PDA

View Full Version : Immigration: Letting illegals buy citizenship...would Paul support?




rpwi
02-04-2012, 11:10 AM
Immigration is a tricky issue as most of us know... The most effective deterrents against immigration would be national ids, employer checks, and having institutions to self-report illegals (kind of like how the tax system forces us to self-report to the government). It would work (like it does say in Switzerland) but it would be a horrible yoke we the people would have to endure from the government and any national id system would inevitably be abused.

How about this for a more libertarian ideal... for $100,000 per person, an illegal (or any want-to-be immigrant) could fast-track buy their citizenship. Yes...most wouldn't be able to afford this directly...but they could if they borrowed the money from a private business or family to do this...just like buying a home. Say there is an interest rate of 4% offered by a financial institution...that means 4k per year in interest payments. Most illegals could easily pay this.

Advantage of this plan... Illegals no longer would have to live an underground existence. Say 11 million illegals payed for this...that would be over a trillion dollars...a lot of money to pay down the debt. This plan would mean the government wouldn't discriminate against those who wanted to come legally or not. No long waiting periods or bureaucracy...for those who are serous about becoming citizens of the US. Would you rather have an immigrant pay a coyote 3000 dollars (going rate) to merely attempt a dangerous border crossing or for the immigrant to safely pay 100k to government to alleviate the our national debt?

Think Paul would support the idea?

otherone
02-04-2012, 04:45 PM
no.

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 05:49 AM
This is the most absolutely ridiculous thread on this board.

In the first place, there is no such thing as an "illegal" when referring to an immigrant. There is no law that makes immigration "illegal." There is a statute (8 USC 1325) that is called "Improper Entry," which is a civil violation, not a crime. But, that statute presumes that there is a legitimate "proper" avenue that addresses the immigrant's fact situation in the first place (and unfortunately there is not.)

Either way, 8 USC 1325 is purely civil and it imposes no criminal penalties. As a matter of fact, that statute has to reference Title 18 of the United States Code (that deals with crimes) to impose criminal penalties for eluding the authorities, lying to them, committing fraud, etc.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

What we have are unalienable Rights, bestowed upon all men and among them are Life and Liberty. The founding fathers could not have been thinking about citizenship when those words were penned. It would be eleven years before there was an constitutional America to be a citizen of. Additionally, it was the founding fathers that were the immigrants, having come into this country without the permission of the Native Americans.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, unlike inalienable Rights cannot be bought, sold, traded, nor denied by mortal man. You cannot negotiate them away. For example, you cannot barter with your life and allow someone to take it if they promise to put your children through college. You cannot deny to immigrants the Right to come here and work and force them to become citizens.

Citizenship is a privilege. Taking advantage of an opportunity willingly offered is a RIGHT. You cannot pass a law infringing upon the Liberties of other human beings. Citizenship gives people certain privileges, such as being able to vote and being able to be let out of jail on their own recognizance.

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose
that they be."
U.S. Supreme Court in Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

Do immigrants have constitutional Rights? Try shooting one of them as they enter the United States without papers and you'll find out. If they have a Right to Life, they for sure have a Right to Liberty. Neither of them are granted by a majority of the people.

As for employers that hire the undocumented foreigner:

"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." (Fifth Amendment to the Constitution)

Notice that all persons (as differentiated from citizens) are entitled to Liberty. We cannot take away the immigrants Liberties NOR can we criminalize an employer for offering a job to the person of his / her choice. It is not required that one become a citizen and have a say in our government just for the ability to exercise unalienable Rights.

To his credit, Ron Paul has acknowledged that our immigration laws need to be relaxed so as to allow the foreigner to come here. But, it will never become a law (in our constitutional Republic) that one must become a citizen in order to exercise a Right bestowed upon them by their Creator (whomever they deem that to be.)

vechorik
02-05-2012, 07:35 AM
People should buy their way through the criminal justice system!!??!?!?
That's exactly what you propose.

thoughtomator
02-05-2012, 07:37 AM
If Paul stands for one thing only it's the rule of law, without which there can be no liberty. Seriously doubt he would consider citizenship an object to be purchased.

rpwi
02-05-2012, 09:47 AM
This is the most absolutely ridiculous thread on this board.
...How of curiosity do you think illegal immigration should be legalized?

rpwi
02-05-2012, 09:49 AM
People should buy their way through the criminal justice system!!??!?!?
That's exactly what you propose.When the law is setup to prevent economic harm, then economic compensation in the form of a payment to the government is a just counter-balance.

rpwi
02-05-2012, 10:06 AM
If Paul stands for one thing only it's the rule of law, without which there can be no liberty. Seriously doubt he would consider citizenship an object to be purchased.Keep in mind...buying citizenship would not be the exclusive way to get citizenship...we we would still have the old ways.

I'm surprised at the distaste for this plan. In classic economic theory, using market prices to ration scarce products and services is considered the logical thing to do. If person A is willing to pay more for a 1000 pounds of copper than person B...chances are he values the copper more and would probably more efficiently use the copper. Same principal should apply to immigration.

The reason we have immigration laws...is let's be honest...it's pretty much because many other countries have overpopulated and messed up their governments. Instead of these want-to-be immigrants fixing their problems locally...they look to a shortcut and find a country that has through half-way responsible behavior, doesn't have as many of their issues. So they don't fix their local issues and they bring their problems with them to the US. Most (not all) on this forum probably agree illegal immigration laws are needed on this basis (in the same way that almost every other country in the world has similar or much harsher immigration laws).

Now most of us agree that there needs to be avenues for legal immigration. Why not reward those who want to contribute to the US economy and government citizenship? Wouldn't you rather have these types of people immigrant than those merely here to eke out a few extra bucks from a crowded low-skill job market? Put another way... Let's say citizen X is living under an oppression regime...he would value being a citizen at say 180k. Citizen B voted for a backwards politician who is wrecking his country. To feed his irresponsibly large family he would like to work in the US...the monetary value that he would for US citizenship would be 50k. All things being equal, who would you rather have as an immigrant? Skilled workers and political dissidents? Or is it that we don't have enough janitors and need more unskilled immigrants?

Isn't it an attractive proposition that there would exist an avenue by which a want-to-be immigrant would bypass all the games/delays/regulations/coyotes/lawyers/etc...and merely just buy their citizenship ship and this helps pay down the debt?

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 10:18 AM
...How of curiosity do you think illegal immigration should be legalized?

Being that no such thing as illegal immigration exists, I am in favor of a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. Such a program would eliminate the perceived "need" to have a constitutional amendment doing away with birth citizenship since the children of Guest Workers would be whatever nationality the parents are.

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 10:22 AM
Keep in mind...buying citizenship would not be the exclusive way to get citizenship...we we would still have the old ways.

I'm surprised at the distaste for this plan. In classic economic theory, using market prices to ration scarce products and services is considered the logical thing to do. If person A is willing to pay more for a 1000 pounds of copper than person B...chances are he values the copper more and would probably more efficiently use the copper. Same principal should apply to immigration.

The reason we have immigration laws...is let's be honest...it's pretty much because many other countries have overpopulated and messed up their governments. Instead of these want-to-be immigrants fixing their problems locally...they look to a shortcut and find a country that has through half-way responsible behavior, doesn't have as many of their issues. So they don't fix their local issues and they bring their problems with them to the US. Most (not all) on this forum probably agree illegal immigration laws are needed on this basis (in the same way that almost every other country in the world has similar or much harsher immigration laws).

Now most of us agree that there needs to be avenues for legal immigration. Why not reward those who want to contribute to the US economy and government citizenship? Wouldn't you rather have these types of people immigrant than those merely here to eke out a few extra bucks from a crowded low-skill job market? Put another way... Let's say citizen X is living under an oppression regime...he would value being a citizen at say 180k. Citizen B voted for a backwards politician who is wrecking his country. To feed his irresponsibly large family he would like to work in the US...the monetary value that he would for US citizenship would be 50k. All things being equal, who would you rather have as an immigrant? Skilled workers and political dissidents? Or is it that we don't have enough janitors and need more unskilled immigrants?

Isn't it an attractive proposition that there would exist an avenue by which a want-to-be immigrant would bypass all the games/delays/regulations/coyotes/lawyers/etc...and merely just buy their citizenship ship and this helps pay down the debt?

Do you not understand the concept of unalienable Rights? Or do you just ignore the challenges that you are faced with on this thread? You think that people that are forced to buy their citizenship just to exercise their unalienable Rights are going to make good citizens? As America imports more and more foreigners to compete in a global marketplace, you want the Guest Worker to displace you at the voting booth? Do you do drugs by any chance?

vechorik
02-05-2012, 10:27 AM
When the law is setup to prevent economic harm, then economic compensation in the form of a payment to the government is a just counter-balance.

View this video please, then we'll discuss it.
"Immigration by the numbers -- world poverty and gumballs -- updated 2010 "


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

otherone
02-05-2012, 11:08 AM
Do you not understand the concept of unalienable Rights? Or do you just ignore the challenges that you are faced with on this thread?

For some reason, folks forget that the restrictions on government that protect the freedom of the individual, as set forth in the Constitution, apply to EVERYONE.
Actually, I haven't heard a convincing argument against 'illegal' immigration yet....

rpwi
02-05-2012, 11:10 AM
Do you not understand the concept of unalienable Rights?That's not a logical, objective statue or provision in the constitution. It is from the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document.


Or do you just ignore the challenges that you are faced with on this thread?Well...this thread was more about ideas on how to reform the immigration system...not necessarily a debate as to whether we should prohibit or legalize immigration.


You think that people that are forced to buy their citizenship just to exercise their unalienable Rights are going to make good citizens?Nobody would be forced to buy citizenship. Only immigrants looking for a fast-track process. This plan does not affect the current alternative avenues by which one can currently become a citizen. But specifically to answer your question about those willing to pony up money, then yes...I think they would make better citizens than those merely coming here to be economic leaches. Now you can still become an economic leach under my plan...you just have to pay the big leach in the US government 100k (that shouldn't be more than 5k a year...very easy to afford).


As America imports more and more foreigners to compete in a global marketplace, you want the Guest Worker to displace you at the voting booth?That question doesn't make sense. I have no problem voting with citizens who have entered the country properly.


Do you do drugs by any chance?I do not do drugs.

rpwi
02-05-2012, 11:13 AM
For some reason, folks forget that the restrictions on government that protect the freedom of the individual, as set forth in the Constitution, apply to EVERYONE.
Actually, I haven't heard a convincing argument against 'illegal' immigration yet....Imagine two herds of sheep. Herd one irresponsibly over-grazes while herd two does not. Should herd two be compelled to let sheep from herd one graze on their more responsibly managed pasture? Or should herd one fix the problems they created to start with?

Diurdi
02-05-2012, 11:14 AM
Legal immigration. It worked 100 years ago, and it will work now as long as you put some checks on the welfare system to prevent welfare immigration.

otherone
02-05-2012, 11:16 AM
Imagine two herds of sheep

Aesop was never my strong suit. How about a real example, with less collectivism?

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 11:18 AM
View this video please, then we'll discuss it.
"Immigration by the numbers -- world poverty and gumballs -- updated 2010 "


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

That video is trash. Here is an excerpt of an article I did two years ago:

In 1982, the unemployment rate for the United States was nearly 10 percent. By 2000 the unemployment rate had dropped to below 4 percent in the United States.

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

Several weeks ago talk show host, Neal Boortz, told his audience about a historical study he did. Boortz divided our nation's history into NINE time periods of 25 years (from the start of our nation to the current time.) Each of those 25 year periods represents the working lifetime of a person.

According to Boortz, he credited the Republicans and their tax initiatives for
America's most prosperous of those time periods. And Boortz said that between 1982 and 2007 was the time period when America had the most jobs, we made the most money, paid the fewest taxes and had the most in assets.

In 1986, Newswatch Magazine reported that, according to official immigration authorities, the United States had an estimated 10 MILLION people in the United States without papers AND an additional TWO MILLION coming in each year. AND between 1986 and 2000, the United States granted SEVEN AMNESTIES!

What I want to know is HOW did the United States have its most prosperous years in an era where we started out with 10 MILLION people here without papers, two million more entering annually, "open borders," AND SEVEN AMNESTIES? BTW, the relative numbers haven't changed in population growth nor in the numbers of people here without papers. Okay guys, we need an answer.

Since that article was written, we have witnessed foreigners leaving the United States, self deporting because in a free market economy, when the jobs are non-existent, there is no need for the foreigner to lounge around and do nothing in the U.S. when they can do it at home in a familiar setting.

otherone
02-05-2012, 11:26 AM
in a free market economy, when the jobs are non-existent, there is no need for the foreigner to lounge around and do nothing in the U.S. when they can do it at home in a familiar setting.

+rep.
When there are no opportunities ('specially when one does not know the mother tongue) and no gub'ment cheese (etal), illegal immigration is less of an issue. Of course, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, should probably look for another teeming shore, as we haven't seen Freedom here for 150 years....

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 11:34 AM
That's not a logical, objective statue or provision in the constitution. It is from the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document.

Yes, the Declaration of Independence is a legal document. It is at the head of the United States Code Annotated AND it has been cited as authority in over a hundred court cases, including but not limited to federal court decisions.



Well...this thread was more about ideas on how to reform the immigration system...not necessarily a debate as to whether we should prohibit or legalize immigration.

Nobody would be forced to buy citizenship. Only immigrants looking for a fast-track process. This plan does not affect the current alternative avenues by which one can currently become a citizen. But specifically to answer your question about those willing to pony up money, then yes...I think they would make better citizens than those merely coming here to be economic leaches. Now you can still become an economic leach under my plan...you just have to pay the big leach in the US government 100k (that shouldn't be more than 5k a year...very easy to afford).

It would be easy to afford if you are Rockefeller or Bill Gates... or maybe Warren Buffett. 100k on a $10 an hour salary ($65 a day after taxes) is a good chunk of change Sport.

That question doesn't make sense. I have no problem voting with citizens who have entered the country properly.

You can enter the country properly and not have to become a citizen in many instances: students, white collar workers, seasonal agricultural workers... just NOT Guest Workers that are not in most of the visa categories.

I do not do drugs.

If you aren't doing drugs, your post doesn't make sense.

Elwar
02-05-2012, 11:37 AM
Of all of the ways of getting money to the government I have concluded that the best way is to get it through the immigration process. It is the only way where force is not used and people have a choice. You can pay money and become a citizen, or you can just not be a citizen.

It happens all the time in smaller forms of government. These are often referred to as "clubs".

This also keeps the government honest because they want to encourage citizenship. If you have an oppressive regime, nobody will want to pay for citizenship. It would be a free market form of creating the best form of government as people shop for the best citizenship.

josun54
02-05-2012, 03:22 PM
I do not think buying a fasttrack to citizenship is a great idea. But I also have some questions.


This is the most absolutely ridiculous thread on this board.

In the first place, there is no such thing as an "illegal" when referring to an immigrant. There is no law that makes immigration "illegal." There is a statute (8 USC 1325) that is called "Improper Entry," which is a civil violation, not a crime. But, that statute presumes that there is a legitimate "proper" avenue that addresses the immigrant's fact situation in the first place (and unfortunately there is not.)
-This is what really interests me. Why is it not against the law to come to this country without getting the proper permit or permission from us?

Either way, 8 USC 1325 is purely civil and it imposes no criminal penalties. As a matter of fact, that statute has to reference Title 18 of the United States Code (that deals with crimes) to impose criminal penalties for eluding the authorities, lying to them, committing fraud, etc.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

What we have are unalienable Rights, bestowed upon all men and among them are Life and Liberty. The founding fathers could not have been thinking about citizenship when those words were penned. It would be eleven years before there was an constitutional America to be a citizen of. Additionally, it was the founding fathers that were the immigrants, having come into this country without the permission of the Native Americans.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, unlike inalienable Rights cannot be bought, sold, traded, nor denied by mortal man. You cannot negotiate them away. For example, you cannot barter with your life and allow someone to take it if they promise to put your children through college. You cannot deny to immigrants the Right to come here and work and force them to become citizens.

Ok, I am trying to figure this out. So immigrants have a right to come here and work even if they came here without getting a work visa or some other type of temporary green card? And I do agree that you cannot force anyone to become citizens. But I dont think you should be able to stay if you are not here properly. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding you.

Citizenship is a privilege. Taking advantage of an opportunity willingly offered is a RIGHT. Can you please explain this with an example or two? You cannot pass a law infringing upon the Liberties of other human beings. Citizenship gives people certain privileges, such as being able to vote and being able to be let out of jail on their own recognizance.

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose
that they be."
U.S. Supreme Court in Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

Do immigrants have constitutional Rights? Try shooting one of them as they enter the United States without papers and you'll find out. If they have a Right to Life, they for sure have a Right to Liberty. Neither of them are granted by a majority of the people.

As for employers that hire the undocumented foreigner:

"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." (Fifth Amendment to the Constitution)

Notice that all persons (as differentiated from citizens) are entitled to Liberty. We cannot take away the immigrants Liberties NOR can we criminalize an employer for offering a job to the person of his / her choice.

So does this mean that it should be a civil offense to hire someone who has no social security number? Or should we have no penalties?

It is not required that one become a citizen and have a say in our government just for the ability to exercise unalienable Rights.

To his credit, Ron Paul has acknowledged that our immigration laws need to be relaxed so as to allow the foreigner to come here. But, it will never become a law (in our constitutional Republic) that one must become a citizen in order to exercise a Right bestowed upon them by their Creator (whomever they deem that to be.)

erowe1
02-05-2012, 05:17 PM
-This is what really interests me. Why is it not against the law to come to this country without getting the proper permit or permission from us?

And by "us" you mean "the regime in DC". Right?

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 05:30 PM
Of all of the ways of getting money to the government I have concluded that the best way is to get it through the immigration process. It is the only way where force is not used and people have a choice. You can pay money and become a citizen, or you can just not be a citizen.

It happens all the time in smaller forms of government. These are often referred to as "clubs".

This also keeps the government honest because they want to encourage citizenship. If you have an oppressive regime, nobody will want to pay for citizenship. It would be a free market form of creating the best form of government as people shop for the best citizenship.

That flies in the face of what Ron Paul stands for. Liberty cannot be bought and sold like trash cans and septic tanks.

hard@work
02-05-2012, 05:31 PM
Talking to some immigrants in my life they have all had a common theme. In gaining US citizenship there is an order of acceptance. Money first, skills second, and necessity third. That's not what we're taught about Ellis Island is it?

Brian4Liberty
02-05-2012, 05:42 PM
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/


A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY

A nation without borders is no nation at all.

It just doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.

Unfortunately, for far too long, neither major political party has had the courage to do what is necessary to tackle the problem.

Instead, we’re presented with so-called “solutions” that involve amnesty proposals or further restricting Americans’ civil liberties through programs like REAL ID.

Ron Paul opposes both of these schemes and believes they will only make illegal immigration and the problems associated with it worse.* He has been proud to see states exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and protecting their citizens by refusing to comply with the unconstitutional REAL ID law.

While the federal government neglects its constitutional responsibility to protect our borders, it continues to push mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care to illegal immigrants at a time when the states are drowning in debt.** This must not be tolerated any longer.

Like most Americans, Ron Paul also understands just how valuable legal immigration is to our country.

Immigrants who want to work hard, obey our laws, and live the American Dream have always been great assets.

COMMON SENSE REFORMS

If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:

* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration.* As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.

As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.

As President, Ron Paul will address immigration by fighting for effective solutions that protect our nation, uphold the rule of law, and respect every American citizen’s civil liberties.

josun54
02-05-2012, 06:10 PM
And by "us" you mean "the regime in DC". Right?

No.......... I mean the federal govt, since it is supposed to protect our borders. This is one of the few powers that it actually has!

I think you may have me confused with someone that doesnt like Ron Paul.

And I want to thank Brian4Liberty, the link that he provided says, "While the federal government neglects its constitutional responsibility to protect our borders," shows what I mean. I thank you for that link as it was what I was looking for!

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 06:19 PM
No.......... I mean the federal govt, since it is supposed to protect our borders. This is one of the few powers that it actually has!

I think you may have me confused with someone that doesnt like Ron Paul.

And I want to thank Brian4Liberty, the link that he provided says, "While the federal government neglects its constitutional responsibility to protect our borders," shows what I mean. I thank you for that link as it was what I was looking for!

This is one issue that Ron Paul may be pandering to the anti-immigrant lobby by actually playing semantics.

You see, coming into the United States and even presence without papers ARE NOT CRIMES. Ron Paul probably knows this. Additionally, forgiving someone for working around non-existent laws is, most likely, never going to be ruled as an actual amnesty regardless of what you call it.

If, with the Army, Navy, United States Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, Reserves, National Guard not to mention all kinds of satellites, drones, etc... and that TRILLION DOLLAR AGENCY CALLED HOMELAND (IN) SECURITY are not enough to pacify you, then you probably won't be satisfied until you live in the ultimate POLICE STATE.

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 06:33 PM
I do not think buying a fasttrack to citizenship is a great idea. But I also have some questions.

"This is what really interests me. Why is it not against the law to come to this country without getting the proper permit or permission from us?"

RESPONSE: I haven't the foggiest clue as to why, other than the fact that government can only regulate foreigners not force them to become citizens in exchange for exercising unalienable Rights. I only know that it is in a civil section of the United States Code

Ok, I am trying to figure this out. So immigrants have a right to come here and work even if they came here without getting a work visa or some other type of temporary green card? And I do agree that you cannot force anyone to become citizens. But I dont think you should be able to stay if you are not here properly. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding you.

RESPONSE: YES. The United States Supreme Court has opined that NO ONE is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. If we fail to provide a visa or temporary work ID, people can come here. READ what I'm writing:

We do not have visas that address the fact situation whereby MILLIONS of foreigners come into the United States. Guest Workers are not students, agricultural workers, the immediate family of an American, some white collar specialty worker. They aren't doctors, dentists or scientists. But, the fact that our system has accepted them shows that they are only taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered.

So does this mean that it should be a civil offense to hire someone who has no social security number? Or should we have no penalties?

RESPONSE: It is already illegal for the EMPLOYER to hire someone that lacks proper identification. I used to have a letter from the Socialist Security Administration stating that whether or not someone ever provides the employer their SSN is strictly a private matter between the employer and employee. According to the Socialist Security Administration, 75 percent of the people in the United States without human registration papers have gotten a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER and pay the same taxes as you... furthermore, they still cannot qualify for entitlements and the $9 BILLION DOLLARS a year they put into Socialist Security is money they can never draw out of the system. It's a gift to all those getting Socialist Security today.

Enforcer
02-05-2012, 06:35 PM
Talking to some immigrants in my life they have all had a common theme. In gaining US citizenship there is an order of acceptance. Money first, skills second, and necessity third. That's not what we're taught about Ellis Island is it?

Some of us are more "equal" than others.

josun54
02-05-2012, 07:01 PM
This is one issue that Ron Paul may be pandering to the anti-immigrant lobby by actually playing semantics.

You see, coming into the United States and even presence without papers ARE NOT CRIMES. Ron Paul probably knows this. Additionally, forgiving someone for working around non-existent laws is, most likely, never going to be ruled as an actual amnesty regardless of what you call it.

If, with the Army, Navy, United States Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, Reserves, National Guard not to mention all kinds of satellites, drones, etc... and that TRILLION DOLLAR AGENCY CALLED HOMELAND (IN) SECURITY are not enough to pacify you, then you probably won't be satisfied until you live in the ultimate POLICE STATE.

Well then, would an amendment to the constitution that made it illegal to enter our country without coming here with proper documentation be the way to resolve this? I dont like adding more things to the constitution or to our big mess of laws but if there are no laws that forbid it then you are right, there is no crime being committed.

Our troops being home to help with our border situation would help things. And "that TRILLION DOLLAR AGENCY CALLED HOMELAND (IN) SECURITY" doesn't make me feel any better.

josun54
02-05-2012, 07:05 PM
"This is what really interests me. Why is it not against the law to come to this country without getting the proper permit or permission from us?"

RESPONSE: I haven't the foggiest clue as to why, other than the fact that government can only regulate foreigners not force them to become citizens in exchange for exercising unalienable Rights. I only know that it is in a civil section of the United States Code

Ok, I am trying to figure this out. So immigrants have a right to come here and work even if they came here without getting a work visa or some other type of temporary green card? And I do agree that you cannot force anyone to become citizens. But I dont think you should be able to stay if you are not here properly. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding you.

RESPONSE: YES. The United States Supreme Court has opined that NO ONE is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. If we fail to provide a visa or temporary work ID, people can come here. READ what I'm writing:

We do not have visas that address the fact situation whereby MILLIONS of foreigners come into the United States. Guest Workers are not students, agricultural workers, the immediate family of an American, some white collar specialty worker. They aren't doctors, dentists or scientists. But, the fact that our system has accepted them shows that they are only taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered.

So does this mean that it should be a civil offense to hire someone who has no social security number? Or should we have no penalties?

RESPONSE: It is already illegal for the EMPLOYER to hire someone that lacks proper identification. I used to have a letter from the Socialist Security Administration stating that whether or not someone ever provides the employer their SSN is strictly a private matter between the employer and employee. According to the Socialist Security Administration, 75 percent of the people in the United States without human registration papers have gotten a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER and pay the same taxes as you... furthermore, they still cannot qualify for entitlements and the $9 BILLION DOLLARS a year they put into Socialist Security is money they can never draw out of the system. It's a gift to all those getting Socialist Security today.

Ok, I think I understand your point now. It is not illegal in the terms of the constitution to hire someone without proper identification. But there was a law that was put into place to make it illegal and that law is technically invalid because of what the constitution states. Am I on the right track?

Edit: Also, do you think it is right that they can get a taxpayer identification number and pay into SS. Seems like an incentive for the govt to do nothing about the situation.

It is sad, but I probably wont see any of the money I have put into SS either by the time I am old enough to use it.

RickBelmont
02-05-2012, 11:35 PM
This is the most absolutely ridiculous thread on this board.

In the first place, there is no such thing as an "illegal" when referring to an immigrant.

Your reply is open borders nonsense.

First of all, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, it was a document that allowed the colonies to break away from England. There is nor eason to quote it, unless you are saying that the illegal aliens are trying to secede...

Second, "nobody is illegal" is a mantra of the radical illegal aliens.

In a rule of law system, you cannot change the law to accommodate someone who ISN'T a citizen, lol! What a disastrous proposition!!!!! That an individual can enter a foreign country illegally and petition the government of the country he entered illegally to change the laws in his favor, after the individual broke them is ludicrous! It is also very dangerous.

FEDERAL CRIME:
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

Illegal Immigration IS NOT a victimless crime.
It has substantial impact on the poor, minorities and children. Illegal immigration drains resources, takes away jobs, creates further politicization of an illegal crime.

Most proponents of open borders are actually lobbying to PREVENT the enforcement of laws.

The majority of illegal aliens are from Mexico and hurt legal immigration from the rest of the world.

The illegal aliens from Mexico retain radicalized views and form sub communities with radicalized views.

If you listen to the far left collectivists you would think they are angels, mini-Christ vicitms who are owed something because of their martyrdom. But thanks to the magic of video we know much different.

Take for example this video of illegal aliens in LA protesting Americans. This guy is trying to burn the American flag, while other illegals shout racial epithets:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ScYY__oyk

There is a cultural war, as well as ethnic national socialism coming from Mexico.

Here from proponents of illegal immigration in this video, in their own words express their racial hatred of non Hispanics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIW-BZ8oLrk

Some flag desecration by illegal aliens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--BY0Lc92KU

The mythology is that illegal aliens from Mexico just want a better life. However, what they tend to project is extreme racial nationalism (while calling others racist):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeTD3cNBnBU


Open borders and its apologists are responsible for the death of the rule of law.

Enforcer
02-06-2012, 04:43 AM
Well then, would an amendment to the constitution that made it illegal to enter our country without coming here with proper documentation be the way to resolve this? I dont like adding more things to the constitution or to our big mess of laws but if there are no laws that forbid it then you are right, there is no crime being committed.

Our troops being home to help with our border situation would help things. And "that TRILLION DOLLAR AGENCY CALLED HOMELAND (IN) SECURITY" doesn't make me feel any better.

An amendment to the Constitution has two chances: slim and NONE. Slim gets further down the road with each attempt to force people to become citizens.

This irrational, xenophobic fear has no basis in fact. In 1848 the United States defeated Mexico and established the border. We have fought major world wars AND the mere fact that we were not invaded by hordes of Muslims when our forces were committed to Iraq ought to tell you that the border is quite secure... and we did that without the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security.

I have criss-crossed this country looking for ANY representative of the anti-immigrant forces to debate me and show the public one legitimate reason that we should waste TRILLIONS of dollars to keep Hispanics out of the United States when there are Americans willing to hire them, rent to them, sell to them, buy from them and do business in general with them.

Fences, walls, prohibitions against guests and so forth do absolutely nothing to regulate the flow of people in and out of the country in a free market economy. All it does is to prohibit people from freely engaging in business. The situation has remained a virtual constant, despite seven amnesties since the 1980s and we've lived the most prosperous years of our lives with open borders and people traveling back and forth across the border.

Feel free to pursue constitutional amendments, but I think you're closer to having a Hispanic president than you are to an effort at rebuilding the Berlin Wall across the southern border.

Enforcer
02-06-2012, 09:41 PM
Your reply is open borders nonsense.

First of all, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, it was a document that allowed the colonies to break away from England. There is nor eason to quote it, unless you are saying that the illegal aliens are trying to secede...

The Declaration of Independence IS a legal document. It is at the head of the United States Code Annotated and it has been cited as authority in over 100 court cases, including, but not limited to federal cases.

Second, "nobody is illegal" is a mantra of the radical illegal aliens.

In a rule of law system, you cannot change the law to accommodate someone who ISN'T a citizen, lol! What a disastrous proposition!!!!! That an individual can enter a foreign country illegally and petition the government of the country he entered illegally to change the laws in his favor, after the individual broke them is ludicrous! It is also very dangerous.

FEDERAL CRIME:
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;


Why did you feel it necessary to add words to that above quote and leave out important ones? 8 USC 1325 is a CIVIL section of the law and it DOES NOT MAKE IT A CRIME TO ENTER OR BE IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT PAPERS. An improper act is NOT an illegal act.
Illegal Immigration IS NOT a victimless crime.
It has substantial impact on the poor, minorities and children. Illegal immigration drains resources, takes away jobs, creates further politicization of an illegal crime.

No sir, immigration creates jobs and opportunities. Study after study shows that the foreigners pay their way regardless of their immigration status

Most proponents of open borders are actually lobbying to PREVENT the enforcement of laws.

BULLSHIT

The majority of illegal aliens are from Mexico and hurt legal immigration from the rest of the world.

Absolutely UNTRUE. Each country is treated different for purposes of immigration. For example, if a Cuban washes up on our shores, we've had a long standing policy never to deport them. You are making crap up to bolster a morally indefensible position.

The illegal aliens from Mexico retain radicalized views and form sub communities with radicalized views.

Most of them just want to come here, work and make some money.

If you listen to the far left collectivists you would think they are angels, mini-Christ vicitms who are owed something because of their martyrdom. But thanks to the magic of video we know much different.

I wouldn't know, but when I told people that the Minutemen were Nazis... nobody believed it until it got on YouTube

Take for example this video of illegal aliens in LA protesting Americans. This guy is trying to burn the American flag, while other illegals shout racial epithets:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ScYY__oyk

There is a cultural war, as well as ethnic national socialism coming from Mexico.

And National Socialism coming from neo nazis in the U.S.

Here from proponents of illegal immigration in this video, in their own words express their racial hatred of non Hispanics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIW-BZ8oLrk

Some flag desecration by illegal aliens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--BY0Lc92KU

The mythology is that illegal aliens from Mexico just want a better life. However, what they tend to project is extreme racial nationalism (while calling others racist):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeTD3cNBnBU


Open borders and its apologists are responsible for the death of the rule of law.

People like RickBelmont are a cancer on the conscience of America. I'm not a left winger nor a Hispanic; don't have any cheering section on that side of the fence either. So, his attempts at linking those who call the white racist xenophobes with name calling and cheap theatrics can convince nobody except those with an IQ that matches their shoe size.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ6owsJTCYI

Guilt by association works both ways, Rick.

Enforcer
02-06-2012, 09:55 PM
Here is the truth to the law that Rick Belmont quoted with my explanations follow.

Title 8 1325. Improper entry by alien

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

NOTICE THERE ARE THREE PARTS OF THIS STATUTE - SECTION A DEALS WITH THE IMPROPER ASPECT WHILE SECTIONS 2 AND 3 DEAL WITH ELUDING POLICE AND MAKING MISLEADING STATEMENTS
(b) improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

Notice that 8 USC 1325 is in a civil section of the United States Code. It CANNOT impose criminal penalties. Rick Belmont LIED to everyone on this board by typing "FEDERAL CRIME" in front of that section of the law. Furthermore, he omitted the portions of the law wherein Title 8 makes references to Title 18 Crimes (Title 18 EIGHTEEN is not Title 8.) So, there are criminal penalties attached to things like eluding police, lying to the authorities, marriage fraud, etc. BUT NEVER IS THERE A CRIMINAL PENALTY INVOLVED IN TITLE 18 FOR IMPROPER ENTRY BECAUSE IMPROPER ENTRY IS NOT A CRIME.

Let me prove it to you:

A few years ago an anti - immigrant United States Congressman by the name of James Sensenbrenner tried to amend (change) Title 8 USC 1325 to read "UNLAWFUL ENTRY" where it currently says "IMPROPER ENTRY." If entering the United States without the requisite papers were a crime, there would be no need to change 8 USC 1325.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4437

Check out Section 203 of the above link and you will see that Rick Belmont LIED to you.


“Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime...” (Attorney General Michael Mukasey)

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

AFPVet
02-07-2012, 12:41 AM
Should illegal immigrants be allowed to buy their way into citizenship? No. In my opinion, if you are not born here or swear/affirm an Oath to the Constitution, it doesn't matter... you are illegal.

Enforcer
02-07-2012, 04:24 AM
Should illegal immigrants be allowed to buy their way into citizenship? No. In my opinion, if you are not born here or swear/affirm an Oath to the Constitution, it doesn't matter... you are illegal.

Your opinion does not constitute legal fact. What you want is a form of National Socialism. You want the law applied in the same, exact way that the liberals want laws applied against gun owners. That is what is wrong with it. You want a majority of the people to decide that people are "illegal" predicated upon your hatred of them and without any regard for the fact that MILLIONS of people without papers are engaged in lawful activities in the United States: working jobs, paying more tax than you and depending upon their own efforts instead of expecting Uncle Scam to spoon feed them.

So, every Guest is "illegal." That's a slap in the face of every American that has foreign relatives that would like to visit here without having to become a citizen.

erowe1
02-07-2012, 08:43 AM
Should illegal immigrants be allowed to buy their way into citizenship? No. In my opinion, if you are not born here or swear/affirm an Oath to the Constitution, it doesn't matter... you are illegal.

So you don't think people should be able to come here as tourists?

erowe1
02-07-2012, 08:44 AM
And by "us" you mean "the regime in DC". Right?
No.......... I mean the federal govt

Who do you think I meant?

The federal government isn't "us," it's "them."

erowe1
02-07-2012, 08:51 AM
Illegal immigration ... takes away jobs.

If you had any credibility before saying this, you don't any more.

xFiFtyOnE
02-07-2012, 08:58 AM
If you had any credibility before saying this, you don't any more.

It does.

http://immigrationreform.com/2012/01/23/the-feds-had-better-stop-alabama%E2%80%A6before-everyone-there-has-a-job/

erowe1
02-07-2012, 09:22 AM
It does.

http://immigrationreform.com/2012/01/23/the-feds-had-better-stop-alabama%E2%80%A6before-everyone-there-has-a-job/

Jobs aren't some finite resource where when one person has one that's one fewer jobs for everyone else. A job is an agreement between two people who agree to exchange one's labor for the other's money. I have a right to enter an agreement like that with whomever I want, and nobody can say, "he took my job."

FlatIron
02-07-2012, 11:20 AM
It is already possible to buy u.s. citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa

CaptainAmerica
02-07-2012, 11:23 AM
hell to the no on this idea.

erowe1
02-07-2012, 11:40 AM
It is already possible to buy u.s. citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa

A green card is not citizenship.

Enforcer
02-07-2012, 05:08 PM
If you had any credibility before saying this, you don't any more.

I agree. In 1953 the head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service introduced a program to begin deporting everyone that even LOOKED Hispanic. In 1954 "Operation Wetback" was launched and mass deportations took place. In less than five years, the unemployment rate doubled! Adding insult to injury, the unemployment would not go down to the level it was then until the year 2000.

But wait, there's more:

Several years ago, radio talk show host Neal Boortz said he had divided America into nine periods to reflect the working careers of American people. According to Boortz, our most prosperous years were between 1982 and 2007. In that time period, Americans had the most in assets, the best paying jobs and highest standard of living.

In 1986 the Immigration and Naturalization Service stated we had some 10 MILLION undocumented people in the U.S. with an additional TWO MILLION more entering annually. Between 1986 and the year 2000, we had SEVEN AMNESTIES!

Okay, we have 10 MILLION undocumented foreigners, TWO MILLION more entering annually, seven amnesties and open borders, yet we manage to live the most prosperous years of our lives. The facts kind of fly in the face of people like Rick Belmont.

Rick Belmont makes this ludicrous claim that "illegal immigration" takes away jobs. First off, jobs don't belong to Americans nor even citizens. Jobs belong to the employer that creates them. That is the essence of a free market economy. Belmont then uses a few videos, showing us some extremists and Belmont then states:

"The mythology is that illegal aliens from Mexico just want a better life. However, what they tend to project is extreme racial nationalism (while calling others racist):"

Belmont would have you believe that ALL Mexicans are racists based upon a couple of videos showing a few extremists. Belmont condemns all Mexicans on the basis of what a FEW do. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

josun54
02-07-2012, 09:12 PM
Who do you think I meant?

The federal government isn't "us," it's "them."

At this moment, immigration is managed by this agency http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis.

Who will handle the "path to citizenship" if it was not the job of the Federal Govt. I am all for not having more government intervention, but somebody has to be able to help people that want to lawfully immigrate to the USA. This seems like it SHOULD be one of the few jobs that the govt actually focuses on. I dont see any other great options besides make it a private business or just do away with any laws regarding immigration and simply stop worrying about it.

metadjinn
02-07-2012, 09:59 PM
First of all the libertarian/free market position is open borders because immigration laws are an embargo on the labor market. Obviously you can't really do this if you have a welfare state, but regardless Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian on this issue, although his stances on it are somewhat reasonable.

When people talk about immigration, they fail to mention a few key things:

1. The legal entry is massively difficult and confusing. This needs to be improved. The GOP candidates talk about "getting in line", but where's the line?

2. We subsidize brilliant foreign students here to come study advanced science and then don't let them stay.

3. Immigrants create jobs, especially skilled ones. Google and Yahoo created some of the most jobs in the last 15 years and they were founded by immigrants! Skilled immigrants is a huge boon to our society. Look at the Manhattan Project or the Apollo projects - they were led by immigrants ( I know they were government projects but whatever). This is probably due to our anti-intellectual culture but for better or worse much of our technology comes from immigrants.

4. For unskilled workers, you MUST understand that the current way to get rid of them is a racist smoke screen. If you seriously want to get rid of them, just jail people who blatantly employ them. There are far fewer of them and they have much more to lose. The reason we don't is because there is an econmic demand for cheap labor, and consistent with libertarian philosophy, it's very hard for the government to fight market forces. Ron Paul has this backwards in my opinion. You need immigration reform focused on letting more immigrants in here legally in SOME way BEFORE you talk about securing the border.

Enforcer
02-08-2012, 06:12 PM
First of all the libertarian/free market position is open borders because immigration laws are an embargo on the labor market. Obviously you can't really do this if you have a welfare state, but regardless Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian on this issue, although his stances on it are somewhat reasonable.

When people talk about immigration, they fail to mention a few key things:

1. The legal entry is massively difficult and confusing. This needs to be improved. The GOP candidates talk about "getting in line", but where's the line?

2. We subsidize brilliant foreign students here to come study advanced science and then don't let them stay.

3. Immigrants create jobs, especially skilled ones. Google and Yahoo created some of the most jobs in the last 15 years and they were founded by immigrants! Skilled immigrants is a huge boon to our society. Look at the Manhattan Project or the Apollo projects - they were led by immigrants ( I know they were government projects but whatever). This is probably due to our anti-intellectual culture but for better or worse much of our technology comes from immigrants.

4. For unskilled workers, you MUST understand that the current way to get rid of them is a racist smoke screen. If you seriously want to get rid of them, just jail people who blatantly employ them. There are far fewer of them and they have much more to lose. The reason we don't is because there is an econmic demand for cheap labor, and consistent with libertarian philosophy, it's very hard for the government to fight market forces. Ron Paul has this backwards in my opinion. You need immigration reform focused on letting more immigrants in here legally in SOME way BEFORE you talk about securing the border.

You have a lot of that right, but some of it wrong.

I've heard Ron Paul, even in presidential debates, admit that the immigration laws needed to be changed so as to make it easier for some groups.

Secondly, the border is quite secure. You come to a point where it is security versus Liberty. We've now crossed that line.

Finally, you are absolutely RIGHT about the "line" analogy. NO SUCH LINE EXISTS. Sometimes one state will have faster service than another and foreigners change addresses depending upon the over-all competency of immigration employees in one area versus another.

We need to create a Guest Worker program and get rid of this ridiculous immigration argument.