PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Gives Latino Voters Straight Talk, No Pandering.




FritzforPaul
02-03-2012, 04:45 PM
Wonder if this will make a difference in Nevada.

Ron Paul GIves Latino Voters Straight Talk, No Pandering (http://voices.yahoo.com/ron-paul-gives-latinos-straight-talk-no-pandering-10925114.html?cat=9).

smhbbag
02-03-2012, 04:56 PM
At first, I was in disbelief that Paul would advocate free cell phone plans for anyone, especially only for a specific group.

Then it made sense and I smacked myself.

AGRP
02-03-2012, 05:01 PM
Straight Talk Express! oh wait.

FritzforPaul
02-03-2012, 05:03 PM
I was actually kinda impressed with Paul..again. Newt, Santorum and Mitt will say anything to anybody to get a vote. But Ron doesn't do that. He told the Latinos things they did not want to hear..but the thing is..he was honest with them. Ya'd think that would mean something these days. I hope they rethink him and vote for him.

LibertyEagle
02-03-2012, 05:08 PM
Even some Paul supporters have difficulty with his stand on illegal immigrants' cost to taxpayers. Paul says this issue is only brought up when times are hard. He says that Latinos have been made scapegoats. Many small communities have seen their funds dwindle to nothing from supporting illegal immigrants. This limb that Paul goes out on should make Hispanics take a hard look at him.

That article didn't really do Paul's stance justice. It makes him look soft on illegal immigration. He doesn't want fences or I.D. cards, but he would end the free handouts, which encouraged many to come here illegally.

No Free Beer
02-03-2012, 05:15 PM
That article didn't really do Paul's stance justice. It makes him look soft on illegal immigration. He doesn't want fences or I.D. cards, but he would end the free handouts, which encouraged many to come here illegally.

The free hand outs would prevent most, but not all.

This is one of the issues where I disagree w/ Ron. I would have troops on the border.

talkingpointes
02-03-2012, 05:31 PM
The free hand outs would prevent most, but not all.

This is one of the issues where I disagree w/ Ron. I would have troops on the border.
Posse Comitatus.

Southron
02-03-2012, 05:32 PM
The free hand outs would prevent most, but not all.

This is one of the issues where I disagree w/ Ron. I would have troops on the border.

Me too. But at least you know he is for ending birthright citizenship.

smhbbag
02-03-2012, 05:44 PM
Posse Comitatus.

Enforcing a border is not domestic police work - it's national defense. In fact, there is no more pure expression of national defense than troops defending borders.

Sullivan*
02-03-2012, 05:55 PM
Enforcing a border is not domestic police work - it's national defense. In fact, there is no more pure expression of national defense than troops defending borders.
Agreed. However, I would strongly oppose any permanent fortifications or a fence unless it was in a few strategic locations.

RiseAgainst
02-03-2012, 07:01 PM
Oh noes!! Brown peoples!!

The national socialist crowd here makes me physically ill to my stomach.

AuH20
02-03-2012, 07:38 PM
Oh noes!! Brown peoples!!

The national socialist crowd here makes me physically ill to my stomach.

More like free loaders. Free loading is inherently anti-liberty. It doesn't matter if you are a commercial farmer, an investment banker, a welfare queen, an illegal alien or a member of AIPAC. Pillaging the federal or state treasury shouldn't be worn as a badge of honor.

Carson
02-03-2012, 08:21 PM
The wolf will live with the lamb,

the leopard will lie down with the goat,

the calf and the lion and the yearling together;

and a little child will lead them.


We live in some really strange times. Illegal immigration is a global problem. It has been bought and paid for at a heavy cost. Not a cost to the criminals in the government or the criminals in business that abuse illegal immigrants but the illegal immigrants and those that oppose the situation.

I read and hear from people all the time that think that their support of illegal immigration is noble. They call anyone that thinks the laws should be upheld things like racist. Can you imagine how much money went into brainwashing a society in to thinking such things and ballyhooing so loudly? You can see part of the expense here.

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/followthemoney/RobertSahrcurrencyvalue.jpg

I suppose I've lost the few of you that might see the folly of supporting illegal immigration but if your still reading check it out.

These people that proclaim to be the illegal immigrants friends are playing them right into the hands of those that exploit them.

Let me repeat that...

These people that proclaim to be the illegal immigrants friends are playing them right into the hands of those that exploit them.

I remember back when we had an immigration system set up that allowed businesses to bring in people when they truly needed them. I worked with people from all over the world. Honest people. Upfront people. We worked side by side and for the same rewards. I remember saying goodbye to some thinking how much I had learned for them and hoping they learned a little of how we did things and would take some of it home with them. I'd be embarrassed by the example we are now.

We also had an honest government. Honest law enforcement. Honest employers.

Going of of the gold standard changed all of that and much, much more.



Our hard earned money lost its voice in matters and some inside and outside of our government have been able to dictate their will upon us.

Carson
02-03-2012, 08:43 PM
P.S. I can remember being at rallies that favored upholding the constitution and the immigration laws. There would often be an opposing group. I would try to explain to them if they really cared about the illegal immigrants they would come over to our side. I don't know if I've ever really had any takers.

It was sort of funny that so many would show up with their communist literature and their message of anarchy on the other side of the street backing the government and illegal immigration. Well not Ha Ha funny but funny in a sad way...

sad, sad sort of sick way.

I suppose you had to experience the change in our nation.

AuH20
02-03-2012, 08:49 PM
P.S. I can remember being at rallies that favored upholding the constitution and the immigration laws. There would often be an opposing group. I would try to explain to them if they really cared about the illegal immigrants they would come over to our side. I don't know if I've ever really had any takers.

It was sort of funny that so many would show up with their communist literature and their message of anarchy on the other side of the street backing the government and illegal immigration. Well not Ha Ha funny but funny in a sad way...

sad, sad sort of sick way.

I suppose you had to experience the change in our nation.

Both neoconservatives and fabian socialists are staunch advocates for illegal immigration. That's all one needs to know about illegal immigration. Apparently, ripping off honest folks, while simultaneously creating a huge block of dependents from a foreign land, makes for strange bedfellows, but that is the criminal class which epitomizes the US of A.

RiseAgainst
02-03-2012, 09:40 PM
More like free loaders. Free loading is inherently anti-liberty. It doesn't matter if you are a commercial farmer, an investment banker, a welfare queen, an illegal alien or a member of AIPAC. Pillaging the federal or state treasury shouldn't be worn as a badge of honor.

Yes, because we all know filthy parasitical brown people ONLY come to America to take your jobs, rape your women and rob your houses.

:rolleyes:

Wake up man. Stop appealing to the collectives that beholden your slavery. Human beings are human beings, regardless of the political boundry their birth happened to occur inside.

AuH20
02-03-2012, 09:49 PM
Yes, because we all know filthy parasitical brown people ONLY come to America to take your jobs, rape your women and rob your houses.

:rolleyes:

Wake up man. Stop appealing to the collectives that beholden your slavery. Human beings are human beings, regardless of the political boundry their birth happened to occur inside.

Read the list of parasites in my prior post. They are one of the many groups ripping us off. I don't discriminate. I'm as equally aghast about farm subsidies, food stamps and TARP bailouts. I don't make emotionally based exceptions for poor widdle brown people. I'm anti-parasite and philosophically consistent.

When the wall street banker tells me that the 401k system must be preserved at any cost, I shrug my shoulders. When the owner of a commercial farm states that American farming must be preserved with subsidy payments, I shrug my shoulders. When the La Raza advocate cries that we can't turn away the poor from the south of the border, I shrug my shoulders. I'm not susceptible to the games that are being advanced in the name of the common good.

Pericles
02-03-2012, 09:56 PM
Yes, because we all know filthy parasitical brown people ONLY come to America to take your jobs, rape your women and rob your houses.

:rolleyes:

Wake up man. Stop appealing to the collectives that beholden your slavery. Human beings are human beings, regardless of the political boundry their birth happened to occur inside.

What sage advice do have for residents of the US who would rather live somewhere else, but the chosen country refuses to recognize the "right" to live in the target country?

noneedtoaggress
02-04-2012, 03:12 AM
What sage advice do have for residents of the US who would rather live somewhere else, but the chosen country refuses to recognize the "right" to live in the target country?


Stop appealing to the collectives that beholden your slavery.


What sage advice do you have for those who value property rights when a mugger points a gun in their face and demands their belongings?

Revolution9
02-04-2012, 06:47 AM
Oh noes!! Brown peoples!!

The national socialist crowd here makes me physically ill to my stomach.

Right up there with the anarchists..heh..Oh noes!!..Cooperating communities of people!!

rev9

Revolution9
02-04-2012, 06:54 AM
Yes, because we all know filthy parasitical brown people ONLY come to America to take your jobs, rape your women and rob your houses.

:rolleyes:

Wake up man. Stop appealing to the collectives that beholden your slavery. Human beings are human beings, regardless of the political boundry their birth happened to occur inside.

Don't think for a Newton second that this hogwash kneejerk passes for intellectual discourse. It is flawed in so many ways it just deserves a smacking and not a rebuttal of any due course.

Rev9

WilliamC
02-04-2012, 07:24 AM
One of the few legitimate functions of the National government is to defend the borders of the Nation.

Maybe much of the American Southwest border between the United States and Mexico could, in a more free and limited government United States, be defended by the States themselves and the County governments directly separating the two Countries and even on the level of private land owners, but right now we don't have the National government in place to allow for these types of local solutions.

The combination of the drug war and a flawed foreign and economic policies make the USA and the border specifically a magnet for crime, and it is the direct fault of the Federal government. Until the Federal government ends the conditions that create this magnet for crime then we will have to contend with militarized assaults from Mexico.

Thus the current need for a more militarized border.

Change the foreign and domestic policies of the USA enough and the scope of the illegal immigration problem declines in magnitude so that more and more local solutions can take care of it.

fatjohn
02-04-2012, 07:34 AM
The free hand outs would prevent most, but not all.

This is one of the issues where I disagree w/ Ron. I would have troops on the border.

If they cannot exploit the system by not getting any subsidies or by not evading taxes, immigrants can only be a blessing to an economy. How would illegal immigrants pay taxes, get rid of the income tax, transfer the tax burden to the other branches of the tax structure.

JohnGalt23g
02-04-2012, 07:43 AM
Posse Comitatus.

Isn't what it used to be.

smhbbag
02-04-2012, 07:52 AM
If they cannot exploit the system by not getting any subsidies or by not evading taxes, immigrants can only be a blessing to an economy

This is a little simplistic. I know many immigrants who pay taxes, don't get subsidies, and make us and our economy worse off.

Southron
02-04-2012, 08:00 AM
The one thing I dislike about RP calling Latinos scapegoats is that it feeds into the victim complex many in our nation already have.

vechorik
02-04-2012, 08:18 AM
Ron Paul doesn't change his message to suit certain groups (states).
Dr. Ron Paul No.1 for Hispanics-Florida


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veNVi1GaUZk

http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo311/vechorik/stickerSMALL-1.png

fatjohn
02-04-2012, 08:30 AM
This is a little simplistic. I know many immigrants who pay taxes, don't get subsidies, and make us and our economy worse off.

And is that directly related to they being immigrants or they being humans, which sometimes come in the form of lazy bastards.

No Free Beer
02-04-2012, 09:02 AM
Posse Comitatus.

National Guard...

No Free Beer
02-04-2012, 09:05 AM
If they cannot exploit the system by not getting any subsidies or by not evading taxes, immigrants can only be a blessing to an economy. How would illegal immigrants pay taxes, get rid of the income tax, transfer the tax burden to the other branches of the tax structure.

But you are justifying them breaking our laws. Regardless of the economic consequences, they are breaking our laws and they KNOW it. This is a problem in itself.

A lot of people on these forums are quick to criticize our foreign policy (rightfully so) because we go into all these nations illegally. Yet, a lot of people are okay with individuals breaking our laws and coming into our country without paperwork. This is an invasion, no matter how you look at it.

Also, think about how dangerous that is to our citizens, states, and country as a whole.

No Free Beer
02-04-2012, 09:08 AM
Oh noes!! Brown peoples!!

The national socialist crowd here makes me physically ill to my stomach.

With all due respect, it is a comment like this and people like you that hurt this issue. YOU are the one making it about race. Not me.

vechorik
02-04-2012, 09:14 AM
But you are justifying them breaking our laws. Regardless of the economic consequences, they are breaking our laws and they KNOW it. This is a problem in itself.

A lot of people on these forums are quick to criticize our foreign policy (rightfully so) because we go into all these nations illegally. Yet, a lot of people are okay with individuals breaking our laws and coming into our country without paperwork. This is an invasion, no matter how you look at it.

Also, think about how dangerous that is to our citizens, states, and country as a whole.

I like your thinking.
I see the immigration issue, not as a race issue, but as a safety and an economic issue:

If you (the reader) wants open borders, unlimited immigration, amnesty -- learn about UN Agenda 21 and view this video, then tell me your solution.

Immigration by the numbers -- world poverty and gumballs -- updated 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

No Free Beer
02-04-2012, 09:22 AM
I like your thinking.
I see the immigration issue, not as a race issue, but as a safety and an economic issue:

If you (the reader) wants open borders, unlimited immigration, amnesty -- learn about UN Agenda 21 and view this video, then tell me your solution.

Immigration by the numbers -- world poverty and gumballs -- updated 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

nice vid.

The Binghamton Patriot
02-04-2012, 09:59 AM
Illegals are INVADERS. When you cross over the border of another sovereign nation, you are committing an invasion, and are subsequently subject to the laws and jurisdiction of that country. Our willful disregard of our border on the part of our president represents an act of TREASON. No doubt about it, no way around it. When Dwight Eisenhower found out there was illegals flooding the border, he sent troops down there for operation wetback, and pushed the invaders back. When WILSON heard there were illegals coming from the third world, he sent general Pershing down there to push them back. There is NOTHING wrong with using our military to ward off on invasion. Here is your historical evidence, look it up for yourself. Aside from teh economic issues, these people refuse to assimilate, and bring disease and crime to our country.

Feeding the Abscess
02-04-2012, 10:13 AM
But you are justifying them breaking our laws. Regardless of the economic consequences, they are breaking our laws and they KNOW it. This is a problem in itself.

A lot of people on these forums are quick to criticize our foreign policy (rightfully so) because we go into all these nations illegally. Yet, a lot of people are okay with individuals breaking our laws and coming into our country without paperwork. This is an invasion, no matter how you look at it.

Also, think about how dangerous that is to our citizens, states, and country as a whole.

Slaves fled their masters and ran to another state seeking asylum. They broke our laws and they KNEW it. That was a problem in itself.

I could play that game all day.


That article didn't really do Paul's stance justice. It makes him look soft on illegal immigration. He doesn't want fences or I.D. cards, but he would end the free handouts, which encouraged many to come here illegally.

Ron's not going to end public education, which is one of the big factors in a family's decision to come here. He also does not want businesses or the government to discriminate between "legal" and "non-legal" worker status. He's also said he's not going to deport immigrants already here.

In an objective look at his immigration stance from a Tancredo-perspective, Ron's really soft on immigration. Which, really, if you think about it, is a good thing; we oppose capital controls and people controls - why would we accept capital and people controls on a certain class of people?

AuH20
02-04-2012, 10:19 AM
Slaves fled their masters and ran to another state seeking asylum. They broke our laws and they KNEW it. That was a problem in itself.

I could play that game all day.

If it was a few thousand or few hundred thousand, no one would bat an eyelash. We're talking about several million. Many Americans have been the reasonable party in all this.

Thomas Jefferson talked extensively about the United States being an open sanctuary for refugees, however, he made it abundantly clear that the rapid import of millions from a foreign land was tantamount to national suicide, due to the assimilation obstacles. And remember he wrote all this in the late 17th century when there was no welfare state magnet in existence at the time. When you closely examine this problem, it's purely a sheer numbers issue as opposed to anything else.

Feeding the Abscess
02-04-2012, 10:25 AM
If it was a few thousand or few hundred thousand, no one would bat an eyelash. We're talking about several million. Many americans have been the reasonable party in all this. Thomas Jefferson talked extensively about the United States should be an asylum for refugees, however, he made it abundantly clear that the rapid import of millions from a foreign land was tantamount national suicide due to the assimilation obstacles. And remember he wrote all this in the late 17th century when there was no welfare state magnet in existence at the time. When you really examine this problem, it's purely a numbers issue as opposed to anything else.

An import of millions in early America would have completely overrun a people that totaled about 4 million in the first census taken in 1790.

There are over 300 million people in America currently. You'd need 150 or so million immigrants coming to America for that to be a valid comparison.

And really, with what our country stands for these days, losing our national identity might be a good thing.

The Binghamton Patriot
02-04-2012, 10:32 AM
An import of millions in early America would have completely overrun a people that totaled about 4 million in the first census taken in 1790.

There are over 300 million people in America currently. You'd need 150 or so million immigrants coming to America for that to be a valid comparison.

And really, with what our country stands for these days, losing our national identity might be a good thing.


if you think losing our national identity would be a good thing, then you should probably renounce your citizenship right now and get off the forum. People like you make me cringe.

osan
02-04-2012, 10:33 AM
Yes, because we all know filthy parasitical brown people ONLY come to America to take your jobs, rape your women and rob your houses.


These are you words and nobody else's, either explicit or otherwise. Perhaps your statement is more reflective of your own views than of others.

No Free Beer
02-04-2012, 10:37 AM
An import of millions in early America would have completely overrun a people that totaled about 4 million in the first census taken in 1790.

There are over 300 million people in America currently. You'd need 150 or so million immigrants coming to America for that to be a valid comparison.

And really, with what our country stands for these days, losing our national identity might be a good thing.

You don't seem to understand the difference between importing people and people abusing our laws.

With your logic, if someone is driving dangerously fast in a school zone and a cop decides not enforce the law because "the man probably had to go to the restroom" then it would be okay.

My example may be a bit ridiculous, but it still is correct on principle. Your justifying ILLEGAL action. Again, it is about principle.

Feeding the Abscess
02-04-2012, 10:46 AM
You don't seem to understand the difference between importing people and people abusing our laws.

With your logic, if someone is driving dangerously fast in a school zone and a cop doesnt pull him over because "the man probably had to go to the restroom."

My example may be a bit ridiculous, but it still is correct on principle. Your justifying ILLEGAL action. Again, it is about principle.

I've never used marijuana before, but just for you, I'm going to go buy some, and then smoke a joint or something. Then I'll sell the rest. Come arrest me, okay? And don't be a wuss and send the stasi. I want you to do it. If you object on the grounds that I should be able to do as I wish with my body and participate in a free market, you're justifying ILLEGAL action.

Principles, dude. Principles.

William R
02-04-2012, 10:50 AM
Ron is blowing it on this. He should know better than anyone that open borders with a welfare state only grows government. And the last time I looked the welfare state isn't going anywhere. Hospitals and schools are being ruined due to illegal immigration. I suspect he's doing this to show he's not a racist. It is an overreaction to the Newsletters and will hurt him with rank and file conservatives.

Feeding the Abscess
02-04-2012, 10:51 AM
Ron is blowing it on this. He should know better than anyone that open borders with a welfare state only grows government. And the last time I looked the welfare state isn't going anywhere. Hospitals and schools are being ruined due to illegal immigration. I suspect he's doing this to show he's not a racist. It is an overreaction to the Newsletters and will hurt him with rank and file conservatives.

He's been saying this for years, it has nothing to do with the newsletters.

Just as an aside, how do you have free trade and travel with anything but open borders?

No Free Beer
02-04-2012, 10:53 AM
I've never used marijuana before, but just for you, I'm going to go buy some, and then smoke a joint or something. Then I'll sell the rest. Come arrest me, okay? And don't be a wuss and send the stasi. I want you to do it. If you object on the grounds that I should be able to do as I wish with my body and participate in a free market, you're justifying ILLEGAL action.

Principles, dude. Principles.

Are you a citizen of this country?

The Binghamton Patriot
02-04-2012, 10:57 AM
Ron is blowing it on this. He should know better than anyone that open borders with a welfare state only grows government. And the last time I looked the welfare state isn't going anywhere. Hospitals and schools are being ruined due to illegal immigration. I suspect he's doing this to show he's not a racist. It is an overreaction to the Newsletters and will hurt him with rank and file conservatives.

I agree completely. I understand he wants to purge the immigrants through the abolition of the welfare state, but desperate times call for desperate measures. The gains in popularity we could achieve by taking a hard stand on the immigration issue could gain us SO MANY democrats, especially those in unions, who routinely complain about how illegals drive down wages.

Southron
02-04-2012, 11:03 AM
And really, with what our country stands for these days, losing our national identity might be a good thing.

Which national identity do you prefer? Perhaps the Mexican model of government suits you. Immigration has political consequences. Undoubtedly, we will become more like the countries our immigrants are from.

No Free Beer
02-04-2012, 11:04 AM
I agree completely. I understand he wants to purge the immigrants through the abolition of the welfare state, but desperate times call for desperate measures. The gains in popularity we could achieve by taking a hard stand on the immigration issue could gain us SO MANY democrats, especially those in unions, who routinely complain about how illegals drive down wages.

Exactly.

But it is even bigger than that. We are a nation of laws. John Adams defended the British against the colonists based on LAW and PRINCIPLE.

There are some people on here who are hypocrites because they want our government to stop illegally entering other countries around the world... yet, it is perfectly okay and justified for individuals to invade our land whenever they see fit.

Serial Hypocrisy.

Feeding the Abscess
02-04-2012, 11:07 AM
Which national identity do you prefer? Perhaps the Mexican model of government suits you. Immigration has political consequences. Undoubtedly, we will become more like the countries our immigrants are from.

Peace, commerce, friendship - with everyone


Are you a citizen of this country?

Going to answer the question? My citizenship has no bearing on the situation I outlined.

No Free Beer
02-04-2012, 11:23 AM
[QUOTE=Feeding the Abscess;4134786]Going to answer the question? My citizenship has no bearing on the situation I outlined.[/QUOTE

Sure it does. By you making a decision on whether to smoke a joint or not in your own country, as a citizen, and disobeying laws is one thing.

By you smoking that joint, by disobeying a law, are you breaking the laws of another nation? Are you invading another country/nation?

Your argument with mine is like apples and oranges...

MelissaWV
02-04-2012, 11:32 AM
If only certain supporters did as good a job of not muddying things, not pandering, and not lumping folks into big easy-to-manage groups (it's easier not to think of individuals and just address a perceived herd).

AuH20
02-04-2012, 12:33 PM
if you think losing our national identity would be a good thing, then you should probably renounce your citizenship right now and get off the forum. People like you make me cringe.

I think he's referring to the corporate dominated, consumer based culture which has basically buried any knowledge of American heritage and civics. But even with all that said, do you really want to move to the alternative? Evo Morales of Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador & Hugo Chavez of Venezuela are heroes in Latin America and personify a rising tide of discontent which is moving into our nation. As bad as our government is, I do not want those type of poisonous ideas implemented here.

heavenlyboy34
02-04-2012, 12:49 PM
The big problem with using the army to keep people out is that in a SHTF situation, they can be used to keep people in. Ideally, people who own border land should keep people out. (they want to here in southern AZ ranches and other property owners, but the law makes it difficult) National Guard is the next best solution. Any org that's only accountable to the Feds or completely unaccountable is more than likely a very bad idea.

noneedtoaggress
02-04-2012, 01:43 PM
Sure it does. By you making a decision on whether to smoke a joint or not in your own country, as a citizen, and disobeying laws is one thing.

By you smoking that joint, by disobeying a law, are you breaking the laws of another nation? Are you invading another country/nation?

You realize that Ron Paul advocates civil disobedience right?

What is the law? When is the law unjust?


What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

What is the result of unjust law?


No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/The-Law-bastiat-192x300.jpg

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)

this would be good supplementary material:

http://images.filedby.com/bookimg/1604/9781604592931.jpg

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html)

No Free Beer
02-04-2012, 03:16 PM
You realize that Ron Paul advocates civil disobedience right?

You do realize that there is a difference between being a citizen of this country and being a foreigner INVADING this land?

noneedtoaggress
02-04-2012, 03:25 PM
You do realize that there is a difference between being a legitimate citizen of this country Plantation Owner and being a foreigner INVADING a Negro Slave in this land?

Good thing the government gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

And if you want to talk about omg INVASION, you should look into what government does concerning our rights, which is actually a form of invasion unlike those individuals who peacefully come to "this land" to support themselves and voluntarily work with other people.

I'd recommend reading those links, they really aren't all that long.

The Free Hornet
02-04-2012, 03:55 PM
P.S. I can remember being at rallies that favored upholding the constitution and the immigration laws. There would often be an opposing group. I would try to explain to them if they really cared about the illegal immigrants they would come over to our side. I don't know if I've ever really had any takers.

Could you elaborate? If someone has been here years and may not even speak Spanish, what side do you expect them to take? Part of 'our side' is that some immigration laws ought be modified to fix problems caused by the law not being enforced. Not to mention the perverse and unconstitional laws that encouraged some - but not all - to come here?

RiseAgainst
02-04-2012, 04:27 PM
LOL @ national socialists, always outing themselves when brown people come up.

http://dont-tread-on.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/132443565_d3629120c6.jpg

AuH20
02-04-2012, 05:05 PM
LOL @ national socialists, always outing themselves when brown people come up.

http://dont-tread-on.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/132443565_d3629120c6.jpg

http://ncrenegade.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/illegal_immigration_demand.jpg

noneedtoaggress
02-04-2012, 05:38 PM
http://ncrenegade.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/illegal_immigration_demand.jpg

and that is different than this how? (probably NSFW, and I'm linking because I don't know how appropriate actually posting it would be, but it seems pretty similar to the one above to me...)

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/racist-comic.jpg

Zippyjuan
02-04-2012, 05:41 PM
Is there a "crisis" of illegal immigration? The total estimated number of those here illegally has actually been falling for the last two years- it has recently flattened out.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/02/nation/la-na-pew-immigration-20110202


The number of illegal immigrants living in the United States was virtually unchanged last year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. The annual report found 11.2 million living in the U.S., versus 11.1 million in 2009.


February 02, 2011|By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times


After two years of declines, the number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. was virtually unchanged last year, according to a report released Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center.

The annual report, relied upon by both sides in the contentious immigration debate, found 11.2 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., statistically identical to the 11.1 million estimated in 2009. The number peaked in 2007 at 12 million and dropped steadily as the economy collapsed.



The stabilization seems to stem largely from a dwindling number of people making the often perilous journey into the U.S. from Mexico.

"People in Mexico look at the U.S. economy, they look at the U.S. as a potential source of employment, and they see that the opportunities aren't here," Passel said. "They weigh that against the cost of hiring somebody to get them across the border and the risks of getting across the border."


Employment (not benefits) is the primary draw for most of them and when the economy tanked in 2008 the numbers dropped. When the economy picks up those numbers will probably start to rise again.

As for fortifying the border, some 40% of those here illegally came here on a legal basis and overstayed- student, work, tourist or other visas. A more fortified border has no impact on those numbers.

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/almost-half-of-illegal-aliens-entered-u-s-legally-but-overstayed-visas-senators-say/

Almost half of all illegal aliens in the United States entered legally and then remained here after their visas expired, but the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) ability to track immigrants who stay past their visa expiration date is severely limited, according to a new report released by Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME).

The Senators cited a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed 40-45 percent of the estimated total population of illegal aliens — 4 to 5 million people – stayed past their visa expiration dates. But DHS’ U.S. VISIT program – which is supposed to identify people who overstay their visas by comparing entry and exit information – cannot keep up with the number of potential overstays it identifies by matching entry and exit records.

In fact, US-VISIT processes less than half of the potential overstays it identifies, and GAO found that the program has a backlog of 1.6 million potential overstay records. Once a potential overstay has been identified, the information is provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which devotes just 3 percent of its investigative man-hours to tracking down immigrants whose visas have expired.


But I suppose we could build a bigger government bureaucracy to keep track of everybody in the country (legally and illegally so we know who is or isn't here legit) and check the papers on everyone and expell anyone who can't prove they belong here. And hire more military and police for the Department of Homeland Security to guard the borders and patrol our cities to procect us from these illegals. The Patriot Act probably allows that. Of course we would also have to raise your taxes to pay for this too. Papers please!

ctiger2
02-04-2012, 05:50 PM
Just think if pandering was made illegal. Newt would have nothing to say.

noneedtoaggress
02-04-2012, 06:00 PM
IF PANDERING WAS MADE CRIMINAL.

ONLY POLITICIANS WOULD PANDER.

TheLibertarianNationalist
02-04-2012, 06:11 PM
LOL @ national socialists, always outing themselves when brown people come up.

http://dont-tread-on.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/132443565_d3629120c6.jpg

America has a long tradition of Racially European people who have migrated over, failed to assimilate immediately, and have created tension and strife among the American people. It isn't about race, as much as it is about culture and preserving all things that make us apart of Western Civilization. This idea that America should stay American and people should immigrate in low numbers and legally is something that Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Grover Cleveland, John Tyler, Polk, writer Russell Kirk, Senator Robert Taft, Conservative William F.H. Buckley, and most fighters who fought in World War 2 for this country would agree with. Are they all National Socialists as well?

I think one must look at the illegal immigration issue from a practical, philosophically reasonable point of view. Relying on vague libertarian philosophical principles like the NAP isn't going to get us anywhere. Mexicans don't have any legitimate claim to the American southwest. The land was sold to us fairly, and Mexicans were the ones to start the war. We made it prosperous. Mexico would've ensured the exact opposite. The native americans who roamed the southwest prior to European migrations/invasions had little to do with the natives who Mexicans are largely descendants from.

RiseAgainst
02-04-2012, 06:17 PM
America has a long tradition of Racially European people who have migrated over, failed to assimilate immediately, and have created tension and strife among the American people. It isn't about race, as much as it is about culture and preserving all things that make us apart of Western Civilization. This idea that America should stay American and people should immigrate in low numbers and legally is something that Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Grover Cleveland, John Tyler, Polk, writer Russell Kirk, Senator Robert Taft, Conservative William F.H. Buckley, and most fighters who fought in World War 2 for this country would agree with. Are they all National Socialists as well?

If you believe in a collective, if you believe in a national identity, if you believe that being born in a certain geographical region either gives you more or less rights than others, and if you are willing to use the force of a monopolistic government to impose your will on peaceful and innocent human beings, absolutely without a doubt.

Collectivism is the tool of the slave master, stop playing his game and start recognizing individuals.

AuH20
02-04-2012, 06:23 PM
and that is different than this how? (probably NSFW, and I'm linking because I don't know how appropriate actually posting it would be, but it seems pretty similar to the one above to me...)

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/racist-comic.jpg

I think you bring up an interesting distinction between the two. The ancestors of the current blacks currently living in the U.S. were brought to these shores against their will, via the Atlantic slave trade. They are American citizens through and through.

noneedtoaggress
02-04-2012, 06:41 PM
I think one must look at the illegal immigration issue from a practical, philosophically reasonable point of view. Relying on vague libertarian philosophical principles like the NAP private property rights isn't going to get us anywhere.



Mexicans don't have any legitimate claim to the American southwest.

No, "Mexicans" dont, and neither do "Americans". They're just abstract collectivist concepts.

If a peaceful individual rightfully obtains property and voluntarily works with other people who voluntarily pay them to sustain themselves they aren't infringing on anything but your feelings of partially "owning" everything within an arbitrarily defined statist communal border.

noneedtoaggress
02-04-2012, 06:58 PM
I think you bring up an interesting distinction between the two. The ancestors of the current blacks currently living in the U.S. were brought to these shores against their will, via the Atlantic slave trade. They are American citizens through and through.

So if someone invades your rights by violently placing you some place you didn't choose to be and forcing you to work for cheap, disregarding your right to have property in your own body, it makes you a citizen (eventually after they realize it's wrong, oops, sorry guys!).

If someone invades your rights by arbitrarily declaring that you have no "right" to have voluntary relationships with employers, and disregards property rights, regardless of the fact that you may be a peaceful individual and have become part of a community, it makes you an "illegal" and they should violently place you some place you didn't choose to be.

Great.

Watch
02-04-2012, 07:32 PM
Is there a "crisis" of illegal immigration? The total estimated number of those here illegally has actually been falling for the last two years- it has recently flattened out.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/02/nation/la-na-pew-immigration-20110202



Employment (not benefits) is the primary draw for most of them and when the economy tanked in 2008 the numbers dropped. When the economy picks up those numbers will probably start to rise again.

As for fortifying the border, some 40% of those here illegally came here on a legal basis and overstayed- student, work, tourist or other visas. A more fortified border has no impact on those numbers.

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/almost-half-of-illegal-aliens-entered-u-s-legally-but-overstayed-visas-senators-say/


But I suppose we could build a bigger government bureaucracy to keep track of everybody in the country (legally and illegally so we know who is or isn't here legit) and check the papers on everyone and expell anyone who can't prove they belong here. And hire more military and police for the Department of Homeland Security to guard the borders and patrol our cities to procect us from these illegals. The Patriot Act probably allows that. Of course we would also have to raise your taxes to pay for this too. Papers please!


+rep

TheLibertarianNationalist
02-04-2012, 07:35 PM
I don't subscribe to the Ayn Rand-like beliefs on Individualism and collectivism. Not all things that are collectivist are inherently bad. And I don't see why individualism is always necessarily a good thing. I'm more sympathetic towards the old Greco-Roman mentality. Where we come together to support our nation and people, instead of viewing ourselves strictly as individuals that just happen to reside in said nation. But also, keep a good sense of yourself, stay true to your religious, political, and moral philosophies. I hope this makes sense.

I believe the concept of America is well-defined, although in recent years our identity has become a tad blurry. Where now, according to the far left and more left-wing Libertarians, anyone that steps foot in the United States is American and we are nothing more than a geographical area. Truthfully speaking, we are a unique identity, and an important part of Western Civilization. It shouldn't be forgotten that America has done more to keep the world at peace than any other superpower that has ever existed. For example, Nazis no longer dominate Europe. Soviets no longer are in existence and weren't allowed to expand freely into Asia and Europe. Imperial Japan is long defeated pretty much solely due to American policy. It is true much of the peace we have brought to the world has been in our own self-interests, but I don't see why that is a bad thing. Especially from an Objectivist point of view. We have still acted more generous to our enemies than any other civilization, even in comparison to other Western nations in recent years.

Now seeing how much good America has brought to the world, and the fact that America keeps the West in power, why would anyone want to bring harm to it? Even if one believe we are heading in the wrong direction, I still would never wish for the American government to fail. I use to be heavily into Anarcho-Capitalism about a year ago, until I realized these practical reasons for supporting this State. The only States that deserve death are authoritarian, tyrannical, Theocratic states. Another reason for dropping Anarchy as an ideology was my rejection of the Non-Aggression Principle. Basically, I think there is a certain amount of force and theft that is needed to run a nation. And that nothing is truly morally or ethically wrong, rather these are human made-up concepts. But I'm no philosopher and not sure if I can debate that at the moment.
Even though is more of an ad-hominem attack, I find that even the most strict adherents to the NAP don't actually follow it in real life. And the principle is too vague since things like property are somewhat hard to define. So if I step on a piece of your land I am aggressing against you? It just seems like a rule of thumb to me, and not something that should be taken too seriously.


America should own the southwest because our nation has legally purchased the land from Mexico. Not only that but our classical Liberal, Conservative, & Libertarian policies made states like California prosper. Everything that has happened out West has pretty much been our doing. Think of the manifest destiny, western expansion. Mexico contributed nothing that I know of, not even naming the place. Which was done by the Spanish conquerers. It is true it could be economically beneficial for illegal immigrants to enter freely but I don't think economics is the end all-be all of politics. What about sociology? What about culture? What about unforeseen consequences? What about Mexican-on-white or Mexican-on-black racism? How about voting and self-interests? Would Mexicans who care little about the American nation truly vote for the proper politicians? Or would it be Democratic schills? So you can see, it's not as simple as saying, "economics says x, so let's do x." Although, I have to say, I know of several economists in real life and they take the position that illegal immigration is harmful to America financially speaking. Mises & CATO came out and said otherwise, but we all know there's competing schools inside of economics and no single consensus.

AuH20
02-04-2012, 07:49 PM
So if someone invades your rights by violently placing you some place you didn't choose to be and forcing you to work for cheap, disregarding your right to have property in your own body, it makes you a citizen (eventually after they realize it's wrong, oops, sorry guys!).

If someone invades your rights by arbitrarily declaring that you have no "right" to have voluntary relationships with employers, and disregards property rights, regardless of the fact that you may be a peaceful individual and have become part of a community, it makes you an "illegal" and they should violently place you some place you didn't choose to be.

Great.

You cannot see the world in the macro sense. Individuals form groups which in turn compose populations. Libertarians exhibit this blind spot frequently to their own detriment as well as their neighbors. If libertarians had their way on immigration policy, the tyranny of the majority we currently are saddled with, would be even more unbearable.

Another problem that tends to arise is their ignorance of human nature and cultures, in that life on this planet is significantly more complicated than simply the exercise of commerce and the defense of private property, especially in a democratized region like the United States. Hypothetically, you could take a current third world country and imbue it with the constitution of the U.S. circa 1776 and that would not guarantee that peace and prosperity would follow.

RiseAgainst
02-04-2012, 08:17 PM
I don't subscribe to the Ayn Rand-like beliefs on Individualism and collectivism. Not all things that are collectivist are inherently bad.

I was unaware that Miss Rand was the first and only human in history do draw a distinction between individuals and collectives. (Yet more of your lumping people into collectives)


And I don't see why individualism is always necessarily a good thing.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Individualism is neither good, nor bad. Individualism is both good and bad. These labels you attempt to place upon a 'collective' of individuals rather than the individuals themselves. It seems you don't quite understand what individualism itself is. It is neither good, nor bad that we are discussing. Rather right or wrong, more aptly just or unjust. Human beings are individuals, a point no least proven by the fact that each of us bares an unmistakable and wholly unique set of DNA, fingerprints, etc. We do not belong to a collective. Individuals may take actions that are good, or they may take actions that are bad. But individualism, the philosophy of self ownership and the non-aggression principle are the only just and moral code for human interaction.


I'm more sympathetic towards the old Greco-Roman mentality. Where we come together to support our nation and people, instead of viewing ourselves strictly as individuals that just happen to reside in said nation. But also, keep a good sense of yourself, stay true to your religious, political, and moral philosophies. I hope this makes sense.

No one ever said that individuals cannot come together. It is in the brutal and violent force of monopolistic institutions betraying the individuals rights, inherently incorporated into the collectivist and nationalist mentality, where your ideal fails. A person born inside the geographical boundries laid out through the force of the monopolistic agency known as the United States government has no more rights than does another born outside of it, and a person born outside of it no less.


I believe the concept of America is well-defined, although in recent years our identity has become a tad blurry.

"Who controls the past now, controls the future. Who controls the present now, controls the past."

There is no 'concept of America', no 'national identity'. People from the mountains of Virginia have absolutely nothing in common with the people of Shrieveport Louisiana, who in turn have nothing in common with people from Madison Wisconson, who in turn have nothing in common with the people of Portland Oregon, etc. etc.

You are using force to create a collective that doesn't exist to fulfill some desire of your own.


Where now, according to the far left and more left-wing Libertarians, anyone that steps foot in the United States is American and we are nothing more than a geographical area.

A person who steps foot in the region of 'America' is an individual. The same individual they were before stepping foot in this region. It is you, the collectivist, who have assigned this region with some significant meaning above what it's natural state suggests. It is you, the collectivist, who have created an organization based on force which steals from the many to give to the few. It is you who have created this construct, against the nature of things, and now are caught in your own inexorable web of confusion.


Truthfully speaking, we are a unique identity, and an important part of Western Civilization.

B as in B, S as in S. 'We', as in the combined individuals of America, have as much in common with each other as the rest of the 6 Billion inhabitants do. That is to say that we are human beings at base, and both inwardly and outwardly are unique individuals.


It shouldn't be forgotten that America has done more to keep the world at peace than any other superpower that has ever existed.

If by 'keep the world at peace', you mean slaughter people around the globe, prop up brutal dictatorial regimes, and generally destroy the peace of the world for the benefit of a VERY small group of connected and powerful elite, then yes, you are absoluely right.


For example, Nazis no longer dominate Europe.

:rolleyes:

Nazi's only came into existence due to Western empirical influence after WWI. Not to mention that prior to our entering the war America, and American businesses were GIANT supporters of Nazi Germany. And don't give me the 'we saved the Jews' line either. First of all, we had no idea it was going on, and second of all, it was those 'bloody Commies' the Russians who liberated the jews from the concentration camps.


Soviets no longer are in existence and weren't allowed to expand freely into Asia and Europe.

Soviet Russia, as with all statist regimes, collapsed of it's own weight. America is no more responsible for the collapse of Soviet Russia is than is Burma, Antigua or Greece. Not to mention that in the course of America's interventions against Soviet Russia and Communism in general we directly killed or aided in the killin of hundreds of thousands through armed conflict, and countless millions more through the blocking of trade and other international interventions.


Imperial Japan is long defeated pretty much solely due to American policy.

Thanks in no small part to the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians. Pat yourself on the back for all those dirty women and children your wonderful country killed on your behalf.


It is true much of the peace we have brought to the world has been in our own self-interests, but I don't see why that is a bad thing. Especially from an Objectivist point of view. We have still acted more generous to our enemies than any other civilization, even in comparison to other Western nations in recent years.

You don't know a damn thing of which you speak. Go to the places we have been. Talk to the people who were there. We killed, destroyed, disrupted, displaced entire countries, entire regions of peoples. You sit in your comfy chair, reciting history written by the victor, championing his great victories. The truth of America, as with all states, is disgusting, torturous, murderous and vile.


......

The rest of your post is nothing but an ex post facto justification for your own blood lust. Your own rationalization for the violence you ask to be committed on your behalf, so that you may live the way you want to. You can advocate all the violence you want, the blood is on your hands.

noneedtoaggress
02-04-2012, 08:36 PM
You cannot see the world in the macro sense. Individuals form groups which in turn compose populations. Libertarians exhibit this blind spot frequently to their own detriment as well as their neighbors. If libertarians had their way on immigration policy, the tyranny of the majority we currently are saddled with, would be even more unbearable.

The "world in the macro sense" you're talking about is inside your head. Those "groups" are concepts, and they're subjective to the individual. When you think of "society" or "Americans" it's not the same thing I'm thinking of. They don't exist in the physical world. They're labels that you put on an idea that represents real individual people in the world outside your head. It's a method for humans to process information. Those groups are not entities or actors, it's just our way of organizing the world in an attempt to understand and communicate ideas to others in a world too complex for humans to comprehend.

Your problem with the "tyranny of the majority" is a problem inherent with democracy. Democracy is precisely that, political force enacted by majority decree. Libertarianism rejects democracy in favor of property rights. Democracy is not liberty.


Another problem that tends to arise is their ignorance of human nature and cultures, in that life on this planet is significantly more complicated than simply the exercise of commerce and the defense of private property, especially in a democratized region like the United States. Hypothetically, you could take a current third world country and imbue it with the constitution of the U.S. circa 1776 and that would not guarantee that peace and prosperity would follow.

Economics is the study of human action. It's not about commerce, it's about the way humans interact with each other and the world around them. All humans act to further their subjective goals, cultural differences don't change that but they will affect what goals individuals may have. Property rights is the cornerstone of the free market, and liberty. Democracy is dictatorship of the majority. And of course you could give the US constitution to a country and it may not turn out the same way, it's just a piece of paper. It's meaningless without the concepts behind it, and if a society doesn't understand the concepts behind it which promoted liberty, and value concepts that are in line with free markets and liberty... they won't prosper, but will have some form of tyranny. The more they understand about the importance of property rights, and peaceful trade the more a society will be likely to prosper regardless of what a piece of paper says.

TheLibertarianNationalist
02-04-2012, 09:56 PM
I was unaware that Miss Rand was the first and only human in history do draw a distinction between individuals and collectives. (Yet more of your lumping people into collectives)

She wasn't. Ancient Humans have done it in a much more realistic, logical manner. But Ayn Rand's particular brand of individualism is the one that Libertarians have embraced and several posters on this thread agree with.




No one ever said that individuals cannot come together. It is in the brutal and violent force of monopolistic institutions betraying the individuals rights, inherently incorporated into the collectivist and nationalist mentality, where your ideal fails. A person born inside the geographical boundries laid out through the force of the monopolistic agency known as the United States government has no more rights than does another born outside of it, and a person born outside of it no less.


The fact is history has shown us that state-less societies never last that long. Anarchists, both Left & Right, never take into consideration some important factors. What about foreign powers intervening in an anarchic society? Such as spying, espionage, proxy wars, buying off PDA's or secretly creating PDA's that work in their interests, and immigrants from nations that have land claims on said nation. For example if America turned into AnCapistan overnight, many southwestern La Raza-type Mexicans would voluntarily form their own Private Defense Agencies and align with Mexico. If it's voluntary, nothing can be done to stop it. This is somewhat of a cliché, but Libertarianism truly has many parallels with Communism. Some of you work so hard to be free that you're actually risking the loss of freedoms without realizing it. Anarchist ideologies will do just that.

I agree Americans and non-Americans have no natural rights. However, legally Americans have a set of different rights than non-Americans. Someone borm in the United States has more legal rights than a North Korean or a Chinaman.




There is no 'concept of America', no 'national identity'. People from the mountains of Virginia have absolutely nothing in common with the people of Shrieveport Louisiana, who in turn have nothing in common with people from Madison Wisconson, who in turn have nothing in common with the people of Portland Oregon, etc. etc.

People from Wisconsin, Oregon, Louisiana, and Virginia share a common ethnicity, culture, language, law, and religion. With few exceptions. Someone from California has more in common with a New Yorker than an Argentinian. If there were no national identity, then people wouldn't refer to themselves as Americans in a nationalist sense, but they choose to do voluntarily. If you ask an Iraqi if he has more in common with a Syrian or Canadian, he will say Syrian. If you ask an Englishman if he has more in common with a reindeer herder in the Urals of Russia or an American, he will say an American. Same language, similar culture, ethnicity, politics, law (anglo-saxon common law), and shared history. These are the things that define a people. Americans are a people no matter what way you slice it.



A person who steps foot in the region of 'America' is an individual. The same individual they were before stepping foot in this region. It is you, the collectivist, who have assigned this region with some significant meaning above what it's natural state suggests. It is you, the collectivist, who have created an organization based on force which steals from the many to give to the few. It is you who have created this construct, against the nature of things, and now are caught in your own inexorable web of confusion.



It is history that has assigned different regions with different nationalities. Ancient Greeks made a distinction between Hebrews and Persians, Latins & Etruscans. What did they look at? Languages, cultures, politics, and their government. This isn't some artificial social construct. Science is continually showing evidence that Humanity naturally views themselves in somewhat of a collectivist way. We have evolved from social, tribal animals after all. It isn't out of the realm of possibilities that we naturally put ourselves into groups. If the State were unnatural, then why has anarchy not prospered? Why has Greece, Rome, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Persians, etc.. stomp out any known anarchist society with ease? Even 'western' state-less areas like Iceland, Pennsylvania, and the Old West were easily taken.



B as in B, S as in S. 'We', as in the combined individuals of America, have as much in common with each other as the rest of the 6 Billion inhabitants do. That is to say that we are human beings at base, and both inwardly and outwardly are unique individuals.

There are random tribal people in China that don't even know how to speak Mandarin. Nevertheless English. New Guinea and the Amazon have remote tribes that have never contacted a civilized people. How on Earth could you have as much common with them as a fellow American? I feel a closer kinship with Americans and Western people because we all have a similar history. One based upon Greco-Roman foundations, infused with Christian principles. Why feel close to some random tribe in Siberia that doesn't even know of the Constitution or never heard of Jesus Christ? Americans share the same common law, Constitution, history, culture, and so forth. Can't say the same about some random guy living in Peru.





If by 'keep the world at peace', you mean slaughter people around the globe, prop up brutal dictatorial regimes, and generally destroy the peace of the world for the benefit of a VERY small group of connected and powerful elite, then yes, you are absolutely right.

America has promoted Democratic-Republicanism at every chance we got. The times we propped up dictatorships or allied with them are when we had no other choice. If the American government opposed every single dictatorship at once, we would have nowheres to move and would screw ourselves over royally. We would literally launch into another world war. It's possible we can reform Iran at the moment, this will be a major blow to Islamic fundamentalism. Persian people have been oppressed by the Islamic faith for far too long, and the Shah were not successful at eradicating Islamic extremism.

Some Christopher Hitchens videos worth watching:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbjKVZr3nKI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vlm_FbTCR8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ZSkLF6OWk&list=LLbQGydzRzHcfz28rOvlhBUg&index=6&feature=plpp_video





Nazi's only came into existence due to Western empirical influence after WWI. Not to mention that prior to our entering the war America, and American businesses were GIANT supporters of Nazi Germany. And don't give me the 'we saved the Jews' line either. First of all, we had no idea it was going on, and second of all, it was those 'bloody Commies' the Russians who liberated the jews from the concentration camps.

That is a blow to Libertarianism if anything. If our State enforced an embargo on Nazi Germany earlier, then IBM and other American corporations wouldn't have given any support. One can't have it both ways. The Soviet Union lost more to the Nazis than anyone else, mainly due to their pathetic and laughable military leaders that had no clue what they were doing. They went by the logic, "We have more. Let's throw everything at them." Horrendous leadership on the Soviet end, if it weren't for the British & Americans Hitler would've conquered Moscow in no time. Ironically enough, Nazi Germany only killed 6 million in concentration camps, while the USSR killed up to 20 million. Thanks to American and Allies, we were able to hold onto much of Europe and prevented many from being killed, raped, maimed. It's lucky we stopped the Soviet scum when we did.

It's true World War 1 sparked World War 2. But it goes back to German nationalism. Whether or not America intervened in WW1, Germans were going to fulfill their nationalistic desires. Similar to the Japanese believing they had a natural right over Asia.




Soviet Russia, as with all statist regimes, collapsed of it's own weight. America is no more responsible for the collapse of Soviet Russia is than is Burma, Antigua or Greece. Not to mention that in the course of America's interventions against Soviet Russia and Communism in general we directly killed or aided in the killing of hundreds of thousands through armed conflict, and countless millions more through the blocking of trade and other international interventions.

I agree the USSR collapsed due to it's poor Socialistic economics. However, American intervention especially after the War has prevented needless lives from being raped and murdered by Soviet scumbags. If the USSR were allowed unchecked to conquer more countries and capture resources, we could have seen the USSR's lifespan extended by a few decades.




Thanks in no small part to the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Pat yourself on the back for all those dirty women and children your wonderful country killed on your behalf.

Imperial Japan has committed some of the most heinous war crimes known to mankind. Child prostitution backed by the State. Underage sex was rampant. Rape. Murder. Torture. Ethnic genocide was prominent. It was literally an empire built on rape and torture. Speaking of our conversation earlier on whether or not Americans feel a closer connection to a fellow American or a Chinaman.. this is a perfect example of Western mentality vs. an Eastern mentality. Japs were not Westerners and the way they fought sure showed it. Gladly, due to American intervention, we have transformed Japan into a radically different country. We couldn't have properly predicted the effect of the atom bomb, but it was sure better than letting anymore Americans die. After defeating Japan, we rebuilt it and turned it into a first world economy. The first people to send medical supplies and donations to Japan after the war came from my very state of Massachusetts. Yet much of the world still does not appreciate this. Could you imagine if the British, Romans, or Greeks defeated the Japs? They would be lucky to still have a nation.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html




You don't know a damn thing of which you speak. Go to the places we have been. Talk to the people who were there. We killed, destroyed, disrupted, displaced entire countries, entire regions of peoples. You sit in your comfy chair, reciting history written by the victor, championing his great victories. The truth of America, as with all states, is disgusting, torturous, murderous and vile.

Which places? The most anti-american people in the world are people who solely exist due to American presence in the world. I'm referring to the French, South Koreans, Scandinavians and other whiners that oppose anyone on top. The people we have liberated recently, such as the Albanians, are more than appreciative of our involvement. We did save them from ethnic-genocide after all.

noneedtoaggress
02-04-2012, 10:45 PM
She wasn't. Ancient Humans have done it in a much more realistic, logical manner. But Ayn Rand's particular brand of individualism is the one that Libertarians have embraced and several posters on this thread agree with.

Why do you think that's the case? You brought up Rand because you saw people talking about individualism and collectivism and apparently there's a strong association with those concepts to you, this thread had pretty much nothing to do with Rand until you introduced her to it. You were trying to fit the people you were talking to into some conceptual stereotype, just like you did above. You just grouped us into "Libertarians" in your head and decided "we" value "Randian Individualism".

Like I said earlier:


Those "groups" are concepts, and they're subjective to the individual. When you think of "society" or "Americans" it's not the same thing I'm thinking of. They don't exist in the physical world. They're labels that you put on an idea that represents real individual people in the world outside your head. It's a method for humans to process information. Those groups are not entities or actors, it's just our way of organizing the world in an attempt to understand and communicate ideas to others in a world too complex for humans to comprehend.


The fact is history has shown us that state-less societies never last that long. Anarchists, both Left & Right, never take into consideration some important factors. What about foreign powers intervening in an anarchic society? Such as spying, espionage, proxy wars, buying off PDA's or secretly creating PDA's that work in their interests, and immigrants from nations that have land claims on said nation. For example if America turned into AnCapistan overnight, many southwestern La Raza-type Mexicans would voluntarily form their own Private Defense Agencies and align with Mexico. If it's voluntary, nothing can be done to stop it. This is somewhat of a cliché, but Libertarianism truly has many parallels with Communism. Some of you work so hard to be free that you're actually risking the loss of freedoms without realizing it. Anarchist ideologies will do just that.

This is a lengthy discussion outside the scope of this thread that I don't want to get into here, but humans have been stateless for the vast majority of their existence. Iceland existed with a stateless legal order longer than the US has been around. (http://mises.org/daily/1121) And everything you mentioned has been addressed many times over, it just shows that you need to look for the answers to those questions rather than making assumptions.


People from Wisconsin, Oregon, Louisiana, and Virginia share a common ethnicity, culture, language, law, and religion. With few exceptions. Someone from California has more in common with a New Yorker than an Argentinian. If there were no national identity, then people wouldn't refer to themselves as Americans in a nationalist sense, but they choose to do voluntarily. If you ask an Iraqi if he has more in common with a Syrian or Canadian, he will say Syrian. If you ask an Englishman if he has more in common with a reindeer herder in the Urals of Russia or an American, he will say an American. Same language, similar culture, ethnicity, politics, law (anglo-saxon common law), and shared history. These are the things that define a people. Americans are a people no matter what way you slice it.

Those are the things that people use to define themselves and each other and their relationships. They're not objective entities. They're concepts that are subjective to the individuals imagining them. When you think "I'm an American" and someone else think's "I'm an American" they have a different concept for what "American" is in their head. It's just shorthand for organizing individuals in your brain. There is no objective "National Identity". When you say the "National Identity" gets fuzzy that's all in your head.


It is history that has assigned different regions with different nationalities. Ancient Greeks made a distinction between Hebrews and Persians, Latins & Etruscans. What did they look at? Languages, cultures, politics, and their government. This isn't some artificial social construct. Science is continually showing evidence that Humanity naturally views themselves in somewhat of a collectivist way. We have evolved from social, tribal animals after all. It isn't out of the realm of possibilities that we naturally put ourselves into groups. If the State were unnatural, then why has anarchy not prospered? Why has Greece, Rome, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Persians, etc.. stomp out any known anarchist society with ease? Even 'western' state-less areas like Iceland, Pennsylvania, and the Old West were easily taken.

No one is saying people don't organize others into groups or self identify with groups in their head. What we're saying is that these are subjective concepts that people use to understand and communicate about the complex world around them, and that it's a crude way of compressing information that can conflict with reality and distort your perceptive. You're doing it right now when you combine the "Libertarians" into a single group and start making assumptions about their associations with Ayn Rand.

NidStyles
02-05-2012, 12:43 AM
Imperial Japan has committed some of the most heinous war crimes known to mankind. Child prostitution backed by the State. Underage sex was rampant. Rape. Murder. Torture. Ethnic genocide was prominent. It was literally an empire built on rape and torture. Speaking of our conversation earlier on whether or not Americans feel a closer connection to a fellow American or a Chinaman.. this is a perfect example of Western mentality vs. an Eastern mentality. Japs were not Westerners and the way they fought sure showed it. Gladly, due to American intervention, we have transformed Japan into a radically different country.

This is Statist propaganda written purely by the victors. Japan was doing the same thing everyone else was at that time. Did they commit rape and murder during their war path, sure. So did the US when it invaded the Philippines in 1908. Don't believe me, go there and check out the museums. "Comfort Women" might have been a Japanese custom, but it was started by the Americans there. What they have now is a market of Prostitution that caters directly to western and foreign visitors. It's the same way in every country that Japan invaded, "Comfort Women" were already there. It's just that culturally the Japanese are were far more open about it.

There's no such thing as a "Chinaman" either. China has over 20 distinctive cultures.




Which places? The most anti-american people in the world are people who solely exist due to American presence in the world. I'm referring to the French, South Koreans, Scandinavians and other whiners that oppose anyone on top. The people we have liberated recently, such as the Albanians, are more than appreciative of our involvement. We did save them from ethnic-genocide after all.

Nonsense, and you have no way of proving any of this nonsense.

Delivered4000
02-05-2012, 05:21 AM
Enforcing a border is not domestic police work - it's national defense. In fact, there is no more pure expression of national defense than troops defending borders.Yea but defending them against what? People trying to make a better life for themselves? Or foreign enemies that want to invade and control land and natural resources (Much like the US is doing abroad, ironically)

Southron
02-05-2012, 06:46 AM
Yea but defending them against what? People trying to make a better life for themselves? Or foreign enemies that want to invade and control land and natural resources (Much like the US is doing abroad, ironically)

Foreign nationals trespassing on private property of US citizens?

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 06:50 AM
But you are justifying them breaking our laws. Regardless of the economic consequences, they are breaking our laws and they KNOW it. This is a problem in itself.

A lot of people on these forums are quick to criticize our foreign policy (rightfully so) because we go into all these nations illegally. Yet, a lot of people are okay with individuals breaking our laws and coming into our country without paperwork. This is an invasion, no matter how you look at it.

Also, think about how dangerous that is to our citizens, states, and country as a whole.

There is NO LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO ENTER OR BE IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT PAPERS.

The closest you come to having a crime involving immigration is 8 USC 1325 which is about IMPROPER ENTRY. That law, in and of itself, is a civil law, not a criminal one. In the instances where 8 USC 1325 mentions crimes, it has to reference Title 18 of the United States Code that deals with criminal law.

The reality is, approximately 75 percent of the people in the United States without papers have obtained a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the unconstitutional income taxes. They pay more than $7 BILLION DOLLARS per year into Socialist Security alone... and that's money they cannot ever draw out. So, let's start looking at both sides of the ledger sheet here.

All we ever hear is what the foreigner "costs" while ignoring what they contribute. We try to justify stealing from them on the basis that they aren't citizens, but there is no law in a free nation that should ever require one to become a citizen in order to exercise unalienable Rights. Xenophobes are obsessed with the income tax when half of AMERICANS do not pay any income tax! To claim that the undocumented foreigner doesn't pay taxes and is a drain on our system is a freaking lie. They pay the same federal taxes on beer, wine, cigarettes, and gasoline (and with state taxes gasoline can have as much as 60 cents a gallon TAX on it.) Foreigners rent houses and the landlord must charge enough in that equation to pay property taxes. When the foreigner buys a home, they have to pay the same taxes as you. When they go to the store, they cannot look at the cashier and say, "Hey, I'm an illegal alien, ese, so you cannot charge me sales taxes."

No, no no, guys. It don't work that way. Now watch some xenophobe agree that they do pay taxes, but try to make the argument that most federal taxes are income taxes. If that were true, government would have zero money to pay Socialist Security since half of Americans are not paying into the system already.

Let's go to the issue of entitlements. That was made illegal for any undocumented foreigner to receive those back in 1996. We have endured the so - called "Patriot Act" and the National ID / REAL ID Act to address those issues. How many more laws do you want? The white supremacist founded FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) claims that people they call "illegal aliens" cost us $100 Billion Dollars a year, yet they fail to tell us how much the immigrants donate by way of taxes, fees, permits, licenses, etc. Adding insult to injury, we already created the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security to deal with immigration control and border enforcement at a price tag of $968 BILLION DOLLARS a year. So, what problem were the xenophobes trying to solve again? We've lost our Liberties and Freedoms over this. The short list includes, but is not limited to:

The so - called "Patriot Act"
National ID / REAL ID Act
Warrant less searches
The repeal of innocent until proven guilty
Evisceration of the Fourth Amendment

Create a freaking Guest Worker program and be done with this before we are living in a National Socialist Police State.

WilliamC
02-05-2012, 07:22 AM
Why is this so confusing?

As long as there are Nations there will be national borders.

As long as there are governments there will be collectives.

For the anarchists here, hey, if we can get to some sort of global utopian awakening vis-a-vis John Lennon and all sing 'Imagine' and give up all sense of identity, then I'm probably closer than you are.

But human nature and evolution are responsible for territoriality, and until we transcend ourselves and give up Nations and Governments then there will always be borders and border control of who crosses them.

That's what countries do.

Now as for how illegal foreign citizens are treated once they somehow come to the attention of a law enforcement agency within the country that they are not supposed to be in is a different question.

I am in no way arguing that an illegal immigrant should be treated like a violent felon or even a criminal unless they, while in the USA, actually break criminal laws that apply to citizens.

As I said in my previous post, the vast majority of the problems of immigration, legal or illegal, are created by the foreign and domestic policies of the Federal Government.

Until those policies are addressed and changed, then there is no peaceful way to deal with the problem of gang violence along the Southwest border, and 'illegal immigration' will simply be used as yet another wedge issue to drive apart those of us who should be agreeing that the problem is government, not people.

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 07:58 AM
Why is this so confusing?

As long as there are Nations there will be national borders.

As long as there are governments there will be collectives.

For the anarchists here, hey, if we can get to some sort of global utopian awakening vis-a-vis John Lennon and all sing 'Imagine' and give up all sense of identity, then I'm probably closer than you are.

But human nature and evolution are responsible for territoriality, and until we transcend ourselves and give up Nations and Governments then there will always be borders and border control of who crosses them.

That's what countries do.

Now as for how illegal foreign citizens are treated once they somehow come to the attention of a law enforcement agency within the country that they are not supposed to be in is a different question.

I am in no way arguing that an illegal immigrant should be treated like a violent felon or even a criminal unless they, while in the USA, actually break criminal laws that apply to citizens.

As I said in my previous post, the vast majority of the problems of immigration, legal or illegal, are created by the foreign and domestic policies of the Federal Government.

Until those policies are addressed and changed, then there is no peaceful way to deal with the problem of gang violence along the Southwest border, and 'illegal immigration' will simply be used as yet another wedge issue to drive apart those of us who should be agreeing that the problem is government, not people.

Still can't come to grips with the fact that people are not "illegal" can you? Even if such a crime existed, one is innocent until proven guilty.

WilliamC
02-05-2012, 08:11 AM
Still can't come to grips with the fact that people are not "illegal" can you? Even if such a crime existed, one is innocent until proven guilty.

I don't understand your point.

So long as Nations exist, they will write laws regarding who is and isn't a citizen.

Thus there can very well be illegal people within a country, defined by the countries laws of citizenship.

Are you denying this?

Or just stating that all such laws are, in your opinion, automatically unjust?

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 08:37 AM
I don't understand your point.

So long as Nations exist, they will write laws regarding who is and isn't a citizen.

Thus there can very well be illegal people within a country, defined by the countries laws of citizenship.

Are you denying this?

Or just stating that all such laws are, in your opinion, automatically unjust?

There is no law in the United States that makes a person an "illegal alien." The ONLY time the issue is addressed is in 8 USC 1325 and that is a CIVIL law that applies strictly to ENTRY. Improper Entry is a civil violation of the law and has no more "criminal" connotations than you being called a defendant in a divorce suit. Removal proceedings in an immigration process are civil in nature, not criminal.

Being in the United States without papers is not a crime. Again, the law only addresses ENTRY... and you have to catch someone in the act before that even applies.

I'm particularly sensitive to this issue as the feds once set out to kill me on the basis that I was an enemy combatant / domestic terrorist absent any form of due process AND absent any laws that criminalized my actions. When you call foreigners "illegal" absent any law that would make them "illegal," you are adding to the precedents that allow LEOs to go after Americans on the most spurious of pretexts. In short, what you guys that call foreigners "illegal" aliens are doing is dangerous to your Liberties and mine. It is freaking dangerous.

If an employer has a job and offers it to a foreigner, that is the employer's Right to give what he / she owns to whomever he or she chooses. Calling someone an "illegal" for exercising their unalienable Rights is plain wrong on every level. Create a Guest Worker program and be done with this idiotic argument.

WilliamC
02-05-2012, 10:40 AM
There is no law in the United States that makes a person an "illegal alien." The ONLY time the issue is addressed is in 8 USC 1325 and that is a CIVIL law that applies strictly to ENTRY. Improper Entry is a civil violation of the law and has no more "criminal" connotations than you being called a defendant in a divorce suit. Removal proceedings in an immigration process are civil in nature, not criminal.

I don't see why you are disagreeing with me. What part of
Now as for how illegal foreign citizens are treated once they somehow come to the attention of a law enforcement agency within the country that they are not supposed to be in is a different question.

I am in no way arguing that an illegal immigrant should be treated like a violent felon or even a criminal unless they, while in the USA, actually break criminal laws that apply to citizens.

As I said in my previous post, the vast majority of the problems of immigration, legal or illegal, are created by the foreign and domestic policies of the Federal Government.

Until those policies are addressed and changed, then there is no peaceful way to deal with the problem of gang violence along the Southwest border, and 'illegal immigration' will simply be used as yet another wedge issue to drive apart those of us who should be agreeing that the problem is government, not people.

do you disagree with?




Being in the United States without papers is not a crime. Again, the law only addresses ENTRY... and you have to catch someone in the act before that even applies.


Where am I arguing for there to be 'papers'?



I'm particularly sensitive to this issue as the feds once set out to kill me on the basis that I was an enemy combatant / domestic terrorist absent any form of due process AND absent any laws that criminalized my actions. When you call foreigners "illegal" absent any law that would make them "illegal," you are adding to the precedents that allow LEOs to go after Americans on the most spurious of pretexts. In short, what you guys that call foreigners "illegal" aliens are doing is dangerous to your Liberties and mine. It is freaking dangerous.

Ummm...., so just because I recognize the difference between a citizen of a foreign nation that has chosen to legally immigrate to the USA and a citizen of a foreign nation that deliberately avoided the legal process of immigration, I am now 'freaking dangerous'?

Again, where have I suggested anything about treating a foreign citizen who has not been charged with any other crime as some sort of dangerous felon?

I don't.


If an employer has a job and offers it to a foreigner, that is the employer's Right to give what he / she owns to whomever he or she chooses. Calling someone an "illegal" for exercising their unalienable Rights is plain wrong on every level. Create a Guest Worker program and be done with this idiotic argument.

Again, you completely fail to acknowledge the fact that I stated which is it is the fault of the Federal Government that we have an illegal immigration problem, and until that problem is dealt with it is impossible to make peaceful progress in solving the problem.

noneedtoaggress
02-05-2012, 02:49 PM
Why is this so confusing?

As long as there are Nations there will be national borders.

Nations don't have borders, a nation is a description of a group of people. States claim territories under their jurisdiction. Nation-states claim borders.


As long as there are governments there will be aggressive, violent collectives.

For the anarchists abolitionists here, hey, if we can get to some sort of global utopian awakening vis-a-vis John Lennon and all sing 'Imagine' and give up all sense of identity enslaving black people, then I'm probably closer than you are.

What does "giving up all sense of identity" mean, too? Are you implying we need government to identify with other people and communities? That we need the state to give us a sense of belonging to a community? Which still only concerns "group-identity" and not your identity as an individual person.


But human nature and evolution are responsible for territoriality slavery, and until we transcend ourselves and give up Nations and Governments an anti-liberty oppressive institution then there will always be borders legal slaves and slave owners and border control of who crosses them the hunting down of runaways.



That's what countries do.

That's what individual humans acting as agents of an abstract oppressive authoritarian concept do, because they think it's lawful, just, and in the best interests of "their society".




Now as for how illegal foreign citizens are treated once they somehow come to the attention of a law enforcement agency within the country that they are not supposed to be in is a different question.

I am in no way arguing that an illegal immigrant should be treated like a violent felon or even a criminal unless they, while in the USA, actually break criminal laws that apply to citizens.

As I said in my previous post, the vast majority of the problems of immigration, legal or illegal, are created by the foreign and domestic policies of the Federal Government.

Until those policies are addressed and changed, then there is no peaceful way to deal with the problem of gang violence along the Southwest border, and 'illegal immigration' will simply be used as yet another wedge issue to drive apart those of us who should be agreeing that the problem is government, not people.

Right, and the only way to change people's attitudes about government policies and slavery "illegals" is to... talk about it... like we're doing... right now.

Having more people to do more work is great when you don't have government interventionism disrupting the market or redistributing wealth.

noneedtoaggress
02-05-2012, 03:09 PM
Foreign nationals A person trespassing on private property of US citizens another person?

better...

WilliamC
02-05-2012, 05:32 PM
Still can't come to grips with the fact that people are not "illegal" can you? Even if such a crime existed, one is innocent until proven guilty.

Seems to me you don't think Nations have any authority to regulate who can cross their borders and who can establish residence in said Nation.

Illegal immigrants by definition do not follow legal channels to enter and live in the country which they exist, therefore they are by definition illegally in said country.

You can play semantics all you wish, but said people are illegal in the sense they have violated immigration laws to reach their destination.

WilliamC
02-05-2012, 05:38 PM
Nations don't have borders, a nation is a description of a group of people. States claim territories under their jurisdiction. Nation-states claim borders.

Basic geography refutes this statement.

Nations have borders. Countries have borders. States have borders, counties have borders, cities and towns and villages have borders.

It's what defines them geographically and defines the reach of the laws that said governments establish.

If you don't accept this then no wonder you are confused about legal versus illegal immigration.

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 05:58 PM
Seems to me you don't think Nations have any authority to regulate who can cross their borders and who can establish residence in said Nation.

Illegal immigrants by definition do not follow legal channels to enter and live in the country which they exist, therefore they are by definition illegally in said country.

You can play semantics all you wish, but said people are illegal in the sense they have violated immigration laws to reach their destination.

I'll have you know, with my ass on the line, I do not play semantics. BEFORE ANYONE can be called an "illegal" any freaking thing, there must be a law making something illegal.

Your first mistake is not understanding the subject matter. In speaking on this very issue, Attorney General Michael Mukasey (appointed by George W. Bush) told the liberal ABA: “Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime...”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/12/mukasey-not-every-wrong-or-every-violation-of-the-law-is-a-crime/

The context in which Mukasey spoke was in regards to an IMPROPER action - and Entry into the United States without the requisite paperwork is an improper act, not a crime; therefore, NOT illegal.

Because you do not understand the subject matter, you end up making false accusations against me. You wrote:

"Seems to me you don't think Nations have any authority to regulate who can cross their borders..."

Where in the Hell did you get such an idea? Did you even bother to read what I've written thus far? Of course, we have the Right, as a nation to regulate who can cross our borders. But, just like gun control, the word regulate does not mean human registration nor FORCED citizenship for Guest Workers.

Of course, the United States has the authority to regulate who crosses our borders. The government must also treat everyone that is a citizen equally under the law. So, instead of regulating immigration, specifically by updating the immigration laws to reflect the changing times and the needs of society, the government gives employers no other choice than to hire people that do not have a visa BECAUSE FOR MILLIONS WE HAVE NOT CREATED A VISA THAT FITS THEIR FACT SITUATION. If there are no "legal" channels to follow, there is no criminal law to violate. You cannot create a visa for the rich, people with American relatives and students while locking out factory workers, hospitality workers, and others who work low end NON-AGRICULTURAL jobs. It is discriminatory against employers. It would, therefore, be unconstitutional.

This is not rocket science, sir. It cannot be that difficult to understand. Some people just want to come here and work. They don't want to become citizens and we don't need them as citizens. Use your head:

If a 50 year old immigrant is forced to become a citizen and they are disabled by the age of 62 and live to be 85, they will draw out of the system for TWICE AS LONG AS THEY PAID IN. You want to force someone to do that?

Ignoring unconstitutional laws is well within the purview of all people.

Finally, you pretend not to understand what I say. Perhaps you think that people reading this are idiots? Or are you really not understanding simple English?

When you call ANYONE an illegal anything, you are creating a precedent whereby YOU, ME and EVERYBODY else will be judged according to that standard. Now, what part of that sentence are you having a problem with?

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 06:04 PM
I don't understand your point.

So long as Nations exist, they will write laws regarding who is and isn't a citizen.

Thus there can very well be illegal people within a country, defined by the countries laws of citizenship.

Are you denying this?

Or just stating that all such laws are, in your opinion, automatically unjust?

Just because we can define who can and cannot become a citizen, we cannot outlaw the flow of foreigners for business purposes. All you can do is regulate it. For the past 200 + years, it has been a self regulating process that has worked pretty good, EXCEPT for the times that control freaks have stepped in to muck up the natural order of things.

row333au
02-05-2012, 07:24 PM
The average illegal migrant (person) - who does live and act the entering and living illegally within the country as unwelcome guest or acting like a legal citizen - are doing what they do due to economic impoverish situation and hostile community existence; to which they justify what they do as like stealing to feed in the struggle of survival of the fittest means.

Illegal migrants would bypass the qualifying processing of a country's requirement that is mandatory to the nation's best desired categories and acceptable qualities being consider in becoming part of their permanent citizen of its communities and society. Most of those who does the illegal migration knows that they will not be able to qualify or knows exactly that they will fail miserably if they went through the process of qualifying.

One of those avenues to cheat your way in is by pretending to be an asylum seeker (now the genuine of this does compete in the grey areas - example Afghans and Pakistanis).... but in America mostly its border crossing.

But over all the last thing they would consider is that all things have thresholds. As in limited resources and conserving for future citizens' needs - humanitarian would have to give-in with maintaining the means to have the nation and its citizens live according to the high living standard of quality and quantity available to all of its citizens - and this is where the 'limiting the greed factor' vs 'limited population expansion factor' is debated.

But for both argument the solution is not migration but to help in helping the stability of their origin country's economy and stopping hostility existence (since almost all of them would choose not to leave their country if they have the same version of America or as close to it as possible). Therefore the solution lies temporary in securing the country's border and as well as making those countries have better American free economy across the board of their society in discouraging them by making their country more attractive to really settle in...

Hence the culprit of such as the Federal Reserve, IMF, WTO and UN's top management, in transforming the whole world into one global monopoly of so called ruling class done through globalisation of corporatism (200 corporation controls 80% of the worlds resources but employs only few millions compare to worlds population of billions)...

This is what Ron Paul has been advocating on in abolishing the one rule governance (not elected by a sovereignty and its citizen) to overwhelm and supersede a country's sovereignty rights and laws, thus in its real practical results will lessen and reverse the illegal and legal migration pattern globally, if he becomes effective citizens' consensus.

noneedtoaggress
02-05-2012, 11:50 PM
Seems to me you don't think Nations have any authority to regulate who can cross their borders and who can establish residence in said Nation.

What is a Nation?

Where does this "National Authority" originate?

What is the extent of this "National Authority", (does "it" have the right to protect "itself" from threats to it's purity, maybe by exterminating particularly "dirty" races and other undesirable elements - if not, why not?)?


Illegal immigrants by definition do not follow legal channels to enter and live in the country which they exist, therefore they are by definition illegally in said country.

You can play semantics all you wish, but said people are illegal in the sense they have violated immigration slavery laws to reach their destination.

And runaway slaves were illegally running away from their legal owners. The one thing the government is good at is creating bad laws. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?358101-Ron-Paul-Gives-Latino-Voters-Straight-Talk-No-Pandering.&p=4135678&viewfull=1#post4135678)

Enforcer
02-06-2012, 04:45 AM
Agreed. However, I would strongly oppose any permanent fortifications or a fence unless it was in a few strategic locations.

Go ahead and build the fence. Hispanics are pretty good with shovels. Create a Guest Worker program and be done with this madness.

WilliamC
02-06-2012, 06:02 AM
I'll have you know, with my ass on the line, I do not play semantics. BEFORE ANYONE can be called an "illegal" any freaking thing, there must be a law making something illegal.

Look, I'm not doubting your sincerity, and I might agree with you more than I disagree, and I'm not looking to get into the minutia of immigration law, but you are refusing to answer basic questions which will allow me to assess your position, and you are attacking me for positions I do not advocate.

In my past experience, those who do so repeatedly are trying in some way to be deceptive.

I'm not.

Real simple now, do you state that it is unjust and immoral for a Country to regulate which non-citizens enter said country and which non-citizens can live in said country and which non-citizens can work in said country?

That's my only question.

If you think it is unjust then it seems to me you are arguing against the existence of defined Nations, national government, and government in general, which sounds a lot like anarchism.

If you think nations can do this, then how are non-citizens who fail to follow a nations laws regarding entry, living and working in said nation not considered to be illegally in said nation?

I'm not saying that 'people are illegal' as you want to push off as my words, and I'm not arguing for any specific course of action in regards to how a nation would treat a non-citizen whom it finds inside it's juristiction but who has not followed a legal procedure for being there.

I am saying that a fundamental aspect of a Nation or Country or whatever is that it has a defined geographic border, and that as part of the legitimacy of being a Nation, then part of the national laws are rightly about regulating immigration.

Is this a legitimate function of government or not?

WilliamC
02-06-2012, 06:07 AM
What is a Nation?

Where does this "National Authority" originate?

Err... read my posts?

In the context of this thread and what I've stated it's pretty obvious I'm talking specifically about the Southwest border between the Untied States and Mexico, both of which are 'Nations' and have 'National Authority' to pass laws, including laws about immigration.

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/demotivational-posters-not-sure-if-trolling.jpg

WilliamC
02-06-2012, 06:09 AM
What is the extent of this "National Authority", (does "it" have the right to protect "itself" from threats to it's purity, maybe by exterminating particularly "dirty" races and other undesirable elements - if not, why not?)?

You have some serious issues.

Why do you want to exterminate undesirable elements or dirty races?

Why do you project this onto me?

WilliamC
02-06-2012, 06:14 AM
Just because we can define who can and cannot become a citizen, we cannot outlaw the flow of foreigners for business purposes. All you can do is regulate it. For the past 200 + years, it has been a self regulating process that has worked pretty good, EXCEPT for the times that control freaks have stepped in to muck up the natural order of things.

For at least the third time in this thread I state that the Federal Government creates the vast majority of the problems with immigration with it's flawed domestic and foreign policies.

But fact is we currently have dangerous criminal drug gangs and such trying to enter the USA to further commit crimes of violence against US citizens.

If you don't think this is a legitimate concern then you have some other agenda, probably anarchist/racist in nature, which does not recognize the legitimacy of National Governments to exists.

noneedtoaggress
02-06-2012, 07:31 AM
Err... read my posts?

In the context of this thread and what I've stated it's pretty obvious I'm talking specifically about the Southwest border between the Untied States and Mexico, both of which are 'Nations' and have 'National Authority' to pass laws, including laws about immigration.



I didn't ask you to give me examples of what you thought were Nations, I asked you to define the word "Nation" because we're obviously using the same word for different concepts.


A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history.[1] In this definition, a nation has no physical borders. However, it can also refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up.[2][3] In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state.[1] The word nation can more specifically refer to people of North American Indians, such as the Cherokee Nation that prefer this term over the contested term tribe.[1]

I'm obviously using the bold part while you're using something closer to what's directly after (which is closer to the Nation-State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-state) I was referring to earlier). What is it that you mean when you say "Nation"?

And where is this authority derived? This is a serious question. How does a "Nation" come to have "authority"?



You have some serious issues.

Why do you want to exterminate undesirable elements or dirty races?

Why do you project this onto me?

LOL, what are you talking about, how was that not a legitimate question? You're claiming this authority exists. I asked you to what the extent of this authority has legitimate power and somehow (?) that means "I want to exterminate dirty races and undesirables" and am somehow projecting it onto you, which means you don't have to answer the question because I "have issues". How convenient. Is it unlimited and if not, why not? What is the purpose of this authority? What stops anything "it" does from being a legitimate exercise in power or not?

WilliamC
02-06-2012, 10:07 AM
I didn't ask you to give me examples of what you thought were Nations, I asked you to define the word "Nation" because we're obviously using the same word for different concepts.

I'm obviously using the bold part while you're using something closer to what's directly after (which is closer to the Nation-State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-state) I was referring to earlier). What is it that you mean when you say "Nation"?

And where is this authority derived? This is a serious question. How does a "Nation" come to have "authority"?

I am using Nation in the sense of a Nation-State with a National government and geographic boundries, not as an abstraction for a culture.

Nations already exist, regardless of whether or not I believe they legitimately came into existence.

National governments pass laws, including laws regarding immigration.

Now if you deny the legitimacy of Nation-States, then I see where you deny the legitimacy of laws regarding immigration.

But if you accept that at least some Nation-States legitimately exist, then I do not see where you deny the legitimacy of laws of said Nation-State with regards to non-citizens entering into, visiting, living in, and working within the geographic bounderies of said Nation-State.

Here in the USA our Federal Government was created by the Constitution and (theoretically) embodies the concepts of the Declaration of Independence, and it's authority comes from the people of the United States.

While I do have reservations as to the Constitution itself, especially since the original Constitution explicitly legalized slavery, my limited political goals are to elect politicians who will return the Federal Government to a smaller, more Constitutionally limited form.

Yes, I know this is naive, but I'm not ready to start shooting yet.

In the context of this specific thread, I am talking about the Southern border between the USA and Mexico, another Nation-State whose legitimacy I currently accept even if I think its government is more corrupt than even our own.


LOL, what are you talking about, how was that not a legitimate question? You're claiming this authority exists. I asked you to what the extent of this authority has legitimate power and somehow (?) that means "I want to exterminate dirty races and undesirables" and am somehow projecting it onto you, which means you don't have to answer the question because I "have issues". How convenient. Is it unlimited and if not, why not? What is the purpose of this authority? What stops anything "it" does from being a legitimate exercise in power or not?

You are the one who brought into the discussion the idea of "exterminating particularly "dirty" races and other undesirable elements" so I gather this is some goal of yours.

I just recognize the huge problem with violent criminal gangs currently trying to enter the USA from Mexico due to the USA's flawed Drug War.

Until the USA changes it's foreign and domestic policies significantly, it will face this problem.

Best solution it to remove the flawed policies, but until this is done then I see the rational for enhanced border security.

Again, you have issues because you went from talking about immigration to wondering if I was somehow a racist and wanted to commit genocide.

I am not, but since you introduced the idea I wonder if you are indeed projecting your own views onto me.

Enforcer
02-06-2012, 04:57 PM
Look, I'm not doubting your sincerity, and I might agree with you more than I disagree, and I'm not looking to get into the minutia of immigration law, but you are refusing to answer basic questions which will allow me to assess your position, and you are attacking me for positions I do not advocate.

In my past experience, those who do so repeatedly are trying in some way to be deceptive.

I'm not.

Real simple now, do you state that it is unjust and immoral for a Country to regulate which non-citizens enter said country and which non-citizens can live in said country and which non-citizens can work in said country?

You've accused me of having something to hide when I've told you over and over in plain English:



That's my only question.

If you think it is unjust then it seems to me you are arguing against the existence of defined Nations, national government, and government in general, which sounds a lot like anarchism.

If you think nations can do this, then how are non-citizens who fail to follow a nations laws regarding entry, living and working in said nation not considered to be illegally in said nation?

I'm not saying that 'people are illegal' as you want to push off as my words, and I'm not arguing for any specific course of action in regards to how a nation would treat a non-citizen whom it finds inside it's juristiction but who has not followed a legal procedure for being there.

I am saying that a fundamental aspect of a Nation or Country or whatever is that it has a defined geographic border, and that as part of the legitimacy of being a Nation, then part of the national laws are rightly about regulating immigration.

Is this a legitimate function of government or not?

You asked the question and I honestly answered it. The United States has the authority to regulate those who come and go within our borders; however, what they do not have is the legitimate authority to prohibit the free flow of trade and travel by limiting it to citizens.

When I was a kid, we used to travel from California to Mexico with no visas, passports, etc. and it was adequately regulated. I have no issue to debate with regards to regulate; however, that does not extend to a prohibition on people that come here to engage in lawful pursuits.

And, since, you are dodging the issue about "illegal" aliens instead of dropping that term for the accurate undocumented foreigner, I feel that you want me to agree that there is some "problem" to solve when you simply need some appeasement. Create a Guest Worker program and be done with the cow manure.

The government has a law stating that it is a civil violation to enter the United States improperly. Then, THEY DO NOT PROVIDE A "LEGAL" MECHANISM FOR THE FACT SITUATION.

What part of that do you not understand? That is as plain of an English sentence that one can give you. Now, let us do the "legal" part:

People enter the United States without the requisite paperwork for the simple reason that no visa existscovering their fact situation. Congress is charged with providing us with an uniform Rule of Naturalization. (See Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution) Congress hasn't even done that!

Let's do an analogy and maybe you can understand this:

A statute says that you must have a permit to carry a firearm in your state. So you contact state officials. They look at you with a blank look and say we don't issue a permit in this state. You have a Right to keep and bear Arms, so exactly what law are you breaking if you don't have a permit that does not exist?

You want to demand that people come here "legally." No such concept exists in the legal language as it pertains to this issue. Everything is not legal or illegal. Sometimes it is proper and improper. Proper and improper have nothing to do with "legal" or illegal. They are totally different concepts.

A cop issues you a ticket that is filled out improperly. Is it a crime? No, it is not. So how can his actions be illegal?

An anti - immigrant Congressman, who happens to an attorney, did propose legislation which would change 8 USC 1325 so that Improper Entry would be changed to Unlawful Entry. That legislation FAILED. If it were illegal to enter the U.S. without papers, it would not have been necessary to change the statute to read unalwful instead of its current IMPROPER.

How are my posts not fully answering your questions?

noneedtoaggress
02-06-2012, 05:42 PM
I am using Nation in the sense of a Nation-State with a National government and geographic boundries, not as an abstraction for a culture.

Nations already exist, regardless of whether or not I believe they legitimately came into existence.

So you're essentially using "Nation" as a word for the state. States don't exist in outside your head either... they are also abstract concepts that individual human beings identify with and modify their behaviors to conform with. They aren't sentient entities or actors, but subjective concepts held by individual people that guide their actions.


National governments pass laws, including laws regarding immigration slavery.

Now if you deny the legitimacy of Nation-States, then I see where you deny the legitimacy of laws regarding immigration.

Actually, it doesn't matter whether Nation-States are legitimate or not. The problem is the law is anti-liberty. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?358101-Ron-Paul-Gives-Latino-Voters-Straight-Talk-No-Pandering.&p=4135678&viewfull=1#post4135678)


But if you accept that at least some Nation-States legitimately exist, then I do not see where you deny the legitimacy of laws of said Nation-State with regards to non-citizens entering into, visiting, living in, and working within the geographic bounderies of said Nation-State.

All you're talking about is very large, organized groups of gangs claiming territory and getting popular consent for it by claiming it's everyone in their "society's" territory. You feel like you're part of this united group of people with common "ownership" over some territory. This claim isn't based on legitimately obtaining property by laboring to transform it, but arbitrarily declaring control and backing it up with violence.

If you're a peaceful hardworking person who hasn't infringed on anyone's rights and move somewhere, and find someone who voluntarily wants to pay you to work for him so you can support yourself... and then some people who don't think you should be there (for whatever reason) turn around and get a gang together to push you out of "their" hood through the use of force then they're nothing more than a thuggish gang with no respect for property rights and voluntary association.

If you're a slave who a group of people declares has no rights and you run away and they get a gang together to hunt you down and force you back into slavery then they're nothing more than a thuggish gang with no respect for property rights and voluntary association.

Writing formal laws and pretending these infringements are just because it's the "will of the Nation" doesn't change that.


Here in the USA our Federal Government was created by the Constitution and (theoretically) embodies the concepts of the Declaration of Independence, and it's authority comes from the people of the United States.

While I do have reservations as to the Constitution itself, especially since the original Constitution explicitly legalized slavery, my limited political goals are to elect politicians who will return the Federal Government to a smaller, more Constitutionally limited form.

So it gets it's authority from the sovereignty of individuals. Where do these sovereign individuals get the right to violate the rights of another sovereign individual?

On top of which, it's not a bad thing you have reservations about the Constitution because it hardly restricts government it's not even a legitimate contract. You should be critical of it. Dr. Paul actually recommends people read this essay by Lysander Spooner:

http://mises.org/media/poster/5762

^^ Click (http://jim.com/treason.htm)


Yes, I know this is naive, but I'm not ready to start shooting yet.

Who said anything about shooting? (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html)


You are the one who brought into the discussion the idea of "exterminating particularly "dirty" races and other undesirable elements" so I gather this is some goal of yours.

How does that make sense at all? I was questioning you about the legitimacy of what you called a "national authority", where this authority came from and to what extent it had the right to exercise it's power. I also said slavery laws were an illegitimate exercise in "authority". Do you gather that institutionalized slavery is also a "goal" of mine?

To me it seemed like you were trying to dodge the question.


Again, you have issues because you went from talking about immigration to wondering if I was somehow a racist and wanted to commit genocide.

I am not, but since you introduced the idea I wonder if you are indeed projecting your own views onto me.

How? I didn't say anything about you at all? Can you show me where I did? Can you show me how anything in that post referred to you personally at all?

Would you consider self-identifying with the concept of "National Authority" an "issue"?

WilliamC
02-07-2012, 11:40 AM
You asked the question and I honestly answered it. The United States has the authority to regulate those who come and go within our borders; however, what they do not have is the legitimate authority to prohibit the free flow of trade and travel by limiting it to citizens.

I don't quite agree. The United States Federal Government has the authority to regulate those who come and go across our borders, that is the borders of the United States with other countries, and not within our borders, that is between States.

Since for the contiguous 48 States the only foreign countries that the United States has land borders with is Mexico and Canada, then the above premise implies that the United States Federal Government has the authority to regulate those individuals who come and go between Mexico and the United States, and between Canada and the United States.


When I was a kid, we used to travel from California to Mexico with no visas, passports, etc. and it was adequately regulated. I have no issue to debate with regards to regulate; however, that does not extend to a prohibition on people that come here to engage in lawful pursuits.

And so it should be so. But unfortunately today the United States Federal Government, through it's flawed domestic and foreign policies, has created conditions along the border that are no longer peaceful. Thus they have created a 'need' for more stringent border control and for identifying those criminals who congregate along the U.S. Mexico border.


And, since, you are dodging the issue about "illegal" aliens instead of dropping that term for the accurate undocumented foreigner, I feel that you want me to agree that there is some "problem" to solve when you simply need some appeasement. Create a Guest Worker program and be done with the cow manure.

I have repeatedly stated that until the flawed domestic and foreign policies of the United States Federal Government are addressed and rectified, then there is no peaceful solution to be had, including your idea of a guest worker program, which the United States already has.

Personally I have worked with many many foreign nationals from all over the world, and they all followed legal guest worker programs to get their visas.

But not all individuals entering the USA are looking for legitimate work are they?


The government has a law stating that it is a civil violation to enter the United States improperly. Then, THEY DO NOT PROVIDE A "LEGAL" MECHANISM FOR THE FACT SITUATION.

Imagine that, the United States Federal Government is f@%ked up.

Why am I not surprised?


What part of that do you not understand?

I am not arguing that the United States Federal Government has a rational immigration policy.

What part of that do you not understand?

But you seem to agree that the United States Federal Government does have the legitimate authority to set immigration policies, or am I wrong about that?


That is as plain of an English sentence that one can give you. Now, let us do the "legal" part:

People enter the United States without the requisite paperwork for the simple reason that no visa existscovering their fact situation. Congress is charged with providing us with an uniform Rule of Naturalization. (See Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution) Congress hasn't even done that!

Again, why am I not surprised that the United States Federal Government has flawed immigration policies?

They do.

They also have flawed domestic and foreign policies that create circumstances that criminalize the US Mexico border in particular.

Do you disagree with this?


Let's do an analogy and maybe you can understand this:

A statute says that you must have a permit to carry a firearm in your state. So you contact state officials. They look at you with a blank look and say we don't issue a permit in this state. You have a Right to keep and bear Arms, so exactly what law are you breaking if you don't have a permit that does not exist?

I don't know where you're from but here in Mississippi I just need to go to my local State Troopers office and they will be kind enough to take care of my request for a concealed carry permit. So I don't follow your analogy.



You want to demand that people come here "legally." No such concept exists in the legal language as it pertains to this issue. Everything is not legal or illegal. Sometimes it is proper and improper. Proper and improper have nothing to do with "legal" or illegal. They are totally different concepts.

Of the dozens of foreign nationals I worked with over the years all had followed the requisite legal mumbo-jumbo to be in the United States so I don't follow your argument.

There are those who wish to avoid legal entry into the USA for nefarious purposes as well, and while the policy shouldn't be to treat all people this way (which it is incidentally but that's a different discussion) neither should it ignore this fact.


A cop issues you a ticket that is filled out improperly. Is it a crime? No, it is not. So how can his actions be illegal?

Now you are losing me. How is this related to immigration policy?

You have digressed to conflating.

I reiterate, Government is incompetent.


An anti - immigrant Congressman, who happens to an attorney, did propose legislation which would change 8 USC 1325 so that Improper Entry would be changed to Unlawful Entry. That legislation FAILED. If it were illegal to enter the U.S. without papers, it would not have been necessary to change the statute to read unalwful instead of its current IMPROPER.

How are my posts not fully answering your questions?

Oh I think you are doing better, but it isn't the minutia I'm interested in so much as understanding your world view.

Carry on.

jmdrake
02-07-2012, 11:47 AM
National Guard...

You mean after first giving the full control of the Guard back to the states?

WilliamC
02-07-2012, 11:51 AM
So you're essentially using "Nation" as a word for the state. States don't exist in outside your head either... they are also abstract concepts that individual human beings identify with and modify their behaviors to conform with. They aren't sentient entities or actors, but subjective concepts held by individual people that guide their actions.


Immigration is not equal to slavery, so your strikeout/replace alteration of my words is not conducive to rational, clear communication.

If you want to state that you believe immigration and slavery to be equal then make the case, don't try and conflate the two and make me look like I am arguing for slavery.

That is dishonest.

noneedtoaggress
02-07-2012, 02:25 PM
Immigration is not equal to slavery, so your strikeout/replace alteration of my words is not conducive to rational, clear communication.

If you want to state that you believe immigration and slavery to be equal then make the case, don't try and conflate the two and make me look like I am arguing for slavery.

That is dishonest.

Did you even read my last post?


If you're a peaceful hardworking person who hasn't infringed on anyone's rights and move somewhere, and find someone who voluntarily wants to pay you to work for him so you can support yourself... and then some people who don't think you should be there (for whatever reason) turn around and get a gang together to push you out of "their" hood through the use of force then they're nothing more than a thuggish gang with no respect for property rights and voluntary association.

If you're a slave who a group of people declares has no rights and you run away and they get a gang together to hunt you down and force you back into slavery then they're nothing more than a thuggish gang with no respect for property rights and voluntary association.

You've been attempting to attack my character in order to discredit me and avoid my arguments and I'm the dishonest one?

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/7/129100729828671586.jpg

TheLibertarianNationalist
02-07-2012, 03:46 PM
This is Statist propaganda written purely by the victors.


Seriously, anarchists, please try to bear with me. Do you seriously think exposing the war crimes of Imperial Japan and criticizing their action is statist? I'm beginning to think many of the anarchsits on this forum aren't even Anarcho-Capitalists, at least AnCaps generally have a good approval of Western Civilization & Western values. But some of you are starting to act like AnSocs or brick-throwing AnCommies. No offense.



Japan was doing the same thing everyone else was at that time. Did they commit rape and murder during their war path, sure. So did the US when it invaded the Philippines in 1908. Don't believe me, go there and check out the museums. "Comfort Women" might have been a Japanese custom, but it was started by the Americans there. What they have now is a market of Prostitution that caters directly to western and foreign visitors. It's the same way in every country that Japan invaded, "Comfort Women" were already there. It's just that culturally the Japanese are were far more open about it.

Rape and murder occurs within every war. However this isn't what we are talking about. State-backed Japanese prostitution rings were commonplace, torture happened to war prisoners. No Geneva convention. No habeas Corpus. No just war theory. Let me bring up something such as the Nanking Massacre:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html


"NANKING MASSACRE (December, 1937)

Known historically as the 'Rape of Nanking'. In 1937 (the real start of World War II) the Chinese capital (Nanking, now Nanjing) had a population of just over one million, including over 100,000 refugees. On December 13, the city fell to the invading Japanese troops. For the next six weeks the soldiers indulged in an orgy of indiscriminate killing, rape and looting. They shot at everyone on sight, whether out on the streets or peeking out of windows. The streets were soon littered with corpses, on one street a survivor counted 500 bodies. Girls as young as twelve, and women of all ages were raped by gangs of 15 or 20 soldiers, crazed by alcohol, who roamed the town in search of women. At the Jingling Women's University, students were carted away in trucks to work in Japanese army brothels. Over a thousand men were rounded up and marched to the banks of the Yangtze river where they were lined up and gunned to death to give practice in machine-gun traversing fire. Thousands of captured Chinese soldiers, many wounded, were simillary murdered. In the following six weeks, the Nanking Red Cross units alone, buried around 43,000 bodies. About 20,000 women and girls had been raped, most were then murdered. Over one hundred girls of the Ginling Girls School were raped. Department stores, shops, churches and houses were set on fire while drunken soldiers indulged in wholesale looting and bayoneting of Chinese civilians for sport. It is estimated that over 150,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers were killed in this, the most infamous atrocity committed by the Japanese army. Many had been shot in the back as they fled the city. In charge of the troops during this time was General Iwane Matsui. At the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Matsui was found guilty of a war crime unrelated to Nanking and sentenced to death. He was hanged in 1948. After the war, China tried about 800 persons for war crimes including those responsible for the Nanking and Shanghai massacres. The death penalty was given to 149 defendants. (It is known that one of the commanders during the atrocity was Prince Asaka, an uncle of Emperor Hirohito, but none of the Emperor's family was ever tried for war crimes).

American business man and Nazi Party member, John Rabe, who worked for Siemens in Nanking, became a hero to the Chinese when he established a seven square mile Safety Zone in the western side of the city to help protect civilians from the rampaging Japanese. Showing his Swastika armband and huge Nazi flags that adorned important buildings, the Japanese troops were reluctant to enter the zone. Known as the 'Good Nazi' he is reported to have saved the lives of over 200,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers. John Rabe died of a stroke in 1950 in Germany.




There's no such thing as a "Chinaman" either. China has over 20 distinctive cultures.

Freudian admission that you recognize there's distinct cultures, histories, and languages between people? Somewhat of a collectivist statement, no?

TheLibertarianNationalist
02-07-2012, 04:05 PM
Why do you think that's the case?

Please name one other pre-Randian philosopher that believes in the strict individualism that people in this thread are espousing.




This is a lengthy discussion outside the scope of this thread that I don't want to get into here, but humans have been stateless for the vast majority of their existence. Iceland existed with a stateless legal order longer than the US has been around. (http://mises.org/daily/1121) And everything you mentioned has been addressed many times over, it just shows that you need to look for the answers to those questions rather than making assumptions.

Again, the statelessness of humanity is hardly anything to gloat about. When people think of ancient civilizations they think of Greece, Rome, & Persia for a reason. They were organized societies with governments with a logical structure to them. Such as the Republican Roman Empire or Democratic Greece. Iceland has been stateless or at least primitivist for a while, but they had a population that numbered in the thousands and didn't accomplish anything close to what America has accomplished. Granted, their population was lower so this was expected. However if their population size were increased along with their relevance, I could see a conquest easily happen.




Those are the things that people use to define themselves and each other and their relationships. They're not objective entities. They're concepts that are subjective to the individuals imagining them. When you think "I'm an American" and someone else think's "I'm an American" they have a different concept for what "American" is in their head. It's just shorthand for organizing individuals in your brain. There is no objective "National Identity". When you say the "National Identity" gets fuzzy that's all in your head.

The vast majority in the world would recognize one as an American. They see our common heritage, culture, language, military, government, law, traditions, etc.. I would like to see how many different definitions of an American there are, because I've only heard a few, all closely related to each other. This blurryness over who or who isn't an American simply doesn't exist in our world. Otherwise we would have Iraqis randomly claiming to be American, or Canadians claiming to be apart of the United States due to our cultural similarities. But that doesn't happen whatsoever. Making a distinction between people, such as an American and a Congolese man makes perfect sense. You're keeping their culture, legal system, government and history in mind. Even Science will say humans naturally put themselves into groups, which one can see evidence for just by looking at a map of nations or religions. Which proves that nationalism does in fact exist within nature.

And limiting our immigration policy due to things like culture, tension, religion, racism, and politics make perfect sense, not only is this common sense but it's also a science. Otherwise you could be opening up America to racism, ethnic tension, a largely ignorant/foreign voting class that will elect Liberal Democrats or Moderate Republicans. But again, this violates the vague, mystical NAP and made-up property rights , so let's just forget it.

Enforcer
02-07-2012, 05:45 PM
I don't quite agree. The United States Federal Government has the authority to regulate those who come and go across our borders, that is the borders of the United States with other countries, and not within our borders, that is between States.

OMG You are trying to be anal retentive. The federal government gets to man the borders. Drop it and move on.

Since for the contiguous 48 States the only foreign countries that the United States has land borders with is Mexico and Canada, then the above premise implies that the United States Federal Government has the authority to regulate those individuals who come and go between Mexico and the United States, and between Canada and the United States.



And so it should be so. But unfortunately today the United States Federal Government, through it's flawed domestic and foreign policies, has created conditions along the border that are no longer peaceful. Thus they have created a 'need' for more stringent border control and for identifying those criminals who congregate along the U.S. Mexico border.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt

I have repeatedly stated that until the flawed domestic and foreign policies of the United States Federal Government are addressed and rectified, then there is no peaceful solution to be had, including your idea of a guest worker program, which the United States already has.

We do NOT have a Guest Worker program.

Personally I have worked with many many foreign nationals from all over the world, and they all followed legal guest worker programs to get their visas.

That is a LIE.

But not all individuals entering the USA are looking for legitimate work are they?

Well, the Socialist Security Administration says that 75 percent of those who entered without papers have a Taxpayer Identification Number and DO pay the taxes, others use fudged numbers, I have to wonder of those what percentage of those who work and pay the unconstitutional income tax compare to the few you obsess over?



Imagine that, the United States Federal Government is f@%ked up.

Why am I not surprised?



I am not arguing that the United States Federal Government has a rational immigration policy.

What part of that do you not understand?

But you seem to agree that the United States Federal Government does have the legitimate authority to set immigration policies, or am I wrong about that?

Asked and answered on numerous occasions. Read the freaking posts.


Again, why am I not surprised that the United States Federal Government has flawed immigration policies?

They do.

They also have flawed domestic and foreign policies that create circumstances that criminalize the US Mexico border in particular.

Do you disagree with this?

I do not agree in any way, shape, fashion or form.



I don't know where you're from but here in Mississippi I just need to go to my local State Troopers office and they will be kind enough to take care of my request for a concealed carry permit. So I don't follow your analogy.

Pretend to have an imagination and that suddenly were not true. If you went to get that permit, but nobody issued one because they never heard of it, what would you do then, Einstein?



Of the dozens of foreign nationals I worked with over the years all had followed the requisite legal mumbo-jumbo to be in the United States so I don't follow your argument.

There are those who wish to avoid legal entry into the USA for nefarious purposes as well, and while the policy shouldn't be to treat all people this way (which it is incidentally but that's a different discussion) neither should it ignore this fact.



Now you are losing me. How is this related to immigration policy?

My analogy was relative to IMPROPER actions. You did READ the post, didn't you? No, I don't think so. The example was one of an IMPROPER ACTION. THAT is the common denominator in the equation... IMPROPER that is.

You have digressed to conflating.

And you have devolved into making crap up to hide the fact that you cannot read.

I reiterate, Government is incompetent.



Oh I think you are doing better, but it isn't the minutia I'm interested in so much as understanding your world view.

Carry on.

WilliamC,

I worked in immigration law for six years. You are blowing smoke up folks arse with your claims. So, to prove the point, here's the challenge:

PRETEND you are the employer and own a restaurant. It's mid June. You want twelve Mexicans and have contacts in Mexico. The people want to come here to work, but have no American relatives; they do not want to become citizens; they do not want to go to school; the job is not agricultural or seasonal. It will last for an unknown amount of time. WHAT visa applies to that FACT SITUATION?

noneedtoaggress
02-07-2012, 05:47 PM
Please name one other pre-Randian philosopher that believes in the strict individualism that people in this thread are espousing.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism


Again, the statelessness of humanity is hardly anything to gloat about. When people think of ancient civilizations they think of Greece, Rome, & Persia for a reason. They were organized societies with governments with a logical structure to them. Such as the Republican Roman Empire or Democratic Greece. Iceland has been stateless or at least primitivist for a while, but they had a population that numbered in the thousands and didn't accomplish anything close to what America has accomplished. Granted, their population was lower so this was expected. However if their population size were increased along with their relevance, I could see a conquest easily happen.

Except the argument I was responding to was:


The fact is history has shown us that state-less societies never last that long.

Which is false. Now you're trying to argue that the state "civilizes" people and brings people out of a primitive life and into prosperity, which is also false. Property rights, production of wealth, peaceful trade and voluntary association is what generates prosperity and a civil society.


The vast majority in the world would recognize one as an American. They see our common heritage, culture, language, military, government, law, traditions, etc.. I would like to see how many different definitions of an American there are, because I've only heard a few, all closely related to each other. This blurryness over who or who isn't an American simply doesn't exist in our world.Otherwise we would have Iraqis randomly claiming to be American, or Canadians claiming to be apart of the United States due to our cultural similarities. But that doesn't happen whatsoever. Making a distinction between people, such as an American and a Congolese man makes perfect sense. You're keeping their culture, legal system, government and history in mind. Even Science will say humans naturally put themselves into groups, which one can see evidence for just by looking at a map of nations or religions. Which proves that nationalism does in fact exist within nature.

And limiting our immigration policy due to things like culture, tension, religion, racism, and politics make perfect sense, not only is this common sense but it's also a science. Otherwise you could be opening up America to racism, ethnic tension, a largely ignorant/foreign voting class that will elect Liberal Democrats or Moderate Republicans. But again, this violates the vague, mystical NAP and made-up property rights , so let's just forget it.

You obviously don't seem to grasp what I've been talking about. Picture a giraffe. That is a concept in you mind. It doesn't exist outside your mind. There are actual, living, biological creatures which are similar to the picture in your mind which do exist. When you see one, you compare it's features to the concept you hold and say that physical object (living physical biological organism) is a Giraffe (name for the concept you hold which allows you to classify individual, real-world animals, as giraffes).

Now get this. When I say this to someone else: "Picture a giraffe." They aren't thinking of the exact same thing you were, they have their own picture in their mind of what a giraffe is. They are probably thinking of something close to what you were, and they would likely agree with you that an animal you call a giraffe is a giraffe as well.

I never said anything about "blurryness over who or who isn't an American". I said they were nothing more than concepts and labels. I said that when you group real individuals together it's just a concept in your mind and that they aren't sentient, acting entities in the real world. It's just a way of organizing and compressing information in your head in a way that you can comprehend in an attempt to process information in a world too complex for humans to understand.

When you say "The Americans voted in Barack Obama as President", you lose information about individual actors and it can cause some pretty bad distortions.

Did "we", as part of the (conceptual non-acting) group "The Americans", vote in Barack Obama as president?

Did "we" as part of the group (American) Ron Paul supporters, vote for Barack Obama as president?

Did you, as a (real, acting, sentient) individual, vote for Barack Obama as President?

WilliamC
02-07-2012, 07:58 PM
WilliamC,

I worked in immigration law for six years. You are blowing smoke up folks arse with your claims. So, to prove the point, here's the challenge:

PRETEND you are the employer and own a restaurant. It's mid June. You want twelve Mexicans and have contacts in Mexico. The people want to come here to work, but have no American relatives; they do not want to become citizens; they do not want to go to school; the job is not agricultural or seasonal. It will last for an unknown amount of time. WHAT visa applies to that FACT SITUATION?

I'm not going to try and bother parsing out the quotes you made inside of my quote, but you sure are belligerent to those who are simply trying to understand where you are coming from.

I don't care where you worked I'm not blowing smoke up your ass, the folks I worked with from foreign countries all had visas and went through whatever legal hoops they had to go through to get to the USA. Call it what you want, believe it or not, they had visa's and several of them went on to become legal US residents and even US citizens, so yes there are legal immigration routes currently in place for foreign citizens.

You seem to have a beef with the USA's immigration policy with Mexico, since that is the specific example you use. I can't help the fact that the USA has an irrational immigration policy and have repeatedly stated that both foreign and domestic policy needs to change before it is possible for the USA to have a rational immigration policy. You also ignore the crime on the border and the additional burdens it creates with respect to immigration policy.

Why you want 12 Mexicans, as opposed to 12 employees, I don't know, but I'm not going to fall for your baiting; I am not arguing against Mexicans.

In your hypothetical scenario, I would want 12 employees, damned if I care what Nationality they are, I just want them to be great employees so that I can run a great restaurant and make lot's of money.

In your hypothetical situation the restaurant manager should put out help wanted adds and first try to hire locally, then perhaps contact the city/county governments to see if they have leads for employees, then perhaps the State government if that doesn't work.

I don't think that the Federal Government should be involved in helping restaurant owners find employees at all.

As for citizens of any foreign country wishing to come to the USA for any employment, now that I could see being managed by the Federal Government simply to vet the individuals for legal entry into the USA, but as for as actual job placement I don't think the Federal Government should be doing that.

WilliamC
02-07-2012, 08:06 PM
Did you even read my last post?

After my second quote in your post, where you strike out my word immigration and next to it put slavery, I sort of stopped reading.

See, you are trying to make it appear as if I'm arguing for slavery by falsely showing the arguments I make about immigration somehow mean I would also support slavery with that same reasoning.

That is a false assumption on your part.

If you want to equate slavery with immigration, then do so openly and we can have that discussion.

To try and slip it in as you did is dishonest and causes me to be uncertain if you are actually engaging in civil discourse or simply trolling.



You've been attempting to attack my character in order to discredit me and avoid my arguments and I'm the dishonest one?

You certainly are not sending clear signals as to your positions.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/7/129100729828671586.jpg

Nice one :)

Enforcer
02-07-2012, 08:33 PM
I'm not going to try and bother parsing out the quotes you made inside of my quote, but you sure are belligerent to those who are simply trying to understand where you are coming from.

I don't care where you worked I'm not blowing smoke up your ass, the folks I worked with from foreign countries all had visas and went through whatever legal hoops they had to go through to get to the USA. Call it what you want, believe it or not, they had visa's and several of them went on to become legal US residents and even US citizens, so yes there are legal immigration routes currently in place for foreign citizens.

You seem to have a beef with the USA's immigration policy with Mexico, since that is the specific example you use. I can't help the fact that the USA has an irrational immigration policy and have repeatedly stated that both foreign and domestic policy needs to change before it is possible for the USA to have a rational immigration policy. You also ignore the crime on the border and the additional burdens it creates with respect to immigration policy.

Why you want 12 Mexicans, as opposed to 12 employees, I don't know, but I'm not going to fall for your baiting; I am not arguing against Mexicans.

In your hypothetical scenario, I would want 12 employees, damned if I care what Nationality they are, I just want them to be great employees so that I can run a great restaurant and make lot's of money.

In your hypothetical situation the restaurant manager should put out help wanted adds and first try to hire locally, then perhaps contact the city/county governments to see if they have leads for employees, then perhaps the State government if that doesn't work.

I don't think that the Federal Government should be involved in helping restaurant owners find employees at all.

As for citizens of any foreign country wishing to come to the USA for any employment, now that I could see being managed by the Federal Government simply to vet the individuals for legal entry into the USA, but as for as actual job placement I don't think the Federal Government should be doing that.

WilliamC,

The basic reason you get the kinds of responses that I give is that you fail to really try to understand the other guy's viewpoint.

For instance, if an employer wanted to hire twelve Mexicans, that is HIS business, not mine... damn sure not yours. But, you don't want to put yourself in the place of such an employer. You know, maybe his experience is that Mexicans work harder and he speaks Spanish as a first language. Maybe it's an authentic Mexican restaurant. Who gives a rat's ass? I asked you to put yourself in another guy's place and all you have is smart ass responses in order to avoid the subject.

Surely you are not so much of a dullard that you cannot understand that even if the United States allows a million foreigners in here per day, the visas might not cover every FACT SITUATION. What in the Hell do you really want out of people to whom no "proper" means has been established for them to enter by? Had you rather they lie to you and say they are really interested in coming here to be students, when all they really want is a $7.50 an hour job? What is it about the English language that baffles you?

George W. Bush advocated a Guest Worker program... I've heard the concept come out of mouths like Mitt Romney's and Rick Santorum's AND Ron Paul acknowledges that the immigration laws are too draconian in many circumstances.

The fact is, we do not have a Guest Worker program; the visa system does not cover all fact situations; laws that deny to PERSONS the equal protection of the law (14th Amendment to the Constitution) may legally be ignored. I tried to help you understand the problem with the analogy about a gun permit, but you have the imagination of a Doberman. But, what would you do if the law said you needed the permit to carry a firearm, but no agency or branch of the government issued a permit?

I understand the dilemma. In 1976 I was arrested for "possession of burglary tools without a license." I was a locksmith doing a service call from my personal vehicle after hours. When I went to the hearing, the judge asked me why I didn't have a license. I said, "I do." Then I had to explain that the only license that the county issued was a business license and it stated across the bottom in large letters: To be posted in a conspicuous manner on the business premises. How was I supposed to do service calls when the license had to be at the business premises?

The foreigners have the same, exact dilemma. They are told to come here properly, but no such proper channel exists for their FACT SITUATION. It don't matter how many visas are issued for families of Americans, students, agricultural workers, or white collar workers if the foreigner does not fit those categories. How can that be that difficult for you to understand?

I realize that you have no imagination, but for crying out loud, you cannot possibly be that stupid. OR maybe you think others really are??? THERE ARE NO VISAS IN EXISTENCE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT COVER THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING NON-AGRICULTURAL, BLUE COLLAR JOBS. Therefore, there is technically no law for them to break since 8 USC 1325 (which covers IMPROPER ENTRY) states that a person "enters {improperly} or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers...

Since there is no designated way for Guest Workers to enter, the law simply does not apply... and it is only a civil violation to begin with.

This ain't rocket science.

noneedtoaggress
02-07-2012, 08:54 PM
After my second quote in your post, where you strike out my word immigration and next to it put slavery, I sort of stopped reading.

See, you are trying to make it appear as if I'm arguing for slavery by falsely showing the arguments I make about immigration somehow mean I would also support slavery with that same reasoning.

That is a false assumption on your part.

I'm comparing them because they are both unjust laws. I'm comparing them to show you how. You don't want to even think of illegal immigration laws as anti-liberty so you're coming up with all sorts of excuses, attack my character, and then ignore my posts because you're just that offended that I could possibly compare illegal immigration to slavery.


If you want to equate slavery with immigration, then do so openly and we can have that discussion.

Third time's a charm:


If you're a peaceful hardworking person who hasn't infringed on anyone's rights and move somewhere, and find someone who voluntarily wants to pay you to work for him so you can support yourself... and then some people who don't think you should be there (for whatever reason) turn around and get a gang together to push you out of "their" hood through the use of force then they're nothing more than a thuggish gang with no respect for property rights and voluntary association.

If you're a slave who a group of people declares has no rights and you run away and they get a gang together to hunt you down and force you back into slavery then they're nothing more than a thuggish gang with no respect for property rights and voluntary association.


To try and slip it in as you did is dishonest and causes me to be uncertain if you are actually engaging in civil discourse or simply trolling.

You're acting like I was trying to be subtle about it, when it's been a significant part of the responses I made. You're ignoring my arguments and attacking my character when it's clear that I'm not doing what you say I'm doing. How is that civil discourse?



You certainly are not sending clear signals as to your positions.

I don't know how much more you want me to clarify, but reading my posts might be a good start to fixing that problem.


http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/7/129100729828671586.jpg

Nice one :)

Thnx. ;)

WilliamC
02-08-2012, 12:35 PM
WilliamC,

The basic reason you get the kinds of responses that I give is that you fail to really try to understand the other guy's viewpoint.

For instance, if an employer wanted to hire twelve Mexicans, that is HIS business, not mine... damn sure not yours.

You have created a totally hypothetical situation. Why does the employer want to hire 12 Mexicans instead of 12 employees?

Sounds like you are introducing their nationality without any reason, well actually I'm sure you have a reason, I just don't know exactly what it is.


But, you don't want to put yourself in the place of such an employer. You know, maybe his experience is that Mexicans work harder and he speaks Spanish as a first language. Maybe it's an authentic Mexican restaurant. Who gives a rat's ass? I asked you to put yourself in another guy's place and all you have is smart ass responses in order to avoid the subject.

Dude, you are getting hung up on a make-believe scenario, and I'm not following you. I can't put myself into your hypothetical scenario without using my own experience.

Mine differs in that as a hypothetical restaurant owner I would want good employees, not Mexicans.

If you insist that they must be Mexicans, that's your bias.


Surely you are not so much of a dullard that you cannot understand that even if the United States allows a million foreigners in here per day, the visas might not cover every FACT SITUATION. What in the Hell do you really want out of people to whom no "proper" means has been established for them to enter by? Had you rather they lie to you and say they are really interested in coming here to be students, when all they really want is a $7.50 an hour job? What is it about the English language that baffles you?

You repeatedly ignore my statements that US immigration policy is not rational and instead keep premising that I am somehow defending this policy.

I am not.

But I find it difficult to argue against the idea that any Nation State has the legitimate authority to set immigration policy as part of what defines it's existence as a Nation State.


George W. Bush advocated a Guest Worker program... I've heard the concept come out of mouths like Mitt Romney's and Rick Santorum's AND Ron Paul acknowledges that the immigration laws are too draconian in many circumstances.

The fact is, we do not have a Guest Worker program; the visa system does not cover all fact situations; laws that deny to PERSONS the equal protection of the law (14th Amendment to the Constitution) may legally be ignored. I tried to help you understand the problem with the analogy about a gun permit, but you have the imagination of a Doberman. But, what would you do if the law said you needed the permit to carry a firearm, but no agency or branch of the government issued a permit?

Again, you repeatedly ignore my assertions that I do not believe the current immigration policies of the USA are rational, and instead suggest that I am somehow defending them, and you are not really interested in making converts as in arguing given your insulting attitude.

What part of Government is incompetent do you not understand?

Why do you think I somehow want to deny equal protection under the law to non-citizens in the United States, especially if they have not committed any violent or property crimes?


I understand the dilemma. In 1976 I was arrested for "possession of burglary tools without a license." I was a locksmith doing a service call from my personal vehicle after hours. When I went to the hearing, the judge asked me why I didn't have a license. I said, "I do." Then I had to explain that the only license that the county issued was a business license and it stated across the bottom in large letters: To be posted in a conspicuous manner on the business premises. How was I supposed to do service calls when the license had to be at the business premises?

Not really related to immigration policy but again government is incompetent. Why are we arguing about this?


The foreigners have the same, exact dilemma. They are told to come here properly, but no such proper channel exists for their FACT SITUATION. It don't matter how many visas are issued for families of Americans, students, agricultural workers, or white collar workers if the foreigner does not fit those categories. How can that be that difficult for you to understand?

For the umpteenth time government is incompetent, including US immigration policy.

In a more rational, free-market economy we wouldn't have the crime associated with the US Mexico border however, and until this problem is resolved there is no peaceful solution to immigration and travel across it.


I realize that you have no imagination, but for crying out loud, you cannot possibly be that stupid. OR maybe you think others really are??? THERE ARE NO VISAS IN EXISTENCE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT COVER THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING NON-AGRICULTURAL, BLUE COLLAR JOBS. Therefore, there is technically no law for them to break since 8 USC 1325 (which covers IMPROPER ENTRY) states that a person "enters {improperly} or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers...

Where have I been arguing for these people to be arrested if they haven't broken laws pertaining to everyone, including citizens?

Seems you think that just because I see a role for the US Federal Government in setting immigration policy for the United States (and in a more perfect society said role would largely consist of vetting individuals for crimes against people/property) you seem to think I am against foreign workers.

I am not, I just realize that there are criminal elements using the US Mexico border to further violent crime in the USA, and that's a big problem that unfortunately falls within the purview of the US Federal Government to deal with.

You come across as somewhat hostile and thin-skinned, but that's the internet for you I guess.


Since there is no designated way for Guest Workers to enter, the law simply does not apply... and it is only a civil violation to begin with. This ain't rocket science.

Neither is Dale Carnage.

Enforcer
02-08-2012, 06:04 PM
You have created a totally hypothetical situation. Why does the employer want to hire 12 Mexicans instead of 12 employees?

Sounds like you are introducing their nationality without any reason, well actually I'm sure you have a reason, I just don't know exactly what it is.

If you quit acting stupid, you would know what the reason is. We're talking about FACT SITUATIONS. It's obvious you are probably in the eighth grade, so let me make it simple for you:

A FACT SITUATION works like this:

Visas are geared toward certain FACTS. The fact is some people want to come here and learn. They get a student visa. Some people come here as seasonal agricultural workers. That's a fact situation. Now, a student cannot get a work visa to go to school. That is illegal. So, they have to get the visa that fits their FACT SITUATION.

You keep wanting to dodge and duck the issues. I think you are a professional troll, myself, but you might just be uneducated. Let's face it, you have no imagination AND you cannot accept the fact that an employer might require the services of a Hispanic... be it a genuine need or a preference. I had to pick Mexicans because every country is treated differently. As stated in earlier posts, Cubans (as an example) are safe the moment their feet hit American soil.

You know full well what my intentions are, unless you lied in earlier posts (which is obvious to me you did.) It doesn't matter what the reason is. An employer finds twelve Mexicans he wants to hire. It's his jobs; it's his business; it's his money. Who in the Hell are you to tell the employer who he can and cannot hire? And quit being coy. Admit it. No visa fits that employer's needs. That's the freaking point!



Dude, you are getting hung up on a make-believe scenario, and I'm not following you. I can't put myself into your hypothetical scenario without using my own experience.

Are you a dullard?

Mine differs in that as a hypothetical restaurant owner I would want good employees, not Mexicans.

That's your choice, but you have no legal or moral right to force it on another employer. Another employer may tell you that Mexicans are the best employees.

If you insist that they must be Mexicans, that's your bias.

No sir, it is the bias of MILLIONS of employers that willingly hire them over others.


You repeatedly ignore my statements that US immigration policy is not rational and instead keep premising that I am somehow defending this policy.

I am not.

But I find it difficult to argue against the idea that any Nation State has the legitimate authority to set immigration policy as part of what defines it's existence as a Nation State.



Again, you repeatedly ignore my assertions that I do not believe the current immigration policies of the USA are rational, and instead suggest that I am somehow defending them, and you are not really interested in making converts as in arguing given your insulting attitude.

I'm not trying to convert you to a damn thing. I have nothing to sell. I'm tired of people who say they like Ron Paul trying to impose their standards on the rest of the world. It's counter to Ron Paul's platform. If you think Mexicans are nasty and lazy, that's your prerogative, that's your Right. If someone thinks the Mexicans hung the freaking moon, that is their prerogative. Live and let live. Just because someone disagrees with you and had rather hire someone other than a National ID carrying, USDA approved. Socialist Security believing subject of the United Socialist States of Amerika, does not negate the fact they have every Right to do so.

What part of Government is incompetent do you not understand?

Why do you think I somehow want to deny equal protection under the law to non-citizens in the United States, especially if they have not committed any violent or property crimes?

Maybe I feel that way because you will continue to use phrases like "illegal" alien / immigrant at the expense of my Liberty, yours and everyone else.



Not really related to immigration policy but again government is incompetent. Why are we arguing about this?



For the umpteenth time government is incompetent, including US immigration policy.

In a more rational, free-market economy we wouldn't have the crime associated with the US Mexico border however, and until this problem is resolved there is no peaceful solution to immigration and travel across it.

That statement either needs elaboration or it makes no sense. Try again.


Where have I been arguing for these people to be arrested if they haven't broken laws pertaining to everyone, including citizens?

Seems you think that just because I see a role for the US Federal Government in setting immigration policy for the United States (and in a more perfect society said role would largely consist of vetting individuals for crimes against people/property) you seem to think I am against foreign workers.

So, set a freaking policy. Pass a Guest Worker program that addresses the immediate need and move on.

I am not, I just realize that there are criminal elements using the US Mexico border to further violent crime in the USA, and that's a big problem that unfortunately falls within the purview of the US Federal Government to deal with.

Criminal activity versus people that partake of opportunities willing offered are horses of a different color.

You come across as somewhat hostile and thin-skinned, but that's the internet for you I guess.



Neither is Dale Carnage.

WilliamC,

You attempt to come across as all-knowing, but fail on many counts. If you cannot understand analogies and hypothetical examples in order to illustrate a point, you are not qualified to vote NOR offer a valid opinion on any legal or political topic.

In every analogy; in every example, there was a legal principle involved. Nobody says you have to agree with what is being said. You merely have to put yourself in another guy's boots. When I said that maybe a person NEEDS twelve Mexicans, it's purely hypothetical. I don't always know the reasons. I realize you won't get much out of this, but here is my own experience:

In 2001 I was laid off from my job. I had no immediate need for a lot of money so I applied for a job in my neighborhood as a butcher trainee. I was hoping for a fall back survival skill I could turn in to money in hard times. Well, the guy at the store claimed he was out of applications and the manager wasn't there. We went through that scene for three days, when I produced a very neatly typed resume. At that point, the guy behind the counter leveled with me. He said:

"I can tell by listening to you that you are from around here. You don't have a very big family, do you?" Of course I didn't and had to admit to it. He continued: "I'm looking to hire one of the local Mexicans. You are a single guy with no family. You draw your check and other than your services, it doesn't benefit me. If I hire a Mexican, he will have a big family and he will buy his meat from me. He will recommend me to his friends." Anyway, that was HIS reason. I never bought from that guy because he locked American workers out. But, I am here today to defend his Right to do so. It's his business. Locking foreigners out under the pretext of them being "illegal" when OUR system does not anticipate their fact situation is just a chickensh!+ way of promoting racism without having the courage to stand up publicly for your convictions.

The reason we're arguing over this is that I know what it's like to be presumed guilty of a crime absent due process and I have seen enough of this repackaged National Socialist propaganda, so can the innocent act. You and I know it's one or the other. IF you cannot imagine scenarios and you cannot identify legal principles based upon analogies, you do not need to be in this discussion.

So, if you have nothing else, you can argue with the others that are calling you on your nonsensical postings.

WilliamC
02-09-2012, 11:11 AM
WilliamC,
You attempt to come across as all-knowing, but fail on many counts.

You sure do have some strange opinions about me.

All knowing? Really?

I have no idea who you are and where you are coming from nor whether or not you are an honest debater or a troll, but you are painting yourself further into the latter corner.

What is with the red-lettered replies within the quote of mine that doesn't show up when I respond to your post? Are you just trying to throw in some gratuitous insults and make it seem I don't have a response to them because I won't be bothered to take the time to parse them out?

More than anything else this strongly indicates to me that you are not being forthright in your positions.

If you are compelled to insult me do it in the main part of your post where it shows up when I respond, otherwise it makes you look immature. At least to me.


If you cannot understand analogies and hypothetical examples in order to illustrate a point, you are not qualified to vote NOR offer a valid opinion on any legal or political topic.

No, I just don't buy into your hypothetical example without expounding upon it. After all it's hypothetical, so that means that the parameters aren't established until they are well-defined.

Nothing requires me to accept any hypothetical scenario you come up with as valid.


In every analogy; in every example, there was a legal principle involved. Nobody says you have to agree with what is being said. You merely have to put yourself in another guy's boots. When I said that maybe a person NEEDS twelve Mexicans, it's purely hypothetical.

See here's where you fail me. Your example was a restaurant owner who needs 12 employees. Automatically you want me to accept that the only valid way he can get his employees is to get them from the Nation of Mexico. Now this is a different situation, since I am forced to wonder why a hypothetical restaurant owner would want 12 Mexicans rather than 12 employees. Then I am wondering why you are specifying Mexicans rather than some other nationality.


I don't always know the reasons.

You don't know the reasons you are postulating your hypothetical scenario?


I realize you won't get much out of this, but here is my own experience:

In 2001 I was laid off from my job. I had no immediate need for a lot of money so I applied for a job in my neighborhood as a butcher trainee. I was hoping for a fall back survival skill I could turn in to money in hard times. Well, the guy at the store claimed he was out of applications and the manager wasn't there. We went through that scene for three days, when I produced a very neatly typed resume. At that point, the guy behind the counter leveled with me. He said:

"I can tell by listening to you that you are from around here. You don't have a very big family, do you?" Of course I didn't and had to admit to it. He continued: "I'm looking to hire one of the local Mexicans. You are a single guy with no family. You draw your check and other than your services, it doesn't benefit me. If I hire a Mexican, he will have a big family and he will buy his meat from me. He will recommend me to his friends." Anyway, that was HIS reason. I never bought from that guy because he locked American workers out. But, I am here today to defend his Right to do so. It's his business. Locking foreigners out under the pretext of them being "illegal" when OUR system does not anticipate their fact situation is just a chickensh!+ way of promoting racism without having the courage to stand up publicly for your convictions.

I don't think US immigration policies should be based upon your personal experience. Sorry.


The reason we're arguing over this is that I know what it's like to be presumed guilty of a crime absent due process and I have seen enough of this repackaged National Socialist propaganda, so can the innocent act.

Ah, here is the crux of your problem. You are assuming that I am a false debater and have unstated premises, namely premises which would support National Socialist propaganda.

That is news to me. Do you think that any nation which sets immigration laws is automatically socialist?

What about a State or County government that sets laws regarding employment?


You and I know it's one or the other. IF you cannot imagine scenarios and you cannot identify legal principles based upon analogies, you do not need to be in this discussion.

Well I am close to putting you on ignore but I figure I'll give you one more chance. I may learn something, like that there are people out there who think I am some sort of National Socialist.

That's a new one for me.


So, if you have nothing else, you can argue with the others that are calling you on your nonsensical postings.

I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I think I have a pretty good idea, and it doesn't seem to be an interesting place. Rather angry and petulant from what I can tell.

Your continued insults and name calling strongly indicate you are not interested in rational discourse and achieving mutual understanding, at least not at the expense of somehow scoring imaginary points in your own personal debate game you are playing.

Enforcer
02-09-2012, 06:29 PM
You sure do have some strange opinions about me.

All knowing? Really?

I have no idea who you are and where you are coming from nor whether or not you are an honest debater or a troll, but you are painting yourself further into the latter corner.

I could only say, it takes a troll to know one.

What is with the red-lettered replies within the quote of mine that doesn't show up when I respond to your post? Are you just trying to throw in some gratuitous insults and make it seem I don't have a response to them because I won't be bothered to take the time to parse them out?

What's with your endless attempts to address every sentence with B.S. that necessitates a red letter response so that people can see the counter - argument?

More than anything else this strongly indicates to me that you are not being forthright in your positions.

You've been calling me a liar all this time and impugning the character of others. Perhaps the real problem is that YOU don't like being forthright.

If you are compelled to insult me do it in the main part of your post where it shows up when I respond, otherwise it makes you look immature. At least to me.

You are the one that looks immature. You're afraid to address me in a manner where I can respond in a give and take fashion. Stay tuned to when I do a main post and take a hint as to how you should respond. Quit quoting every sentence and I won't have to do this shit with the red letters.



No, I just don't buy into your hypothetical example without expounding upon it. After all it's hypothetical, so that means that the parameters aren't established until they are well-defined.

I really don't care what you "buy" into. You cannot tell the difference between an analogy that gives you a legal principle to consider and a hypothetical situation. Your are, therefore, not qualified to hold any civil discourse on this subject since the law applies precedents (legal principles and analogies from other cases) to arrive at some semblance of justice.

Nothing requires me to accept any hypothetical scenario you come up with as valid.

Common sense should... IF you hope to understand the principle.



See here's where you fail me. Your example was a restaurant owner who needs 12 employees. Automatically you want me to accept that the only valid way he can get his employees is to get them from the Nation of Mexico. Now this is a different situation, since I am forced to wonder why a hypothetical restaurant owner would want 12 Mexicans rather than 12 employees. Then I am wondering why you are specifying Mexicans rather than some other nationality.

There may be a hundred ways to get a qualified employee; however, an employer is not bound by YOUR standards. Neither is an employer required to hire who YOU think should get the job. As I stated, I do not know all the reasons that employers hire foreigners. All I know is, it is their choice AND if I deny them their choice, it will cost me something. The anti - immigrant lobby in this country has given us the so - called "Patriot Act," National ID (REAL ID Act), the National Defense Authorization Act, the end of innocent until proven guilty, the crackdown on your Miranda Warnings, the proliferation of warrant less searches, plus much, much more.



You don't know the reasons you are postulating your hypothetical scenario?

I know the reasons I postulated the hypothetical scenarios. You chose to be dishonest and drag this out rather than to give an honest answer.



I don't think US immigration policies should be based upon your personal experience. Sorry.

Immigration policies should not be based upon a popularity contest NOR your lack of regard for the Liberties of your fellow man.



Ah, here is the crux of your problem. You are assuming that I am a false debater and have unstated premises, namely premises which would support National Socialist propaganda.

So far, you've done NOTHING on this forum that leads me to believe you understand the concept of Liberty.

That is news to me. Do you think that any nation which sets immigration laws is automatically socialist?

If a nation denies God given, UNALIENABLE Rights, they are certainly suspect.

What about a State or County government that sets laws regarding employment?

No government official needs to dictate who an employer can hire. Employers create the jobs. They belong to the employer to give to whomever they damn well please.





Well I am close to putting you on ignore but I figure I'll give you one more chance. I may learn something, like that there are people out there who think I am some sort of National Socialist.

Maybe it is because you are advocating the primary feature of the NS agenda.

That's a new one for me.



I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I think I have a pretty good idea, and it doesn't seem to be an interesting place. Rather angry and petulant from what I can tell.

Your continued insults and name calling strongly indicate you are not interested in rational discourse and achieving mutual understanding, at least not at the expense of somehow scoring imaginary points in your own personal debate game you are playing.

WilliamC,

Each of your concerns has been answered honestly and intelligently. You've chosen to attempt to change words and sentences around and dodge every honest inquiry made to you. You accuse others of "hiding" something while you have not given a straight answer even ONCE. Some of your questions give away a hidden agenda. For instance, asking me the government should have a role in who the employer hires.

This issue is plain and simple:

There have been as many as 12 million people without papers in the United States. According to the chief actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, upwards of 75 per cent of those in the United States have Taxpayer Identification Numbers and pay the same unconstitutional taxes as the half of taxpaying American citizens. Per capita, they are more likely to pay taxes than their American counterparts.

Obviously, with that level of compliance to an unconstitutional tax, the average undocumented person is here for a legitimate purpose. A real "crime" presumes that a person is out to do you harm. Ayn Rand once wrote something applicable to this:

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws".

When it comes to tyranny, you are advocating the very thing Ayn Rand was writing about. For whatever reason, you do not want some human beings to be able to exercise the Right to Liberty. Maybe you feel that reason is just, but you sure as Hell do not want to share it with us. I'm not B.S.ing you one bit pal. My dog in the fight is that each of these laws that have been designed to create human registration papers for the foreigners and screw with them have been applied to the citizenry of the U.S. to the point that we now live in a Socialist cesspool and there is still no end to the bigger and more intrusive government that anti - immigrants demand.

I do not know why some employers choose foreigners over Americans (except they will work harder for less and be more productive.) Some employers work people through temporary agencies and avoid having to put out money for insurance and 401k expenditures. I think the practice is deplorable, but that's their Right. If the jobs belong to the people, then we do not have a Right of ownership in the U.S. That, sir, is the essence of socialism. It's a point you artfully dodge.

Nothing has changed the bottom line in this worthless debate with you. If 75 percent of the people without human registration papers are paying taxes that even you probably do not pay, they are not here with a criminal intent. Furthermore, after six years of doing immigration work, if a "proper" method existed, you and I would not be having this discussion. The visa system, which is half a century old, has not kept pace with the situations that happen. If you deny to an employer his Right to hire whomever they choose, you have betrayed the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment... which guarantees the "equal protection of the laws."

Go ahead and put me on your ignore list. That way I can comment on your threads without having this long, drawn out discussion where I give honest answers and you sling a lot sh!+.

WilliamC
02-10-2012, 06:28 AM
I'm comparing them because they are both unjust laws. I'm comparing them to show you how. You don't want to even think of illegal immigration laws as anti-liberty so you're coming up with all sorts of excuses, attack my character, and then ignore my posts because you're just that offended that I could possibly compare illegal immigration to slavery.

Third time's a charm:

You're acting like I was trying to be subtle about it, when it's been a significant part of the responses I made. You're ignoring my arguments and attacking my character when it's clear that I'm not doing what you say I'm doing. How is that civil discourse?

Ok, I get that you are premising that slavery is somehow equal to immigration, I'm sorry I didn't immediately pick up on that. As far as attacking your character, well sometimes I do tend to try and use pointed humor as a debating tool, perhaps not very effectively.

I disagree that slavery and immigration are equal, I think that a government, as part of it's existence, has a legitimate authority to decide within the geographical area it governs certain laws, and among those are laws related to who can live, work, and receive government benefits should they exist.

This doesn't mean I think all governments a priori have an obligation to do this, but as someone who cannot understand how anarchy would every work in our world barring some global utopian enlightenment, I do believe that large enough human populations will inevitably self-organize into governments.

Here where I live we happen to have a Federal Government which is corrupt, bloated, and ripe for collapse. It's bad policies and laws create all types of problems, including immigration problems, especially exacerbated by the drug war and the crime involved with it. Until these policies are addressed I don't see how it is possible to have a peaceful, open, free Southwest border between the United States and Mexico. Thus, despite it's creating conditions that foster the problem, there is a problem with illegal immigration, that is individuals deliberately immigrating to the United States in order to carry out property and violent crimes against US citizens and foreign nationals within the borders of the United States.

As flawed as our Federal Government is, I do think it is appropriate for there to be laws and policies in place to minimize the damage from these criminal immigrants, but the best solution would be to limit the Federal Government in many other areas so it does not create the problems in the first place. Then perhaps we could get to a situation where we would not have to worry so much about criminal foreign nationals trying to enter and live in the USA in order to conduct crimes. I do not think that it is rational nor would result in more peace and harmony and individual liberty if the US Federal Government would have even more of an open border policy than it does now until these other issues are largely resolved.

But to directly address the comparison of slavery and immigration, well I get confused because now we have to define what we mean.

Are you specifically referring to chattel slavery where humans are the legal property of other humans via application of preexisting laws codifying such, or are you using slavery in a more general sense to imply situations where citizens are forced to serve the government they live under through conscription or mandated payments and the like?

As for immigration I have a hard time understanding how any government can function without having some authority to select the individuals who choose to reside, live, and work in the geographical area said government is responsible for, and I have a hard time understanding how a National Government in particular doesn't have the authority to control who and what comes across it's borders.

Just because I think a government has authority to regulate traffic across it's borders to some degree though doesn't mean I think that the way it is currently being done is correct though.

So is your premise that all laws government makes regarding immigration policy be as unjust as laws government would make about slavery, assuming said government recognized slavery to begin with? That is are you suggesting that the very fact that the US Federal Government has an immigration policy enough to make the US Federal Government unjust and needing to be abolished?



I don't know how much more you want me to clarify, but reading my posts might be a good start to fixing that problem.

Sometimes I do scan things rapidly and reply in haste, this is true.



Thnx. ;)

Welcome.

teacherone
02-10-2012, 07:21 AM
Locking foreigners out under the pretext of them being "illegal" when OUR system does not anticipate their fact situation is just a chickensh!+ way of promoting racism without having the courage to stand up publicly for your convictions.

...... You and I know it's one or the other. IF you cannot imagine scenarios and you cannot identify legal principles based upon analogies, you do not need to be in this discussion.

It's not like you can have a law for every FACT SITUATION (never heard the phrase).

Your examples are like a Japanese tourist caught stealing bread whose defense is "I only had YEN, and since there is NO MECHANISM by which a Japanese tourist can purchase bread with YEN, I had to steal some."

The fact of the matter is there are immigration laws. Immigrants who break them know it and know the risks.

Feeding the Abscess
02-10-2012, 08:13 AM
Ok, I get that you are premising that slavery is somehow equal to immigration, I'm sorry I didn't immediately pick up on that. As far as attacking your character, well sometimes I do tend to try and use pointed humor as a debating tool, perhaps not very effectively.

He's only equating them in the sense that both are an infringement on your rights as a human being and are unjust laws. Slavery is a greater restriction of your rights than are immigration laws, but they are both infringements nonetheless.

noneedtoaggress
02-10-2012, 09:18 AM
I disagree that slavery and immigration are equal, I think that a government, as part of it's existence, has a legitimate authority to decide within the geographical area it governs certain laws, and among those are laws related to who can live, work, and receive government benefits should they exist.

Ok, but a government is just a group of individuals. The authority these governing agents have is no greater than the authority of each sovereign individual who gave up a part of their authority in order for the government to rule them. None of these individuals have the right to arbitrarily claim a geographical area as "their" territory. To do so is nothing short of a gang arbitrarily claiming a neighborhood as "their" territory and claiming the right to control it. It's no different. You don't legitimately obtain property by arbitrarily claiming something is yours and backing it up with force.

Government is limited by the limits of sovereign individuals who gave it power. To ignore this is to say that when individuals get together and call themselves a "government" all bets are off and might makes right. If that's the case then slavery is fine, so long as people form a government and formally make laws that recognize it as legal.


This doesn't mean I think all governments a priori have an obligation to do this, but as someone who cannot understand how anarchy would every work in our world barring some global utopian enlightenment, I do believe that large enough human populations will inevitably self-organize into governments.

Human populations will inevitably self-organize into governmental structures. Households, churches, places of business, etc all have rules, the difference is that the state is a coercive monopoly on law which is funded through threats of violence. It's possible to organize without a centralized monopoly funded with violence, and it won't take a "utopian" enlightenment, but an acceptance of free markets. It will eventually end as institutionalized slavery did, when enough people realize it's immoral, unnecessary, and necessarily harmful. This is what the very core of the liberty movement is.


Here where I live we happen to have a Federal Government which is corrupt, bloated, and ripe for collapse. It's bad policies and laws create all types of problems, including immigration problems, especially exacerbated by the drug war and the crime involved with it. Until these policies are addressed I don't see how it is possible to have a peaceful, open, free Southwest border between the United States and Mexico. Thus, despite it's creating conditions that foster the problem, there is a problem with illegal immigration, that is individuals deliberately immigrating to the United States in order to carry out property and violent crimes against US citizens and foreign nationals within the borders of the United States.

I understand where you're coming from, and to an extent I agree that the government has caused a lot of problems that don't help with the illegal immigration situation. But I find those laws unjust, and I think they're the least of the USG's problems, so I might as well argue for what I understand is right.

As far as using it as a protective measure. It's punishing innocent people. If you want the government to protect from violent drug-cartel thugs, then you should be more concerned about bringing an end to the drug war and bringing more attention to things like Operation: Fast and Furious.


As flawed as our Federal Government is, I do think it is appropriate for there to be laws and policies in place to minimize the damage from these criminal immigrants, but the best solution would be to limit the Federal Government in many other areas so it does not create the problems in the first place. Then perhaps we could get to a situation where we would not have to worry so much about criminal foreign nationals trying to enter and live in the USA in order to conduct crimes. I do not think that it is rational nor would result in more peace and harmony and individual liberty if the US Federal Government would have even more of an open border policy than it does now until these other issues are largely resolved.

It would result in more peace and harmony (and justice) to the innocent people who have to face the consequences of those laws. But again, I'm not going to argue that the USG hasn't created a problematic scenario, because it has. But it's going down the tubes whether we have open borders or not. Immigration laws won't stop that from happening by a long shot.


But to directly address the comparison of slavery and immigration, well I get confused because now we have to define what we mean.

Are you specifically referring to chattel slavery where humans are the legal property of other humans via application of preexisting laws codifying such, or are you using slavery in a more general sense to imply situations where citizens are forced to serve the government they live under through conscription or mandated payments and the like?

It doesn't matter. I was comparing them as an example of unjust laws. All of those are examples of unjust laws which are an invasions of rights.


As for immigration I have a hard time understanding how any government can function without having some authority to select the individuals who choose to reside, live, and work in the geographical area said government is responsible for, and I have a hard time understanding how a National Government in particular doesn't have the authority to control who and what comes across it's borders.

Just because I think a government has authority to regulate traffic across it's borders to some degree though doesn't mean I think that the way it is currently being done is correct though.

So is your premise that all laws government makes regarding immigration policy be as unjust as laws government would make about slavery, assuming said government recognized slavery to begin with? That is are you suggesting that the very fact that the US Federal Government has an immigration policy enough to make the US Federal Government unjust and needing to be abolished?

Well "illegal immigration" isn't on the top of my list of reasons to abolish the Federal Government, but sure, why not. :P


Sometimes I do scan things rapidly and reply in haste, this is true.

No worries. This response was much better with you taking the time and effort for this discourse to be possible.

It's not like I'm perfect either.


Welcome.

:D

Enforcer
02-10-2012, 04:45 PM
It's not like you can have a law for every FACT SITUATION (never heard the phrase).

Your examples are like a Japanese tourist caught stealing bread whose defense is "I only had YEN, and since there is NO MECHANISM by which a Japanese tourist can purchase bread with YEN, I had to steal some."

The fact of the matter is there are immigration laws. Immigrants who break them know it and know the risks.

The "risks" for an improper entry are a maximum $250 CIVIL FINE and deportation.

The visa system does have classes to fit people based upon who they are and why they want to come here. I used the term FACT SITUATION because that is what it amounts to. If you have a better term to describe why each visa fits a certain people / category, by all means correct me and I will use it.

The reality is that no visa exists that addresses the reasons and the people who enter the United States without papers, but for a legitimate purpose. It has always been questionable whether any law applies since we demand that people do something "properly," but fail to provide that "proper" mechanism.

You are acting like a dullard, much like the people that won't confine themselves to answering my simple questions. That is, most likely, because the answers are self evident. The immigration laws are unconstitutional because they are not uniform. The United States Supreme Court once opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

BTW, for you to claim to be a "teacher," your analogy sucks the big suck. A person goes to the bank and exchanges yen for dollars. There is a solution. If a foreigner wants to be a Guest Worker because an American offered them a job, there is no mechanism. Do you think that the people on this forum are stupid OR did you not know that?

The only "legal" way in (since you are too juvenile to understand the accurate legal term PROPER) for some people is to lie to the immigration authorities when all they want to do is exercise their Liberties. So, what you are advocating is to FORCE people to LIE to the immigration authorities in order to become citizens of a nation they do not want to be a citizen of? Are you effing kidding me?

teacherone
02-11-2012, 01:04 AM
The only "legal" way in (since you are too juvenile to understand the accurate legal term PROPER) for some people is to lie to the immigration authorities when all they want to do is exercise their Liberties. So, what you are advocating is to FORCE people to LIE to the immigration authorities in order to become citizens of a nation they do not want to be a citizen of? Are you effing kidding me?

But this is incorrect.

http://www.h1base.com/content/h2bvisa

Enforcer
02-12-2012, 01:11 AM
But this is incorrect.

http://www.h1base.com/content/h2bvisa

You obviously did not read the link you gave. Let me give you a relevant portion:

"...the H2B visa is that it requires 'labor certification' - an expensive and time consuming process that involves extensive advertising of the position, and satisfying the authorities that there are no US workers available to do the job.

That link also agrees with what I have told you in other posts. The H2B visa is capped at 66,000 per year. teacherone, I have a question:

Presupposing that there are still 12 Million people in the United States without papers and another TWO million entering annually, what percentage of those already here would ever qualify for the H2B visa? What percentage of the TWO million entering each year would be admitted properly?

You're the teacher here. So I will play student. If an employer is forced to go through a cumbersome and time consuming process to "prove" there are no qualified U.S. workers, then it must mean that employer does not own the jobs since they cannot give them to the person of their choice. Isn't it true that when the jobs are owned by the people (i.e. under government control) that constitutes socialism? Isn't ownership of production and labor by the government the very essence of socialism?

In order to keep the foreigners out and stifle business, you are telling us it is okay to create an expensive and time consuming process in order to deny to both the employer and the potential foreign employee their unalienable Rights?

Since the 14th Amendment guarantees ALL PERSONS (as differentiated from citizens) the equal protection of the laws, if we can make the process of discriminating against H2B workers expensive, difficult and numerically very minimal, will you argue for doing the same thing for ALL visas?

In a free market society / constitutional Republic, shouldn't the standard for the worker be that they have a job offer by a willing employer and proof that they will not become a public charge?

On what constitutional basis can you deny to the foreigner the equal protection of the laws?

On what constitutional basis can you tell an employer that you will make their life a living Hell if they prefer a foreign worker?

If you can dictate to the employer who they can and cannot hire, what are some of the other things you would advocate forcing an employer to do? Would you also dictate a gender based hiring quota? How about a race based quota?

teacherone
02-12-2012, 03:49 AM
You obviously did not read the link you gave. Let me give you a relevant portion:

"...the H2B visa is that it requires 'labor certification' - an expensive and time consuming process that involves extensive advertising of the position, and satisfying the authorities that there are no US workers available to do the job.

That link also agrees with what I have told you in other posts. The H2B visa is capped at 66,000 per year. teacherone, I have a question:



You've already agreed in this thread that the US Government has the right to regulate immigration. I gave you an example of that regulation. There are a number of VISAs that immigrant workers can apply for. (http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2010NIVWorkloadbyVisaCategory.pdf)

Some are accepted and some denied. That's regulation.

If you are arguing against the US's ability to regulate immigration then, as other posters have said previously, you are arguing for open borders and the end of the nation state.

This is fine by me - just set your premises. An end to the Welfare-Warfare state is an interesting topic as well.

WilliamC
02-12-2012, 06:06 AM
WilliamC,

Each of your concerns has been answered honestly and intelligently. You've chosen to attempt to change words and sentences around and dodge every honest inquiry made to you. You accuse others of "hiding" something while you have not given a straight answer even ONCE. Some of your questions give away a hidden agenda. For instance, asking me the government should have a role in who the employer hires.

This issue is plain and simple:

There have been as many as 12 million people without papers in the United States. According to the chief actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, upwards of 75 per cent of those in the United States have Taxpayer Identification Numbers and pay the same unconstitutional taxes as the half of taxpaying American citizens. Per capita, they are more likely to pay taxes than their American counterparts.

Obviously, with that level of compliance to an unconstitutional tax, the average undocumented person is here for a legitimate purpose. A real "crime" presumes that a person is out to do you harm. Ayn Rand once wrote something applicable to this:

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws".

When it comes to tyranny, you are advocating the very thing Ayn Rand was writing about. For whatever reason, you do not want some human beings to be able to exercise the Right to Liberty. Maybe you feel that reason is just, but you sure as Hell do not want to share it with us. I'm not B.S.ing you one bit pal. My dog in the fight is that each of these laws that have been designed to create human registration papers for the foreigners and screw with them have been applied to the citizenry of the U.S. to the point that we now live in a Socialist cesspool and there is still no end to the bigger and more intrusive government that anti - immigrants demand.

I do not know why some employers choose foreigners over Americans (except they will work harder for less and be more productive.) Some employers work people through temporary agencies and avoid having to put out money for insurance and 401k expenditures. I think the practice is deplorable, but that's their Right. If the jobs belong to the people, then we do not have a Right of ownership in the U.S. That, sir, is the essence of socialism. It's a point you artfully dodge.

Nothing has changed the bottom line in this worthless debate with you. If 75 percent of the people without human registration papers are paying taxes that even you probably do not pay, they are not here with a criminal intent. Furthermore, after six years of doing immigration work, if a "proper" method existed, you and I would not be having this discussion. The visa system, which is half a century old, has not kept pace with the situations that happen. If you deny to an employer his Right to hire whomever they choose, you have betrayed the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment... which guarantees the "equal protection of the laws."

Go ahead and put me on your ignore list. That way I can comment on your threads without having this long, drawn out discussion where I give honest answers and you sling a lot sh!+.

Look, when I hit the 'reply with quote' none of those red-lettered comments you make which insult me even show up, so I can't respond to them. I'm not interested in talking to someone who won't be bothered to put their comments in a post that I can in turn respond to. It defeats my goal of reaching mutual understanding.

If you aren't interested in having me respond to your posts, then I won't waste my time doing so. You are welcome to whatever opinions of me you may care to form based on this, indeed the detail of those opinions says much about your worldviews.

WilliamC
02-12-2012, 06:27 AM
I understand where you're coming from, and to an extent I agree that the government has caused a lot of problems that don't help with the illegal immigration situation. But I find those laws unjust, and I think they're the least of the USG's problems, so I might as well argue for what I understand is right.
:D

It seems we just have slightly different priorities on how to shrink the size of governments so that these problems can be dealt with in a more peaceful, rational fashion, that's all.

But as long as governments exist and operate over defined geographical areas there will be borders and laws pertaining to who can come and go across these borders, who can reside, live, and work within them. Otherwise the government would cease to exist as individuals in said geographical area would not have any reason to believe themselves accountable to the local law.

I just can't support anarchy until such time as we humans evolve since I always see anarchy as an unstable situation which will collapse into a de facto government in short order.

Enforcer
02-12-2012, 09:38 AM
You've already agreed in this thread that the US Government has the right to regulate immigration. I gave you an example of that regulation. There are a number of VISAs that immigrant workers can apply for. (http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2010NIVWorkloadbyVisaCategory.pdf)

Some are accepted and some denied. That's regulation.

If you are arguing against the US's ability to regulate immigration then, as other posters have said previously, you are arguing for open borders and the end of the nation state.

This is fine by me - just set your premises. An end to the Welfare-Warfare state is an interesting topic as well.

IF the visa system does not address FACT SITUATIONS, it does not address the issue and the government, by default, does not regulate immigration. Does the federal government have the authority to regulate immigration? YES. Do they HAVE to regulate immigration? NO.

When the visa system is designed to be too costly and too cumbersome to comply with AND the numbers do not address the actual need PLUS those regulations end in discriminatory practices for the employer, both the employer and the foreigner can legally ignore the laws... At least that is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court.

We've had "open borders" since before the colonists arrived. No sir, I do not like your womb to the tomb surveillance strategies, the National ID / REAL ID Act, the so - called "Patriot Act," warrant less searches, the assault on private property Rights, the repeal of innocent until proven guilty, the crackdown on the Miranda Warnings and this incessant B.S. of calling people "illegal" any freaking thing absent Due Process. No sir, I do not want to rebuild the Berlin Wall along the southern half of America and maintain a TRILLION DOLLAR agency to oppress American employers who had rather ship jobs overseas than to comply with idiotic laws that are designed for no other reason than to keep the Hispanics out of the U.S.

In order for immigration regulations to meet constitutional muster, they must treat all classes of people equally when they want to enter the United States for a legitimate purpose. When you deny to the employer the ability to hire whomever they choose, it is patently unconstitutional. PERIOD. Now then, I have answered your questions, now answer mine.

Enforcer
02-12-2012, 09:43 AM
Look, when I hit the 'reply with quote' none of those red-lettered comments you make which insult me even show up, so I can't respond to them. I'm not interested in talking to someone who won't be bothered to put their comments in a post that I can in turn respond to. It defeats my goal of reaching mutual understanding.

If you aren't interested in having me respond to your posts, then I won't waste my time doing so. You are welcome to whatever opinions of me you may care to form based on this, indeed the detail of those opinions says much about your worldviews.

Of course you can respond to my questions. Cut and paste the relevant sections. This constant point / counterpoint repeated over and over makes the thread too long and people are not going to read the same post fifty times.

I counter your arguments. You reply quoting what was already said. I counter and put all the previous discussion into the post. Adding insult to injury, you post stuff over and over that has already been addressed and / or is non-responsive. That ends up in the next post and so on and so on. IF we played this game your way, one response would be in excess of fifty paragraphs with every fourth posting I did.

teacherone
02-12-2012, 10:01 AM
IF the visa system does not address FACT SITUATIONS, it does not address the issue and the government, by default, does not regulate immigration. Does the federal government have the authority to regulate immigration? YES. Do they HAVE to regulate immigration? NO.

When the visa system is designed to be too costly and too cumbersome to comply with AND the numbers do not address the actual need PLUS those regulations end in discriminatory practices for the employer, both the employer and the foreigner can legally ignore the laws... At least that is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court.

We've had "open borders" since before the colonists arrived. No sir, I do not like your womb to the tomb surveillance strategies, the National ID / REAL ID Act, the so - called "Patriot Act," warrant less searches, the assault on private property Rights, the repeal of innocent until proven guilty, the crackdown on the Miranda Warnings and this incessant B.S. of calling people "illegal" any freaking thing absent Due Process. No sir, I do not want to rebuild the Berlin Wall along the southern half of America and maintain a TRILLION DOLLAR agency to oppress American employers who had rather ship jobs overseas than to comply with idiotic laws that are designed for no other reason than to keep the Hispanics out of the U.S.

In order for immigration regulations to meet constitutional muster, they must treat all classes of people equally when they want to enter the United States for a legitimate purpose. When you deny to the employer the ability to hire whomever they choose, it is patently unconstitutional. PERIOD. Now then, I have answered your questions, now answer mine.

I'm not sure if you've realized this, bur your arguments are exactly the same as any open border anarchist.

This is fine by me - your world-view is based on natural rights and that any two people have the inaliable right to enter into any contract of their own choosing.

Cool. No problem. Fine with me. There are plenty more like yourself on this forum.

I'm not sure why you insist on bringing in the Constitution into your arguments - you don't need the Constitution to achieve your goals - just an absence of a National Government and a free people.

This is of course not what Ron Paul represents - but I welcome your support none the less.

Be sure to donate in the upcoming moneybomb!

nbhadja
02-12-2012, 11:19 AM
America deserves the flood of illegal immigrants. How about America stops suppressing 3rd world countries by using the CIA to set up puppet corporatist governments that whore the people out to Western Corporations at slavery like wages. That is what causes people to want to leave their countries like Mexico.

If Mexico ever had a revolution and got a government that kicked out the central bankers, the imperialists western corporations who currently write the laws in Mexico than the US government would bomb Mexico to pieces.

Enforcer
02-12-2012, 11:39 AM
I'm not sure if you've realized this, bur your arguments are exactly the same as any open border anarchist.

This is fine by me - your world-view is based on natural rights and that any two people have the inaliable right to enter into any contract of their own choosing.

Cool. No problem. Fine with me. There are plenty more like yourself on this forum.

I'm not sure why you insist on bringing in the Constitution into your arguments - you don't need the Constitution to achieve your goals - just an absence of a National Government and a free people.

This is of course not what Ron Paul represents - but I welcome your support none the less.

Be sure to donate in the upcoming moneybomb!

You like to sound suave and educated, but you are highly misinformed. I am not for inalienable Rights; I am a supporter of unalienable Rights.

Unalienable Rights are rooted in the Declaration of Independence. And, according to Thomas Jefferson (the man that authored the Declaration of Independence):

"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, May 12, 1821

Jefferson drew heavily on John Locke for his philosophies and critics even argue that Jefferson plagiarized their work - which he did not, he only expounded on it. Locke was a prolific believer in Natural Rights.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson)

Letter to Justice William Johnson, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
So, your claim is that this is not what Ron Paul represents. Please do elaborate.

teacherone
02-12-2012, 01:09 PM
So, your claim is that this is not what Ron Paul represents. Please do elaborate.

Not sure why you're so antagonistic. Like I said, there are many other open border anarchists against the Nation State here on the forums - that's fine and dandy, just not what Ron Paul represents.

Instead of going on and on about fact situations, just admit that you are against the Nation of the US erecting and maintaining borders and regulating their crossing.

I appreciate any one who supports Ron Paul, Minarchists, Anarchist, Libertarians... etc.

Welcome to the forums Enforcer.

Enforcer
02-12-2012, 04:17 PM
Not sure why you're so antagonistic. Like I said, there are many other open border anarchists against the Nation State here on the forums - that's fine and dandy, just not what Ron Paul represents.

Instead of going on and on about fact situations, just admit that you are against the Nation of the US erecting and maintaining borders and regulating their crossing.

I appreciate any one who supports Ron Paul, Minarchists, Anarchist, Libertarians... etc.

Welcome to the forums Enforcer.

I am antagonistic because you asked me questions and I answered them forthrightly and honestly. You then inferred that I had some other agenda. I asked honest questions of you. You choose to ignore them as if you have a monopoly on the truth.

We already have borders. The one with Mexico was established in about 1848 (if my memory serves me right) in a treaty. Militarizing the border at the cost of jeopardizing our own constitutional Liberties is an idiotic show that I'm not willing get involved in. Benjamin Franklin once said:

"He who would trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety."

You've changed your tune from Ron Paul does not believe in Natural Rights to Ron Paul wants some kind of militarized border with a plan to maintain the status quo regarding immigration. According to one website:

"Paul believes that illegal immigrants should not be given an "unfair advantage" under law.[329] He has advocated for a "coherent immigration policy..."

Well now, even Ron Paul is a politician and can appease everyone sometimes. Ron Paul understands that undocumented workers are NOT illegal aliens as there no federal law that makes presence NOR entry a crime. Those who over-stay a visa or enter into fraudulent schemes to come / stay in the United States are committing crimes, so Ron Paul is addressing them, while maintaining a policy consistent with what I've told you throughout this thread. Ron Paul acknowledges that we need a "coherent immigration policy."

So, Ron Paul can tell you what you want to hear and he can tell me what I want to hear, but at the end of the day, you have not proven precisely what Ron Paul advocates. The fact is, you have failed as your self described role as "teacherone" to teach me a flipping thing.