. The Constitution gives Congress the right to set citizenship policy, protect against invasion, and set tariffs on imports. I know you detest all of that, but it is the law of this land.

All lands, really.

angelatc
06-10-2011, 06:14 AM
Actually there are some people who want mass deportations for non-lawbreakers (they call them lawbreakers simply for coming here). But I agree, it would be inhumane.. and I don't have a problem with curtailing the ones flowing in, especially until we can de-magnetize by cutting off social services to illegals (which they pay for, but it's still a big draw for new ones to come here).

If they're here illegally, they are law-breakers. Reagan tried that amnesty thing, and all it did was increase the flow. Welfare isn't going away anytime soon. The best we can hope for at this point is to lighten the load.

LibertyEagle
06-10-2011, 06:26 AM
How do you know?

If you will look at the top of this thread, I was suggesting we send Thomas Woods' book on Nullification to the Governor. That would give them the ability to stop all the handouts to the illegals. Isn't that what we say... that the huge influx will stop if we cutoff the welfare?

cindy25
06-10-2011, 06:29 AM
they may be lawbreakers, but ordinary people are not law enforcers; who is going to ask a friend for proof of citizenship before giving them a ride?

nobody's_hero
06-10-2011, 07:25 AM
At this point, to agree with allowing unlimited immigration, especially from countries that do not even have a history or foundation of any sort of liberty, is not only reckless it is suicide.

Exactly.

This was the passage from Jefferson I was looking for:

Query 8, The Number of Inhabitants (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefBv021.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=8&division=div2)?

"Suppose twenty millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship; but doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements."

It's a numbers game. If you have 50,000 people in a community who believe in principles of private property, limited government, etc., and you want to let in 500 or so a year who may or may not, it's a reasonable assumption that they will steadily learn the principles and values of the 50,000 natives, and can be absorbed into the existing population without complication.

On the other hand, if you have 50,000 people in a community and want to let in 5,000,000 newcomers a year, who may or may not believe in such principles as privaty property, life, liberty, etc., the results are devastating ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States ).

suoulfrepus
06-10-2011, 07:52 AM
That argument isn't convincing at all. Americans are not a libertarian people. Americans, on average, are probably less libertarian than the average immigrant.

osan
06-10-2011, 08:27 AM
AHhh HUMAN BEINGS ARE CROSSING IMAGINARY LINES TO ESCAPE THE TYRANNY IN THEIR COUNTRY! QUICK THROW THEM OUT!!! THEY ARE YOUR ENEMY! NEVERMIND THE POLITICIANS STARTING WARS AND SENDING YOU THE BILL!!! THE GUY SELLING APPLES AND ORANGES ON THE STREET CORNER IS YOUR ENEMY TRYING TO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO FEED HIS FAMILY!! AHHH DAMN ILLEGALS!

There are good points being made on all sides of this issue. The problem, as usual, lies in tying them together such that a coherent gestalt emerges rather than a mishmash of warring bits and pieces.

The notion of "illegal alien" is more than a little troubling, IMO. It implies things that, once examined closely, lead to some disturbing conclusions. Therefore, dispensing with the term may be a smart move, at least in these forums where people tend to be a little more clued-in and sensitive to actual human liberty vis-a-vis the phony baloney nonsense that is passed off as freedom in the mainstream culture.

It appears to me that the core objection lies not with people coming here per se, but in the reasons why they do so and the behaviors to which those reasons lead. One of the biggest reasons is the perception of a free ride, courtesy of the US taxpayer. If we apply what we know about real liberty, it becomes clear that those who come here as parasites neither belong here, nor are they welcome. Further applying what we know about liberty, it seems also clear that coming here for those reasons constitutes no real crime. After all, the monies and other benefits are not really being stolen in many cases, but are freely (if inappropriately) offered. Cases of fraud are, of course, a different kettle of fish. Barring fraud, those who come here "illegally" cannot be blamed for doing so, especially when escaping shit holes like Mexico where opportunity is comparatively uncommon and uninspiring, the government is openly out of control and corrupt, and there is a fairly large scale shooting war in progress between that rotten government and the arguably equally rotten drug cartels. Consider it from their points of view: stay here with no opportunity, possibly die in the crossfire, end up in prison, starve.... or skip the border to relative safety and get lots of free stuff. Hello.

We have countless millions of people coming here to partake off the state tit. These people are responsible for a very significant proportion of our violent crime and they are helping suck us dry (though a pittance when compared with the costs of our wars of foreign aggression). As has been discussed here so many times, the solution is simple: dismantle the welfare state in-toto and most of the problem disappears. The border will cease to become a hotbed of activity by those seeking to get their pound of US taxpayer flesh. Those who come here anyway would, therefore, be coming for other reasons... like maybe work and perhaps even escaping the relatively worse form of tyranny commonly found in Mexico. Why else would they come? To not find work and starve? Maybe in one or two cases of extreme mental illness it may be so, but in general I am sufficiently confident that it would not be the case. I certainly have no problem with people coming here who wish to find a better life through the application of their own legitimate ambitions and abilities. Is this not what a free nation is about?

It has been cited here Jefferson's warning about those of foreign origin dragging with them the dregs of the wrong-headed political systems from which they flee. A valid point. After all, if the USA is to remain "free", we cannot have fifty million hard core Chinese socialists landing on our shores, pushing for "reforms" so that America can look just like Red China. So it comes down to a matter of will and the determination not to be co-opted by foreign influences, friendly or otherwise. So what is the solution? I cannot say for certain, but one step in the right direction is to disallow any non-citizen from holding any public office whether elected, appointed, or hired. If you are not a citizen you can hold no position in so-called "government". Ever. Not even city dog catcher. Perhaps a 10-year residency requirement should be in place to become a citizen. Used to be nine years... seems less now. I would require passage of a very serious test to become a citizen, in English only. If you have not learned English in 10 years you are probably not serious about becoming an American.

Once you pass the test, at least a five year probationary period where you have full rights but wherein any egregious breach of proper behavior, such as felony convictions, sends you back to alien status. During that time, you may hold certain sorts of public office positions. If you get through your probationary period without screwing the pooch, welcome to the club!

To many, the notion of tests and probationary periods may seem very un-liberty minded, and it may be so but I am not sure that it is and would welcome discourse on the question. Yes, those coming here have the same human rights as everyone else. So do we, and that includes the right not to have our basic liberties infringed or otherwise threatened by the influx of those who do not share our love of freedom. Seriously folks, does it make any sense to commit political suicide, i.e., to allow the destruction of our freedom for the sake of not infringing upon the "rights" of newcomers? To do so implies that there is no political standard - no line to toe - and that is simply not so. To accept it as so is to accept "anything goes", and that argument cannot be readily and convincingly made to those who treasure liberty.

The base standard of "live and let live" must remain inviolate or we no longer have a free nation, but rather something else. By retaining the standard, we allow for any group of persons wishing to live as communists the ability to find like-minded individuals and so live. What we do not allow, however, is for the pinkies to force their political visions upon the rest. That should be the outcome of the baseline standard of action and that is why the standard must be preserved and all cost. Without it, anything can happen, good or bad, and it is the bad to which we must focus our concerns if tyranny and the de-facto slavery it brings are to be avoided. This is why those wishing to come here must toe a line. It is not for the purposes of denying their rights, but of protecting the rights of those already here.

There is nothing at all wrong with requiring people to toe a line of behavior. We require people to not murder others. That is a line to toe if one wishes to avoid long and unpleasant prison terms. Key, then, are the choices of which lines people shall require of each other, and therein lies the source of all our troubles because many people get some rather cute ideas about this. I state unequivocally and without reservation that the standard of behavior is very compact, very intuitively obvious to any organically intact human being, easy to meet, and provides for expansively broad avenues of choice while imposing vanishingly small strictures on individual prerogatives. In addition, the standard is readily derived from a single baseline assumption and follows therefrom in a logically obvious and wholly unbreakable manner. There is no need for belief in any supernatural element, though such belief will not necessarily harm or otherwise alter the reasoned outcome. And best of all, the chain of reason is utterly devoid of all emotional factors that serve only to stink things up considerably.

Someone posted here that we may attack the problem from "both sides", which I took to mean the dismantling of the welfare state on the one hand and the policing of the border and rounding up of illegals on the other. The emotional appeal of this position is compelling, and it may even be correct, but I question how it is appropriate for a "free" nation to remain so when it is so very actively and eagerly violating the rights of its citizens by putting them in jail for not carding a hitch-hiker. Enforcement of arbitrary immigration law is NOT my responsibility - certainly not to such a degree. Were I to arm myself and go around arresting all those I suspected of being "illegal", there is little doubt in my mind that I would be seeing the nearest state or federal prison from the inside in short order. I am not allowed to enforce immigration law in such fashion. Why, then, am I required to enforce it at the levelof being a petty rat? And what about enforcement? Do I card every person to whom I intend to say "good morning", lest I associate with an "illegal" unawares? Or do I just card those who look "illegal"? You know... beaners, chinks, some *******, and so forth. Do I card a guy who looks Scandinavian or speaks with a Scots accent? Perhaps I should card the president? Seriously folks, WTF?

As I wrote earlier, a wrong-headed approach to the right goals, it seems to me.

nobody's_hero
06-10-2011, 10:37 AM
That argument isn't convincing at all. Americans are not a libertarian people. Americans, on average, are probably less libertarian than the average immigrant.

I get that a lot, and here's my reply:

You, me, and similar-minded folks like us on RPF are outnumbered even here in the USA by about 100 to 1, or worse. That's here in the U.S.A., mind you.

All over the world, there are revolutions occurring—not for the sake of reducing the scope of government—but for the sake of exchanging one cradle-to-grave government for another cradle-to-grave government. Personally, I feel that these are a waste of a good revolution, mere power changes with little or no philosophical changes. I'd hate to see the ratio if we added the rest of the world into the ratio.
Therefore, it does not logically follow that letting more people in from around the world in greater and greater numbers will increase the likelyhood of our small population ever becoming a majority.

As I said: it is a numbers game. It doesn't matter how much a group of say, ten libertarian/an-caps value their private property; it doesn't matter how morally well-founded they themselves think their arguments are—if there are a thousand people convinced that they can obtain the property through government redistribution, those ten libertarians WILL lose their property. It is the ugliness of majority rules. Majority rule isn't moral, but then again, when the majority gets to decide de facto what is or isn't moral, what can you do?

oyarde
06-10-2011, 10:41 AM
aLRIGHT , i Will play along , what is the penalty if I give a ride to an illegal ? Better yet , can he explain how I am to know ??

erowe1
06-10-2011, 10:45 AM
If you will look at the top of this thread, I was suggesting we send Thomas Woods' book on Nullification to the Governor. That would give them the ability to stop all the handouts to the illegals. Isn't that what we say... that the huge influx will stop if we cutoff the welfare?

What I meant was, how do can you know if any given person is an illegal immigrant.

On your question here, no, I personally highly doubt that illegal immigration would stop if we cut off all the handouts, although I would absolutely support doing that.

oyarde
06-10-2011, 10:57 AM
What I meant was, how do can you know if any given person is an illegal immigrant.

On your question here, no, I personally highly doubt that illegal immigration would stop if we cut off all the handouts, although I would absolutely support doing that.

Yes .

aGameOfThrones
06-10-2011, 11:04 AM
The Shall list:

-- Make it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant in Alabama.
-- Make it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work in the state.
-- Allow law enforcement officials to detain immigrants when there is a "reasonable suspicion" the person stopped is not a citizen or lawful alien.
-- Make contracts with illegal immigrants invalid.
-- Make it illegal to pick up individuals in a vehicle for the purposes of hiring them.
-- Provide penalties for businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
-- Require school districts to check the immigration status of students.
-- Require state businesses to enroll in E-Verify, a federal program to check the status of workers.

fisharmor
06-10-2011, 11:36 AM
The problem is, there ARE people all over the world, ya know, the bad guys, who will not just leave us alone with our own little pieces of property.

It seems to me that the best we can hope for for the foreseeable future is to carve out a bit of land where like-minded people decide to live by the principles which we hold dear.

You left out the part where the bad guys then get in control of that little carved-out piece of like-mindedness and start telling us who we can and can't give rides to.


I've met many an immigrant who understood more about the principles our country was founded upon than people born here. I'm sure you guys have too. I have too. They're generally the illegal ones. The ones that believe in freedom, not bullshit regulations.

These are the people we want many more of, in my opinion.Yeah, well, the legal ones are the ones I need to spend hours talking with, because they came from socialist paradises and don't understand why things aren't the same way up here.
The ones that were fleeing something and had little chance to file with their local despot's gestap... er, state department, i.e. the illegal ones, don't expect a damned thing from the state up here except to be left alone.

So if that's what you're looking for, I suggest you meet more and reassess your position.



Stop it with the libertarian silliness.
No. You stop it with the statist silliness.


You're arguing a position that Ron Paul doesn't make.The inherent problem with libertarians is in evidence in this statement. Or, to use the colloquialism, he's not the boss of me.


The Constitution gives Congress the right to set citizenship policyYou don't get to invent stuff in the constitution. Not unless you get appointed to SCOTUS.
We already called out FrankRep on it.
Citizenship is not defined in the Constitution.
The power to define citizenship is not specifically granted to any branch of the federal government in the constitution.
The power to control entry and exit from the country is not granted to any branch of fedgov.

Provide quotes and sections, or under the 9th and 10th amendments, it's a state issue.

LibertyEagle
06-10-2011, 11:48 AM
You left out the part where the bad guys then get in control of that little carved-out piece of like-mindedness and start telling us who we can and can't give rides to.
That was an individual state's decision; not the federal government. If you don't like it, move to another state or try to get the law changed.


I have too. They're generally the illegal ones. The ones that believe in freedom, not bullshit regulations.
We are a nation of laws.

Yeah, well, the legal ones are the ones I need to spend hours talking with, because they came from socialist paradises and don't understand why things aren't the same way up here.
The ones that were fleeing something and had little chance to file with their local despot's gestap... er, state department, i.e. the illegal ones, don't expect a damned thing from the state up here except to be left alone.

So if that's what you're looking for, I suggest you meet more and reassess your position.

We likely live in different states. I live in Texas. How about you? I've met plenty of illegal immigrants and my experience most certainly has not been like yours.

LibertyEagle
06-10-2011, 11:53 AM
What I meant was, how do can you know if any given person is an illegal immigrant.
Not that I like it, but every job I've ever had, they ask for your social security number, etc.


On your question here, no, I personally highly doubt that illegal immigration would stop if we cut off all the handouts, although I would absolutely support doing that.
It wouldn't stop, no, but I think it would be cut back considerably. I don't really care if it's totally stopped. Then if we could get birthright citizenship stopped, I think most of the problem would be gone.

fisharmor
06-10-2011, 11:59 AM
We are a nation of laws.
We are most certainly not a "nation" of laws.
First, I refuse to use a term which denotes ethnicity in this discussion and I'd thank you to do the same.
We are a country ruled by men. This is axiomatic and I'm not going to bother linking to any particular day's links that happen on this very board which would support that axiom.

I agree that living in a country ruled by law would be preferable.
It starts, sir, with you showing us the legal support for your position.

My position is that the US Constitution doesn't define citizenship, doesn't grant the fedgov power to define or control citizenship, doesn't grant the fedgov the power to control entry and exit from the country, and that therefore your entire position, by the rule of law, is moot.

You have the following options:
1) Renege on your position on illegal immigration
2) Demonstrate how this position is constitutional
3) Admit that you do not care for the rule of law.

If there's a fourth logical alternative please let us know.


We likely live in different states. I live in Texas. How about you? I've met plenty of illegal immigrants and my experience most certainly has not been like yours.

I live in Virginia, and I'll admit it is probably a different experience. I meet a lot more legal than illegal immigrants, and the illegal ones have been here a while. Like 10-20 years. And have kids that have never even been to their home country.
But oh well, fuck 'em. They broke imaginary laws.

osan
06-10-2011, 12:01 PM
I get that a lot, and here's my reply:

You, me, and similar-minded folks like us on RPF are outnumbered even here in the USA by about 100 to 1, or worse. That's here in the U.S.A., mind you.

All over the world, there are revolutions occurring—not for the sake of reducing the scope of government—but for the sake of exchanging one cradle-to-grave government for another cradle-to-grave government.

On the money.


Therefore, it does not logically follow that letting more people in from around the world in greater and greater numbers will increase the likelyhood of our small population ever becoming a majority.

Exactly so. Therefore, if you want to live here, there is a standard of behavior that you must meet or you cannot come. That standard allows for everyone to live as they please. What they may not do is drag the unwilling into their designs. If you cannot live without forcing others to act against their wills, then you do not belong here. This is a very simple and easy standard to make. All you have to do is leave the uninterested alone. Do your thing. Do it alone. Do it with willing third parties. Leave the rest out of it. It is so simple that most of the world cannot even remotely imagine how to do it. If you think about this deeply enough, the truly frightening depths of human viciousness and stupidity will come to you vividly enough to make you want to move to Mars.


As I said: it is a numbers game.

Not just a numbers game, but numbers do play an important role.


It doesn't matter how much a group of say, ten libertarian/an-caps value their private property; it doesn't matter how morally well-founded they themselves think their arguments are—if there are a thousand people convinced that they can obtain the property through government redistribution, those ten libertarians WILL lose their property. It is the ugliness of majority rules. Majority rule isn't moral, but then again, when the majority gets to decide de facto what is or isn't moral, what can you do?

In the end, might makes reality. Therefore, liberty minded people need to get their heads out of their assholes and make a decision as to just how valuable liberty is to them. If it is not worth killing other people for, those people who would have you live with someone's boot on your neck, then it is worth absolutely nothing to you and you need to come clean with yourself and those around you, STFU, open your legs, and pray they will be gentle.

Zippyjuan
06-10-2011, 12:07 PM
Papers please! If you are unable to provide proper documentation that you are a citizen, we must assume you are an illegal alien. Come with me please.

Let's expand the police state.


Not that I like it, but every job I've ever had, they ask for your social security number, etc.


People working with fake social security numbers contribute millions in taxes to the government- yet they will not be elgible to collect any social security.
Article from 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html

Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions


Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Illegal immigrants who worked in a vineyard in Clarksburg, Calif., paid taxes for Social Security and Medicare, but will not get any benefits.


By EDUARDO PORTER

Published: April 5, 2005


Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card. It provides cover for employers, who, if asked, can plausibly assert that they believe all their workers are legal. It also means that workers must be paid by the book - with payroll tax deductions.

IRCA, as the immigration act is known, did little to deter employers from hiring illegal immigrants or to discourage them from working. But for Social Security's finances, it was a great piece of legislation.

Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the "earnings suspense file" in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.



The vast majority of immigrants come for work- not benefits. When life where they come from is better than life here, they will stop coming. Until that time, they will come. I do not agree with handouts but getting rid of them will not end immigration. Immigrants are mostly political scapegoats since they have no political voice. If they were a voting block, they would be treated quite differently.

erowe1
06-10-2011, 12:35 PM
Not that I like it, but every job I've ever had, they ask for your social security number, etc.


But if you don't like it (and I'm glad you don't), then it seems like you're trying to keep together two contradictory things. What if you had never gotten a social security number? Would it be right for the state to prevent you from doing business with other people because of that, and presume you're not a citizen unless you can prove you are with one of their numbers?

On the other hand, if you don't support using social security numbers to verify who makes the cut of what the politicians consider a "citizen," then what's the alternative? It seems like we'd be back to not having a way to tell.

Brian4Liberty
06-10-2011, 12:52 PM
At this point, to agree with allowing unlimited immigration, especially from countries that do not even have a history or foundation of any sort of liberty, is not only reckless it is suicide.




On the other hand, if you have 50,000 people in a community and want to let in 5,000,000 newcomers a year, who may or may not believe in such principles as privaty property, life, liberty, etc., the results are devastating ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States ).

Both good points.

It can be boiled down to the possibility that we will have even less people that support the Bill of Rights than we have now. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are in no way universal values.

Brian4Liberty
06-10-2011, 01:10 PM
The Shall list:

-- Make it illegal to pick up individuals in a vehicle for the purposes of hiring them.


Thanks for adding that. I suspected that would be the reasoning. The original story leaves that last part out.


MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's governor on Thursday signed a tough new illegal immigration crackdown that contains provisions requiring public schools to determine students' immigration status and making it a crime to knowingly give an illegal immigrant a ride.

Either way, I would oppose the "giving a ride" provision. It just creates another scenario (individual mandate?) where the Police can harass everyday people.

Having schools and employers verify makes sense. Making contracts invalid is another part that needs to be removed.

Zippyjuan
06-10-2011, 03:15 PM
The E-Verify database used by schools and employers has its share of erroneous names and statuses. Imagine the TSA "no fly" list times 300 million.

http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2010/02/25/report-highlights-e-verify-accuracy-problems/


Report Highlights E-Verify Accuracy Problems

February 25th, 2010

Conclusion

The Westat report is very useful in evaluating the E-Verify program’s current state. Obviously, the 54 percent inaccuracy rate discussed above is going to be the focal point of discussions related to E-Verify over the near term. It is worth noting, however, that the Westat report used data which is not at least 18 months old and E-Verify has steadily been improving the accuracy of its data and models. Additional tools, such as the photo tool, are also helpful in eliminating certain types of work authorization and identify fraud.

nobody's_hero
06-10-2011, 07:05 PM
That was an individual state's decision; not the federal government. If you don't like it, move to another state or try to get the law changed.

I think that is what it will eventually come down to. Not every state is going to pass a law like Arizona. Some states don't really see what the big deal is. Some states over-react, and some states will find some middle ground.

All we have to do is wait to see how everyone turns out, and adjust if necessary.

I think all of these laws are a huge improvement over the federal government's performance, since we'll finally get a chance to see what does and doesnt' work instead of a one-size-fits-all "solution" coming down the pipes from Washington.

LibertyEagle
06-10-2011, 07:22 PM
But if you don't like it (and I'm glad you don't), then it seems like you're trying to keep together two contradictory things. What if you had never gotten a social security number? Would it be right for the state to prevent you from doing business with other people because of that, and presume you're not a citizen unless you can prove you are with one of their numbers?

On the other hand, if you don't support using social security numbers to verify who makes the cut of what the politicians consider a "citizen," then what's the alternative? It seems like we'd be back to not having a way to tell.

All true.

In a perfect world, there would be no welfare and no birthright citizenship and thus the draw bringing the droves, I would imagine, would be substantially decreased.

Which brings me back to my initial suggestion in this thread that we send a copy of Thomas Woods' book, Nullification, to the good Governor.

Because, seriously, state governments are going to be pushed by their citizenry to do whatever they have to do to rectify what they see as a real danger to their way of life. I expect many more to follow. I personally think nullification would be a major tool in their arsenal. But, maybe that is just me.

osan
06-10-2011, 07:28 PM
The E-Verify database used by schools and employers has its share of erroneous names and statuses. Imagine the TSA "no fly" list times 300 million.



But that is not the primary point to having such systems. It is more a matter of "we're in charge, peon" than doing anything that is actually useful.

mrsat_98
12-18-2014, 09:59 AM
Wow, agreeing with the SPLC makes me sick to my stomach.

Danno agreeing with SPLC makes me sick to my stomach.