Should we Deport Her? College student never "broke the law" until now.

[dannno]

http://media.independent.com/img/photos/2012/03/01/4e7a42c2bab8d_t180.jpg?7d662043685d97479ca3193f5d0 7ca695b5434dc


Cindy Reyna's dad is a U.S. citizen who legally immigrated from Guatemala. She got a Visa and was petitioning for citizenship and due to the wait, aged out of the system. So she didn't break the law coming here, making that argument invalid. Due to our broken immigration system, Cindy who came to the U.S. at age 15 with her father is not a U.S. citizen. Why did our broken immigration system give a father citizenship and hope for a great new life here in our country and then deny it to his child after giving him hope for his daughter's citizenship and time to setup a new life here? Seems cruel and unusual, to me.

She got a DUI (article says her BAC was above .08) and now they want to deport her.

Also comes up is the debate over DUI laws, since she didn't hurt anybody.



UCSB Student Faces Deportation

Cindy Reyna Convicted of DUI and Turned Over to Federal Authorities
Originally published 12:00 p.m., March 1, 2012
Updated 4:00 p.m., March 1, 2012
By Tyler Hayden (Contact)


An undocumented UCSB student may be deported after she was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence late last month. Cindy Reyna, 23, was booked into Santa Barbara County Jail on February 22 and passed to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials on February 29. A DREAM Act-eligible student, Reyna moved to the country with her family in February 2004 on a six-month visitor’s visa. She’s now a UCSB senior majoring in communications and linguistics and is a part-time model.

An online petition set up two days ago by Reyna’s friends and classmates directed at two ICE directors to stop her deportation had nearly 9,000 signatures by Thursday afternoon. “Cindy is a young, ambitious, and hardworking student who came to the U.S. at the age of 15 on a visa from Guatemala,” the statement reads. “Her father, a U.S. citizen, tried to petition citizenship for Cindy, but while pursuing her college career she aged out of the broken immigration system. … Cindy is not a criminal; she is a student, a hardworking individual, a member of the community, and a potential college graduate.”

Her supporters point out that Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano recently stated that young immigrants eligible for possible DREAM Act benefits are not a deportation priority. The federal DREAM Act, which was voted down in the Senate last year but may be revisited by Congress in 2013, would allow illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. before they were 16 years old to earn an opportunity for citizenship if they graduate from high school, go to college or enroll in the military, and stay out of trouble.

According to an ICE spokesperson, Reyna was released from a Camarillo holding center under an “alternatives to detention program” and is required to regularly report to the federal agency before her upcoming hearing in front of an immigration judge. Reyna’s blood-alcohol level was above 0.08 percent at the time of her arrest, authorities said. “It will be up to the immigration judge to determine whether Ms. Reyna has a legal basis to remain in the United States,” the spokesperson explained.

Drew Sugars, Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department spokesperson, said ICE agents arrive at the County Jail approximately three times a week, sometimes to pick up detainees, sometimes to interface with county law enforcement officials. It’s “not uncommon” for them to take jail inmates into federal custody, he said. Total numbers of recent pick-ups were not immediately available. The fingerprints of all County Jail inmates are sent to ICE when the detainees are processed. The federal agency can then request the jail to put a no-bail immigration hold on certain inmates who may be in the country illegally.

An undocumented UCSB student the subject of a November 2010 Independent story estimated there were approximately 250 undocumented students enrolled in UCSB at the time. (Other sources, however, say that number is closer to 80.) The UC Office of the President predicts there were around 600 undocumented students enrolled in the 10-campus statewide system for the 2010-2011 school year.

UCSB Chancellor Henry T. Yang wrote a letter on Reyna’s behalf to ICE officials asking for her release, and he said he’s working with Representative Lois Capps on the issue. “I am asking that you look deeply into the circumstances of this young woman’s academic career and her life journey to this point,” said Yang in the letter, “to carefully consider her desire to pursue citizenship, and to envision the contributions she is making, and will continue to make, to our community. I unequivocally support her release from detention to complete her studies and to pursue her citizenship petition.”

http://www.independent.com/news/2012/mar/01/ucsb-student-faces-deportation/

[CaptUSA]

If she needs a place to hide...

[slamhead]

If she needs a place to hide...

LOL...good one. If she was not so easy on the eyes I would say deport her. Kidding...I really see no reason to deport anyone under that scenario.

[dannno]

bump

[3kgt]

Well guys I'll take one for the team and marry her, that way she can stay.
Looks like a smart girl with a great future ahead :)

[Keith and stuff]

I hope she isn't getting in-state tuition at that college.

[dannno]

I hope she isn't getting in-state tuition at that college.

Why on earth not? Her dad is a citizen and lives in CA and pays taxes.

[bolil]

Don't Deport! That being said I do believe people like her should not be used to set the precedent for dealing with criminals.

[AFPVet]

Firstly, she's beautiful... wow! I think she should be waived since her father is a U.S. Citizen and filed paperwork for her. They should have extended her visa and allowed her to be grandfathered in as a citizen.

[bolil]

Look at those big magic eyes, they should be a national treasure! I hope she is intelligent.

[angelatc]

Look at those big magic eyes, they should be a national treasure! I hope she is intelligent.

If she was intelligent, she'd know she was here illegally.



Department of Homeland Security databases indicate Ms. Reyna entered the United States on in Feb. 2004 on a visitor's visa, which authorized her to remain in the country for six months.

Bleeding heart liberals..."it's not her fault!!!"

[fisharmor]

I'll say what I always say: when someone can show me where in the US constitution the federal government is given the power to define citizenship or the power to deport people, I'll agree to it.
Also, an explanation as to how this isn't singling out a class of people for special punishment would be nice.

Oh yeah, she is hot.

[AFPVet]

I'll say what I always say: when someone can show me where in the US constitution the federal government is given the power to define citizenship or the power to deport people, I'll agree to it.
Also, an explanation as to how this isn't singling out a class of people for special punishment would be nice.

Oh yeah, she is hot.

Well, what many people don't realize is the fact that there is no such thing as a "U.S. Citizen". We are not "federal citizens"... we are STATE citizens. You are a citizen of your state(s)—which are within the Union.

[AuH20]

Once you start bending the law for 'other reasons', it's utterly useless. I'd send Miss Sweden home, if she was undocumented and somehow broke the law.

[Cabal]

Careface @ imaginary borders

[Xenophage]

I say we inseminate her!

Wait, I mean... incarcerate her! Yeah that's the word...

[dannno]

bump

[aGameOfThrones]

Amnesty! Uglies get deported, Hotties get imported!

[dannno]

bump

[Cutlerzzz]

I saw her picture and voted no without reading.

[angelatc]

"Never broke the law until now" - except for being here illegally, driving without a license, etc etc.

Having a parent as a citizen is probably one of the fastest ways to get citizenship. My internet friend met an American online, came here on vacation to meet him, married him before she left and then brought her whole family over as soon as her citizenship was approved - they all had their citizenships in about 6 months.

Something is really, really wrong with this story.

[sparebulb]

If she was intelligent, she'd know she was here illegally.

Bleeding heart liberals..."it's not her fault!!!"

I've got to go with you on this one.

[CaptainAmerica]

Nope, Im against deporting people just because they couldn't get their visa renewed. I've heard some HORROR stories from people who came here from Africa before 9/11/2001 on visas and they wanted to become citizens and began the application of citizenship process only to find that every year the paperwork changed or there were more rules added and fees.Thousands and thousands of dollars later that person is still not a citizen but has a family here in the u.s. and in every way is motivated to be a u.s. citizen and if you didn't know that persons background you wouldn't even know they were foreigners.There are a lot of good people who come here with the dream of becoming u.s. citizens and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and they don't intend to break any law by coming legally, the red tape is so bad on legalization that people with visas often end up caught up with stupid laws and regulations imposed since 9/11 are pure bullcrap.

[CaptainAmerica]

"Never broke the law until now" - except for being here illegally, driving without a license, etc etc.

Having a parent as a citizen is probably one of the fastest ways to get citizenship. My internet friend met an American online, came here on vacation to meet him, married him before she left and then brought her whole family over as soon as her citizenship was approved - they all had their citizenships in about 6 months.

Something is really, really wrong with this story. I drive without a license many times. Licenses are not a big deal,and technically they are anti-libertarian.

[Cabal]

5 people need to revisit the philosophy of liberty.

[MelissaWV]

http://media2.abc2news.com//photo/2012/03/02/High_school_valedictorbcf98623-2bc0-4e5a-b017-e80c5959aa010000_20120302071610_320_240.JPG

I wonder if some of you who posted earlier would deport her ^ .

[dannno]

http://media2.abc2news.com//photo/2012/03/02/High_school_valedictorbcf98623-2bc0-4e5a-b017-e80c5959aa010000_20120302071610_320_240.JPG

I wonder if some of you who posted earlier would deport her ^ .

I knew you'd finally post a self portrait one of these days..


j/k.


I wouldn't deport her either, tho.














I'll bet she cleans like a champ.














Runs away

[Cabal]

http://media2.abc2news.com//photo/2012/03/02/High_school_valedictorbcf98623-2bc0-4e5a-b017-e80c5959aa010000_20120302071610_320_240.JPG

I wonder if some of you who posted earlier would deport her ^ .

Nope.

Make the count 6 now.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Why did our broken immigration system give a father citizenship and hope for a great new life here in our country and then deny it to his child after giving him hope for his daughter's citizenship and time to setup a new life here?

She probably turned 18 before her dad became a citizen. That's what happened to me. He got a green card and because I was a minor I got mine too. Then I turned 18 after which he became a citizen which didn't transfer over to me because I was no longer a minor. But I still had my green card and eventually I got my citizenship on my own.

[dannno]

She probably turned 18 before her dad became a citizen. That's what happened to me. He got a green card and because I was a minor I got mine too. Then I turned 18 after which he became a citizen which didn't transfer over to me because I was no longer a minor. But I still had my green card and eventually I got my citizenship on my own.

Apparently father became citizen when she was 15 and they moved here.

I don't know who dropped the ball, but 2 or 3 years when by and when she turned 18, as you said, she "aged out"

Too much bureaucracy to figure out whose fault it is, I'm sure..

[RiseAgainst]

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-07-03-top_ten_num5.png

[camp_steveo]

I voted no because I can't imagine telling someone they have to leave this beautiful country. If she committed a crime, punish her. Don't make her leave the US.

Besides, she looks like she would be an asset to the gene pool. :D

[Butchie]

I think the better question is if she weighed 400pds and had moles all over her face what would all the sex starved people here say?


If she was intelligent, she'd know she was here illegally.

Bleeding heart liberals..."it's not her fault!!!"

Will you marry me? Kinda funny how someone who isn't thinking with the little head sees the real issue.

[No Free Beer]

Why on earth not? Her dad is a citizen and lives in CA and pays taxes.

Is she here legally?

[thoughtomator]

Apparently people think liberty means a special set of rules for people they find to be good-looking.

One of the few things the Constitution actually authorizes the Federal government to do is to enact and enforce uniform rules for naturalization. The founders of the country recognized, if many here do not, that without the ability to enforce a border, you don't have a sovereign nation at all - it is inherent in the very definition of sovereignty itself.

[No Free Beer]

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-07-03-top_ten_num5.png

I hope you are not making this argument about race.

[No Free Beer]

If she was intelligent, she'd know she was here illegally.

Bleeding heart liberals..."it's not her fault!!!"

PAHAHAHHA! EXACTLY!

ILLEGAL! DEPORT HER!

[No Free Beer]

I drive without a license many times. Licenses are not a big deal,and technically they are anti-libertarian.

Who said we are all libertarians?

[r3volution]

i say deport , she is making some hard working citizens look uglier .

[No Free Beer]

5 people need to revisit the philosophy of liberty.

Or just simply have a different opinion than you...

[Cutlerzzz]

I voted no because I can't imagine telling someone they have to leave this beautiful country. If she committed a crime, punish her. Don't make her leave the US.

Besides, she looks like she would be an asset to the gene pool. :DI'd love to.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Deport her. We have become a selfish nation. South American countries deserve hot girls too.

[Cabal]

Or just simply have a different opinion than you...

Yes, one that is not cohesive with the philosophy of liberty.

Or perhaps you'd like to explain how limiting the free, voluntary movement of non-violent people across imaginary lines drawn on a map by people who existed far before anyone alive was even a twinkle in their father's eye, by way of force, has anything to do with liberty.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Apparently father became citizen when she was 15 and they moved here.

I don't know who dropped the ball, but 2 or 3 years when by and when she turned 18, as you said, she "aged out"

Too much bureaucracy to figure out whose fault it is, I'm sure..

The article is not exactly clear what happened. It says her father IS a citizen. It doesn't say he was a citizen when they first arrived, so I'm assuming he had some sort of visa. If he became a citizen while she was a minor he would not have had to petition for her. She would have automatically been granted citizenship along with him.

Without a precise timeline it's hard to say exactly who dropped the ball here.

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Yes, one that is not cohesive with the philosophy of liberty.

Or perhaps you'd like to explain how limiting the free, voluntary movement of non-violent people across imaginary lines drawn on a map by people who existed far before anyone alive was even a twinkle in their father's eye, by way of force, has anything to do with liberty.

Here my friends, we have a transnationalist.

The definition of transnationalism:

Transnationalism is a social phenomenon and scholarly research agenda grown out of the heightened interconnectivity between people and the receding economic and social significance of boundaries among nation states.

The term was coined in the early 20th century by writer Randolph Bourne to describe a new way of thinking about relationships between cultures.

Transnationalism as an economic process involves the global reorganization of the production process, in which various stages of the production of any product can occur in various countries, typically with the aim of minimizing costs. Economic transnationalism, commonly known as Globalization was spurred in the latter half of the 20th century by the development of the internet and wireless communication, as well as the reduction in global transportation costs caused by containerization. Multinational corporations could be seen as a form of transnationalism, in that they seek to minimize costs, and hence maximize profits, by organizing their operations in the most efficient means possible irrespective of political boundaries.

Proponents of transnationalism seek to facilitate the flow of people, ideas, and goods among regions. They believe that it has increasing relevance with the rapid growth of globalization. They contend that it does not make sense to link specific nation-state boundaries with for instance migratory workforces, globalized corporations, global money flow, global information flow, and global scientific cooperation.

Transnationalism also refers to a recent shift in migration patterns since the 1980s (see transmigrant). Migration used to be a rather directed movement with a point of departure and a point of arrival. It is nowadays increasingly turning into an ongoing movement between two or more social spaces or locations. Facilitated by increased global transportation and telecommunication technologies, more and more migrants have developed strong transnational ties to more than one home country, blurring the congruence of social space and geographic space.

Diasporas, such as the overseas Chinese, are a historical precursor to modern transnationalism. However, unlike people with transnationalist lives, most diasporas have not been voluntary. The field of diaspora politics does consider modern diasporas as having the potential to be transnational political actors.

Examples of internationalism include United Nations, international treaties, international customs and tariffs regulations[clarification needed]. Examples of transnationalism include NGOs such as Greenpeace or Médecins sans Frontières, global financial activities, global science research, and global environmental concerns[clarification needed].


cabal, I have seen so many of you pro-open borders people on this forum and your hypocrisy is so disgusting it makes me want to cringe. You are a watered down version of a globalist and a 2nd rate clown. Please stop rationalizing your desire for open borders with irrational statements like this. You have been seductively cloaking your globalism under the guise of liberty for too long. k thx

[CaptainAmerica]

http://media2.abc2news.com//photo/2012/03/02/High_school_valedictorbcf98623-2bc0-4e5a-b017-e80c5959aa010000_20120302071610_320_240.JPG

I wonder if some of you who posted earlier would deport her ^ . I don't advocate deportation of anyone because it doesn't work and its not compatible with my beliefs. I do believe in having people go through a legal process but I don't believe in that process being so difficult and strenuous that it costs thousands upon thousands of dollars for people who are trying to escape poverty and terrible environments they were born into. If social welfare was done away with and the legal procedures were loosened up for people we wouldn't have the stupid problems we have in regards to immigration. The "war on drugs" is now tied into the immigration issue and without fixing the war on drugs by ending it I see no end to people crossing the borders illegally. Anyhow...life is more valuable than a piece of paper imo,it would take a decade or decades to reverse all the stupid regulations in place that prevent people from becoming citizens even when they have visas and try to become citizens and their visas expire making their situations a nightmare of endless paperwork and thousands of dollars in that 1 in a million chance that they may hopefully become american citizens.

[eduardo89]

Apparently father became citizen when she was 15 and they moved here.

I don't know who dropped the ball, but 2 or 3 years when by and when she turned 18, as you said, she "aged out"

Too much bureaucracy to figure out whose fault it is, I'm sure..

Usually as long as you hand in the paperwork before you turn 18 you're fine. Something about this story is off, if her dad got citizenship when she was 15, he should have added all his Dependents on his citizenship paperwork and she would have gotten it with him. She even had 3 years to apply after he did.

I say deport her. Hot or not, she's there illegally.

[Cutlerzzz]

So if I marry her, can she still live here?

[CaptainAmerica]

Who said we are all libertarians? I never said anyone was "libertarian". Readers comprehension 101.

[cindy25]

it is my understanding any member of congress (House or Senate) can sponsor a private bill which puts the process on hold. does notneed to pass, just to be introduced.

it might be a way to pick up Hispanic votes, and doing the right thing at the same time.

there are questions that have to be answered first, was she working legally? driving legally?

undocumented or green card holder?

[azxd]

I'm having a hard time understanding the comments of some people.


Reyna moved to the country with her family in February 2004 on a six-month visitor’s visa.

Dad did the right thing, failed to do the right thing for his daughter, most likely kept her here without her knowing she was doing something illegal, or maybe she did !!
How did she get into school ??
Revoke Dad's citizenship and send them both home.

She didn't "age" out of the system ... She was given a 6 month visitors VISA, and she stayed beyond her welcome.

Send her home, Send Obama's Aunt home, and Send that Uncle of his somewhere, just because.

If she had killed someone while doing her DUI thing, all the other crimes would still have been committed.

She's obviously been breaking other laws while here, and Dad has been an accessory to these crimes.

But let's forget all the cries about how the POTUS is playing favorites, and trying to give emnesty to Millions, so they can vote for him ... Please re-evaluate your principles, people !!!
If this doesn't apply to you, nevermind ;)


Side Note:
I flipped on FAUX news earlier, and the lady on there talking about the girl who wants society to pay for her contraceptives put reality into very simple worlds.
We gave up "Give me Liberty, or Give Me Death", and replaced it with "Give me Liberty, and Give Me, Give Me, Give Me"

[RiseAgainst]

Here my friends, we have a transnationalist.

The definition of transnationalism:

Transnationalism is a social phenomenon and scholarly research agenda grown out of the heightened interconnectivity between people and the receding economic and social significance of boundaries among nation states.

The term was coined in the early 20th century by writer Randolph Bourne to describe a new way of thinking about relationships between cultures.

Transnationalism as an economic process involves the global reorganization of the production process, in which various stages of the production of any product can occur in various countries, typically with the aim of minimizing costs. Economic transnationalism, commonly known as Globalization was spurred in the latter half of the 20th century by the development of the internet and wireless communication, as well as the reduction in global transportation costs caused by containerization. Multinational corporations could be seen as a form of transnationalism, in that they seek to minimize costs, and hence maximize profits, by organizing their operations in the most efficient means possible irrespective of political boundaries.

Proponents of transnationalism seek to facilitate the flow of people, ideas, and goods among regions. They believe that it has increasing relevance with the rapid growth of globalization. They contend that it does not make sense to link specific nation-state boundaries with for instance migratory workforces, globalized corporations, global money flow, global information flow, and global scientific cooperation.

Transnationalism also refers to a recent shift in migration patterns since the 1980s (see transmigrant). Migration used to be a rather directed movement with a point of departure and a point of arrival. It is nowadays increasingly turning into an ongoing movement between two or more social spaces or locations. Facilitated by increased global transportation and telecommunication technologies, more and more migrants have developed strong transnational ties to more than one home country, blurring the congruence of social space and geographic space.

Diasporas, such as the overseas Chinese, are a historical precursor to modern transnationalism. However, unlike people with transnationalist lives, most diasporas have not been voluntary. The field of diaspora politics does consider modern diasporas as having the potential to be transnational political actors.

Examples of internationalism include United Nations, international treaties, international customs and tariffs regulations[clarification needed]. Examples of transnationalism include NGOs such as Greenpeace or Médecins sans Frontières, global financial activities, global science research, and global environmental concerns[clarification needed].


cabal, I have seen so many of you pro-open borders people on this forum and your hypocrisy is so disgusting it makes me want to cringe. You are a watered down version of a globalist and a 2nd rate clown. Please stop rationalizing your desire for open borders with irrational statements like this. k thx

Lol, people who don't want to shove guns in peoples faces are irrational. People who do are rational. Got it. kthxbai

[azxd]

it is my understanding any member of congress (House or Senate) can sponsor a private bill which puts the process on hold. does notneed to pass, just to be introduced.

it might be a way to pick up Hispanic votes, and doing the right thing at the same time.
Why do you think Obama and his minions have been pushing this legislation ?

[azxd]

Usually as long as you hand in the paperwork before you turn 18 you're fine. Something about this story is off, if her dad got citizenship when she was 15, he should have added all his Dependents on his citizenship paperwork and she would have gotten it with him. She even had 3 years to apply after he did.

I say deport her. Hot or not, she's there illegally.
And there you have it !!!

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Lol, people who don't want to shove guns in peoples faces are irrational. People who do are rational. Got it. kthxbai

from where did you get "shoving guns in peoples faces".

this girl should be deported because she overstayed her visa. If she played by the rules, and went back to guatamala, from where she came, she wouldn't have gotten into this problem.

[azxd]

from where did you get "shoving guns in peoples faces".

this girl should be deported because she overstayed her visa. If she played by the rules, and went back to guatamala, from where she came, she wouldn't have gotten into this problem.
Agreed, and am wondering if this might somehow jeopardize the fathers naturalization ... It can be revoked, can it not ?

[RiseAgainst]

from where did you get "shoving guns in peoples faces".

this girl should be deported because she overstayed her visa. If she played by the rules, and went back to guatamala, from where she came, she wouldn't have gotten into this problem.

So you're just going to 'kindly ask her to leave and hope she does'? If that is your position, go ahead I have no problem with it.

Somehow, I have a sneaking suspicion you're going to lean on hired goons with guns to FORCE her to leave. That is called shoving guns in peoples faces. I know it's inconvenient for you to face the reality of what you endorse, but trying to hide it doesn't make it go away.

Human beings are human beings. They have no more rights if they are born inside the imaginary lines drawn on your favorite politicians wall, and no less if they are born outside of said lines.

[Enforcer]

If she was intelligent, she'd know she was here illegally.

Bleeding heart liberals..."it's not her fault!!!"

If you were intelligent, you'd realize she is NOT here "illegally."

[Enforcer]

I'm having a hard time understanding the comments of some people.

Dad did the right thing, failed to do the right thing for his daughter, most likely kept her here without her knowing she was doing something illegal, or maybe she did !!
How did she get into school ??
Revoke Dad's citizenship and send them both home.

She didn't "age" out of the system ... She was given a 6 month visitors VISA, and she stayed beyond her welcome.

Send her home, Send Obama's Aunt home, and Send that Uncle of his somewhere, just because.

If she had killed someone while doing her DUI thing, all the other crimes would still have been committed.

She's obviously been breaking other laws while here, and Dad has been an accessory to these crimes.

But let's forget all the cries about how the POTUS is playing favorites, and trying to give emnesty to Millions, so they can vote for him ... Please re-evaluate your principles, people !!!
If this doesn't apply to you, nevermind ;)


Side Note:
I flipped on FAUX news earlier, and the lady on there talking about the girl who wants society to pay for her contraceptives put reality into very simple worlds.
We gave up "Give me Liberty, or Give Me Death", and replaced it with "Give me Liberty, and Give Me, Give Me, Give Me"


As if that response wasn't bad enough, the word is AMNESTY. BTW, are you against amnesty OR just when it applies to foreigners?

[azxd]

So you're just going to 'kindly ask her to leave and hope she does'? If that is your position, go ahead I have no problem with it.

Somehow, I have a sneaking suspicion you're going to lean on hired goons with guns to FORCE her to leave. That is called shoving guns in peoples faces. I know it's inconvenient for you to face the reality of what you endorse, but trying to hide it doesn't make it go away.

Human beings are human beings. They have no more rights if they are born inside the imaginary lines drawn on your favorite politicians wall, and no less if they are born outside of said lines.
Change the law, or end law enforcement ... Those are your options.

Do you not see that she did in fact break the law ?

[azxd]

As if that response wasn't bad enough, the word is AMNESTY. BTW, are you against amnesty OR just when it applies to foreigners?
Pretty sad that you must repsort to pointing out a misspelled word, to feel superior in your argument ... LOL
As for your question,
I am against amnesty ... Get in the line like everyone else who wants to LEGALLY enter this country.
Don't like that answer, work to change the law if you consider it unjust.

[No Free Beer]

I never said anyone was "libertarian". Readers comprehension 101.

Then what the hell was the point of your comment?

[No Free Beer]

I am done with these open border globalists.

[azxd]

If you were intelligent, you'd realize she is NOT here "illegally."
Right ... 3 years beyond the issued visitor VISA ... Nothing illegal about that.

[azxd]

I am done with these open border globalists.
Yea, it's funny how people can say Paul is right about bringing the troops home ... Didn't he say something about securing this nation and it's borders ... Why YES, YES he did.
But they want to give the nation away to anyone who can via AGAINST THE LAW methods sneak into it.

I wonder how they think this fits in with the remove the incentives aspect that Ron supports ?

[RiseAgainst]

Change the law, or end law enforcement ... Those are your options.

Do you not see that she did in fact break the law ?

:rolleyes:

It's illegal...because it's illegal. Circular logic fail.

I'm sure you have no problem with Obama care, right? It's the law, clearly that means it's right, right?

A crime is only committed when one person has infringed on the liberties of another. All else is little more than social engineering, behavior modification and revenue generation. Hardly any reason to call on goons with guns to violently remove their liberties.

[azxd]

:rolleyes:

It's illegal...because it's illegal. Circular logic fail.

I'm sure you have no problem with Obama care, right? It's the law, clearly that means it's right, right?

A crime is only committed when one person has infringed on the liberties of another. All else is little more than social engineering, behavior modification and revenue generation. Hardly any reason to call on goons with guns to violently remove their liberties.
Stupid logic you present.
Obama care is a law that needs to be changed/repealed ... It is no different than a seatbelt law, and they are overreaches by government into indivdual lives.

Immigration was established for what purpose ?
Research that before your arguments become emotionally driven drivel.

[RiseAgainst]

Stupid logic you present.

Aww, someones cranky.


Obama care is a law that needs to be changed/repealed ... It is no different than a seatbelt law, and they are overreaches by government into indivdual lives.

And this is different from immigration how? You stated that it was illegal, as though that was the definitive mark of being right and just. You are the one trying to use circular logic.


Immigration was established for what purpose ?
Research that before your arguments become emotionally driven drivel.

Human beings are human beings. They are all born with the SAME natural rights. Initiating force against them because they crossed an imaginary line negates the very principle of self-ownership and property rights.

Research the non-agression principle before your arguments become rhetoric driven national socialist drivel.

[thoughtomator]

Let's establish a few things here...

1) In the absence of the rule of law there is no liberty, only the immensely undesirable Hobbesian state of Nature where force and fraud rule all (interestingly enough, the same end result as totalitarianism, if differently implemented.)

2) Sovereignty is required to establish the rule of law.

3) Sovereignty requires a monopoly of force over a defined geographic area.

4) Sovereignty cannot be maintained without being able to determine who is allowed to cross the borders of the sovereign geographic area.

5) What legitimizes immigration law is not that it is law, but that it is required to maintain sovereignty and as a result is also required to maintain liberty.

[azxd]

Aww, someones cranky.



And this is different from immigration how? You stated that it was illegal, as though that was the definitive mark of being right and just. You are the one trying to use circular logic.



Human beings are human beings. They are all born with the SAME natural rights. Initiating force against them because they crossed an imaginary line negates the very principle of self-ownership and property rights.

Research the non-agression principle before your arguments become rhetoric driven national socialist drivel.
I bow to your infinite emotional wisdom.

Now take your attitude, and join Obama and his globalist agenda to destroy what little freedom we have left, by giving it to anyone who wants it.

All hail the one world government is what you should be saying ... And as soon as we spread enough democracy around, we can all live in harmony on each others dime.

Wanna try again, I like this style of writing and can be entertained for hours :D

How about that immigration question ... Did you find out why such laws were established, or are you just happy to complain about them, yet can't even conduct the research required to overturn what you consider an unjust law.

I'm gonna guess you're waiting for someone else to do it, and then you can claim you supported it all along ... LOL

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Aww, someones cranky.



And this is different from immigration how? You stated that it was illegal, as though that was the definitive mark of being right and just. You are the one trying to use circular logic.



Human beings are human beings. They are all born with the SAME natural rights. Initiating force against them because they crossed an imaginary line negates the very principle of self-ownership and property rights.

Research the non-agression principle before your arguments become rhetoric driven national socialist drivel.

rise against where do u fail to see that what your advocating for is transnationalism? This country has borders. They have been established for a long time. The erosion of sovereignty is no different than taxation in terms of freedom lost. Economies and nations are different. We need to preserve our nation regardless of economies. Stop with the borderless society crap and just admit you have/want some illegal friends that you want nationalized. I can't understand how any red-blooded america first individual could ever advocate for amnesty or any form of lenient immigration and citizenship. To be a citizen of this country means a lot more than being a citizen of mexico or one of these south american dictatorships. Get out if you fly the flag of the country from which you walked away while you collect some sort of welfare: food stamps, social security, pell grants, student loans, public education, earned income tax credits, section 8 housing, and others. We have no room for those who don't learn english, or assimilate into our culture. The reconquista of the american southwest will never happen as long as I am alive.

[ExPatPaki]

Why do you think Obama and his minions have been pushing this legislation ?

Hasn't Obama also been deporting more illegal aliens than any other President in recent US history?

[azxd]

Hasn't Obama also been deporting more illegal aliens than any other President in recent US history?
YES, but ... Who actually did this, and under who's orders caused it to happen, before Obama started doing the selective thing with our immigration policy.

The man deserves little credit for this, and in fact is suing States that are doing what the Federal government fails to do ... Enforce current laws is what the States try to do, and Obama's minions want it to be selective.
Just like a few people in this thread.

If you don't like a law ... Change the law ... But don't circumvent and ignore it because it makes you feel good.

[RiseAgainst]

I bow to your infinite emotional wisdom.

Now take your attitude, and join Obama and his globalist agenda to destroy what little freedom we have left, by giving it to anyone who wants it.

All hail the one world government is what you should be saying ... And as soon as we spread enough democracy around, we can all live in harmony on each others dime.

Wanna try again, I like this style of writing and can be entertained for hours :D

How about that immigration question ... Did you find out why such laws were established, or are you just happy to complain about them, yet can't even conduct the research required to overturn what you consider an unjust law.

I'm gonna guess you're waiting for someone else to do it, and then you can claim you supported it all along ... LOL

LOL..I can write an entier post without saying anything. I just fill it full of sarcasm and ad hominem because I can't justify my position on how I must destroy the very foundation of liberty in order to bestow liberty.

So now I'm just going to praddle on half-cocked about how it's all emotionally driven and seeking a one world government because it's easier on my mind than doing any actual self-reflection or researching to understand the basis of the philosophical underpinnings of liberty, such as the concept of self-ownership.

Look at Mitt Romney, he has pretty hair, and incidentally his name isn't Obama....isn't he dreamy??

[satchelmcqueen]

no deport

[RiseAgainst]

rise against where do u fail to see that what your advocating for is transnationalism?

Because it's not? Where to you fail to see that what you're advocating is national socialism?


This country has borders.

Incorrect. The body claiming a monopoly on violence has drawn imaginary lines to identify the region of it's professed monopoly, and by decree declaring all those within those lines to be it's subjects, and all those outside it's borders nominally interesting inasmuch as they can be viewed as possible future subjects.


They have been established for a long time.

Okay. The earth was flat, established for a 'long time'. Please don't be so naive as to claim time is an argument.


The erosion of sovereignty is no different than taxation in terms of freedom lost.

Completely agreed. The erosion of individual sovereignty is utterly destroyed by the state, as evidenced by this very thread.


Economies and nations are different.

Quite. As are nations and Nations (or nationstates). As are government and The State.


We need to preserve our nation regardless of economies.

We need to preserve what nation? We need to preserve the geographic land mass? I was unaware that our landmass was being stolen and taken elsewhere. Need to preserve the monopoly on violence? For what? I have no need to oppress my fellow man against his will.


Stop with the borderless society crap and just admit you have/want some illegal friends that you want nationalized.

Stop with the "Der Fatherland" crap and just admit that you really really hate anyone who is different from you.


I can't understand how any red-blooded america first individual could ever advocate for amnesty or any form of lenient immigration and citizenship.

I can't understand how any rational, liberty minded human being could ever advocate for the destruction of individual liberty in the name of a piece of cloth and some dye.


To be a citizen of this country means a lot more than being a citizen of mexico or one of these south american dictatorships.

'Murrica, FUCK YEAH! Being a rational self-owner, observant of natural rights and individual sovereignty hold no nationality.


Get out if you fly the flag of the country from which you walked away while you collect some sort of welfare: food stamps, social security, pell grants, student loans, public education, earned income tax credits, section 8 housing, and others. We have no room for those who don't learn english, or assimilate into our culture. The reconquista of the american southwest will never happen as long as I am alive.

Do you songwrite for Toby Keith? Your bloodlust and nationalistic thuggery literally make me want to vomit.

[slamhead]

The article is not exactly clear what happened. It says her father IS a citizen. It doesn't say he was a citizen when they first arrived, so I'm assuming he had some sort of visa. If he became a citizen while she was a minor he would not have had to petition for her. She would have automatically been granted citizenship along with him.

Without a precise timeline it's hard to say exactly who dropped the ball here.

It is just like Ron Paul says. We need some sanity in our immigration laws when people want to do it legally. A lot of laws have "intent" like murder and such. Justice is blind but it does not have to be deaf and unable to listen to reason. These people's intent was to immigrate legally and she obviously fell through the cracks.

[azxd]

LOL..I can write an entier post without saying anything. I just fill it full of sarcasm and ad hominem because I can't justify my position on how I must destroy the very foundation of liberty in order to bestow liberty.

So now I'm just going to praddle on half-cocked about how it's all emotionally driven and seeking a one world government because it's easier on my mind than doing any actual self-reflection or researching to understand the basis of the philosophical underpinnings of liberty, such as the concept of self-ownership.

Look at Mitt Romney, he has pretty hair, and incidentally his name isn't Obama....isn't he dreamy??
And I can ignore emotionally driven people who rant without knowing their facts.
But I stop when they encroach upon the sovergnity of the nation.

Have you found the answer to that question, yet ?

[azxd]

It is just like Ron Paul says. We need some sanity in our immigration laws when people want to do it legally. A lot of laws have "intent" like murder and such. Justice is blind but it does not have to be deaf and unable to listen to reason. These people's intent was to immigrate legally and she obviously fell through the cracks.
For 3+ years on our dimes.

[Cutlerzzz]

How about that immigration question ... Did you find out why such laws were established, or are you just happy to complain about them, yet can't even conduct the research required to overturn what you consider an unjust law.To protect labor unions and to move towards the eugenists goal of improving societies gene pool.

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Because it's not? Where to you fail to see that what you're advocating is national socialism?



Incorrect. The body claiming a monopoly on violence has drawn imaginary lines to identify the region of it's professed monopoly, and by decree declaring all those within those lines to be it's subjects, and all those outside it's borders nominally interesting inasmuch as they can be viewed as possible future subjects.



Okay. The earth was flat, established for a 'long time'. Please don't be so naive as to claim time is an argument.



Completely agreed. The erosion of individual sovereignty is utterly destroyed by the state, as evidenced by this very thread.



Quite. As are nations and Nations (or nationstates). As are government and The State.



We need to preserve what nation? We need to preserve the geographic land mass? I was unaware that our landmass was being stolen and taken elsewhere. Need to preserve the monopoly on violence? For what? I have no need to oppress my fellow man against his will.



Stop with the "Der Fatherland" crap and just admit that you really really hate anyone who is different from you.



I can't understand how any rational, liberty minded human being could ever advocate for the destruction of individual liberty in the name of a piece of cloth and some dye.



'Murrica, FUCK YEAH! Being a rational self-owner, observant of natural rights and individual sovereignty hold no nationality.



Do you songwrite for Toby Keith? Your bloodlust and nationalistic thuggery literally make me want to vomit.

Your analysis of our need for laws and government is very distorted. There is a need for government, as much as you hate it. You would have no protection of your natural rights without government. I hate the government, but without it we would have no mechanism for protecting our rights. Stop referring to it as, "The body 'claiming a monopoly on violence'." What world are you living in? A society without laws is no society at all. The law is the collective organization of one's right to justice and due process. The law is established, as are borders. If you don't agree with our border, renounce your citizenship and go to mexico and fight for them. When nation states and laws are formed, they are recognized within certain boundaries and are enforced accordingly. Under your scenario, you would dissipate all borders along with all of the laws within them. There are borders both at the north and at the south of this country, which define people that live different lifestyles and under different bodies of laws. Laws and culture do not transcend borders, and they never have. When you cross the border of a neighboring country without being invited, you are an INVADER. When you cross onto your neighbors property, you are trespassing. This is no different. I'm not advocating any type of socialism or collectivized control over the means of production, so stop with the demagoguery.

There is nothing wrong with nationalism. If you don't like it, get out. What is a nation? A nation is an organic mixture of culture, lifestyle, social habits, faith, language, BORDERS, BLOOD, SOIL, and history. Blood spilled in the past which has allowed you to speak here on this forum without fear of persecution is the destination to which your loyalty is surely owed. If you don't like that, move out. Liberty does not transcend borders, and is earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to god. These are principles which are engrained into our declaration and constitution. This is what we are preserving; under your logic, we would ignore all history and aloofly expect people to cooperate non violently. You're living in fantasy land, and the rights which you claim are tied to "individual sovereignty" would be stolen from you without the laws, history and tradition that I seek to preserve. The constitution is the most sublime governing document ever contrived by human intelligence, and without it, and under some anarcho-capitalist utopia with no laws, you have no recourse to justice in the event of harm or malfeasance.

[slamhead]

For 3+ years on our dimes.

I'm from Southern California. I see INS driving around my town all the time. Every chance I get I yell at them....hey drive up to Thriftys there are 40 of them up there. Drive up there and the ones that run are probably illegal. No, our agents spend their time down at the beach waiting for the stealth illegals paddling ashore at night even though we are 80 miles from the Mexican border. Our entire policy is insane. They do not even do interior enforcement in my area other than the San Onofre check point which is 70 miles from the Mexican border. So basically once they make it North of the San Onofre check point they are scott free and will never be asked to prove citizenship unless they are arrested.

Yes she was arrested but I am glad ICE even knew who she was. Our emergency rooms here are filled at all times with illegals and their brood of kids in tow uselessly using and never paying for hospital services here. They bring their kids to the emergency rooms for nothing more than a cold. It is sickening to watch. My daughter turned her ankle when she was 15. Thinking it was broken I took her to the ER. We waited six hours behind a bunch of Mexicans and for a 20 minute visit I was charged $1800 dollars which I paid. These people do not even have to give their real names and they just walk away from the bills. I later learned this brand new hospital ended up going BK and closed it's doors. These facilities just pass the cost of the mandated service for the illegals onto us and the insurance companies. We pay more if we are a cash customer and the insurance companies just charge you more in premiums. I was a cash customer so I negotiated my hospital bill down to the amount the contracted insurance rates. I paid the radiologist and the ER doctor their full rate.

[LibertyEagle]

The definition of transnationalism:

Transnationalism is a social phenomenon and scholarly research agenda grown out of the heightened interconnectivity between people and the receding economic and social significance of boundaries among nation states.

The term was coined in the early 20th century by writer Randolph Bourne to describe a new way of thinking about relationships between cultures.

Transnationalism as an economic process involves the global reorganization of the production process, in which various stages of the production of any product can occur in various countries, typically with the aim of minimizing costs. Economic transnationalism, commonly known as Globalization was spurred in the latter half of the 20th century by the development of the internet and wireless communication, as well as the reduction in global transportation costs caused by containerization. Multinational corporations could be seen as a form of transnationalism, in that they seek to minimize costs, and hence maximize profits, by organizing their operations in the most efficient means possible irrespective of political boundaries.

Proponents of transnationalism seek to facilitate the flow of people, ideas, and goods among regions. They believe that it has increasing relevance with the rapid growth of globalization. They contend that it does not make sense to link specific nation-state boundaries with for instance migratory workforces, globalized corporations, global money flow, global information flow, and global scientific cooperation.

Transnationalism also refers to a recent shift in migration patterns since the 1980s (see transmigrant). Migration used to be a rather directed movement with a point of departure and a point of arrival. It is nowadays increasingly turning into an ongoing movement between two or more social spaces or locations. Facilitated by increased global transportation and telecommunication technologies, more and more migrants have developed strong transnational ties to more than one home country, blurring the congruence of social space and geographic space.

Diasporas, such as the overseas Chinese, are a historical precursor to modern transnationalism. However, unlike people with transnationalist lives, most diasporas have not been voluntary. The field of diaspora politics does consider modern diasporas as having the potential to be transnational political actors.

Examples of internationalism include United Nations, international treaties, international customs and tariffs regulations[clarification needed]. Examples of transnationalism include NGOs such as Greenpeace or Médecins sans Frontières, global financial activities, global science research, and global environmental concerns[clarification needed].


cabal, I have seen so many of you pro-open borders people on this forum and your hypocrisy is so disgusting it makes me want to cringe. You are a watered down version of a globalist and a 2nd rate clown. Please stop rationalizing your desire for open borders with irrational statements like this. You have been seductively cloaking your globalism under the guise of liberty for too long. k thx

http://th106.photobucket.com/albums/m267/IcingSugarGirl/th_applause.gif

[No Free Beer]

Your analysis of our need for laws and government is very distorted. There is a need for government, as much as you hate it. You would have no protection of your natural rights without government. I hate the government, but without it we would have no mechanism for protecting our rights. Stop referring to it as, "The body 'claiming a monopoly on violence'." What world are you living in? A society without laws is no society at all. The law is the collective organization of one's right to justice and due process. The law is established, as are borders. If you don't agree with our border, renounce your citizenship and go to mexico and fight for them. When nation states and laws are formed, they are recognized within certain boundaries and are enforced accordingly. Under your scenario, you would dissipate all borders along with all of the laws within them. There are borders both at the north and at the south of this country, which define people that live different lifestyles and under different bodies of laws. Laws and culture do not transcend borders, and they never have. When you cross the border of a neighboring country without being invited, you are an INVADER. When you cross onto your neighbors property, you are trespassing. This is no different. I'm not advocating any type of socialism or collectivized control over the means of production, so stop with the demagoguery.

There is nothing wrong with nationalism. If you don't like it, get out. What is a nation? A nation is an organic mixture of culture, lifestyle, social habits, faith, language, BORDERS, BLOOD, SOIL, and history. Blood spilled in the past which has allowed you to speak here on this forum without fear of persecution is the destination to which your loyalty is surely owed. If you don't like that, move out. Liberty does not transcend borders, and is earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to god. These are principles which are engrained into our declaration and constitution. This is what we are preserving; under your logic, we would ignore all history and aloofly expect people to cooperate non violently. You're living in fantasy land, and the rights which you claim are tied to "individual sovereignty" would be stolen from you without the laws, history and tradition that I seek to preserve. The constitution is the most sublime governing document ever contrived by human intelligence, and without it, and under some anarcho-capitalist utopia with no laws, you have no recourse to justice in the event of harm or malfeasance.

This has to be the biggest whoop I have ever seen on the forums.

+rep

[azxd]

To protect labor unions and to move towards the eugenists goal of improving societies gene pool.
Citation please

[azxd]

I'm from Southern California. I see INS driving around my town all the time. Every chance I get I yell at them....hey drive up to Thriftys there are 40 of them up there. Drive up there and the ones that run are probably illegal. No, our agents spend their time down at the beach waiting for the stealth illegals paddling ashore at night even though we are 80 miles from the Mexican border. Our entire policy is insane. They do not even do interior enforcement in my area other than the San Onofre check point which is 70 miles from the Mexican border. So basically once they make it North of the San Onofre check point they are scott free and will never be asked to prove citizenship unless they are arrested.

Yes she was arrested but I am glad ICE even knew who she was. Our emergency rooms here are filled at all times with illegals and their brood of kids in tow uselessly using and never paying for hospital services here. They bring their kids to the emergency rooms for nothing more than a cold. It is sickening to watch. My daughter turned her ankle when she was 15. Thinking it was broken I took her to the ER. We waited six hours behind a bunch of Mexicans and for a 20 minute visit I was charged $1800 dollars which I paid. These people do not even have to give their real names and they just walk away from the bills. I later learned this brand new hospital ended up going BK and closed it's doors. These facilities just pass the cost of the mandated service for the illegals onto us and the insurance companies. We pay more if we are a cash customer and the insurance companies just charge you more in premiums. I was a cash customer so I negotiated my hospital bill down to the amount the contracted insurance rates. I paid the radiologist and the ER doctor their full rate.
YEP, you know the stories ... The Phoenix area, as an example has closed 3 hospitals due to government mandates that could not be economically met.
Treating the illegal popupation is more harmful than most wish to admit, and in many more ways than just a few closed hospitals.

Schools are forced to cater to this group ... It's sad to see hand written spanish signs taped over manufactured signs, just so they sysytem can say we are accomidating them, rather than teaching them to read and write English.

So yea, yell at them ... It does no good, and it really doesn no good to have the Federal government revoking agreements and training they provided to local LE who want to help enforce the laws the Fed's say they are overwhelmed by.

SAD that some do not understand what National Sovergnity is.

[Cutlerzzz]

Citation please

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard28.html

[azxd]

Your analysis of our need for laws and government is very distorted. There is a need for government, as much as you hate it. You would have no protection of your natural rights without government. I hate the government, but without it we would have no mechanism for protecting our rights. Stop referring to it as, "The body 'claiming a monopoly on violence'." What world are you living in? A society without laws is no society at all. The law is the collective organization of one's right to justice and due process. The law is established, as are borders. If you don't agree with our border, renounce your citizenship and go to mexico and fight for them. When nation states and laws are formed, they are recognized within certain boundaries and are enforced accordingly. Under your scenario, you would dissipate all borders along with all of the laws within them. There are borders both at the north and at the south of this country, which define people that live different lifestyles and under different bodies of laws. Laws and culture do not transcend borders, and they never have. When you cross the border of a neighboring country without being invited, you are an INVADER. When you cross onto your neighbors property, you are trespassing. This is no different. I'm not advocating any type of socialism or collectivized control over the means of production, so stop with the demagoguery.

There is nothing wrong with nationalism. If you don't like it, get out. What is a nation? A nation is an organic mixture of culture, lifestyle, social habits, faith, language, BORDERS, BLOOD, SOIL, and history. Blood spilled in the past which has allowed you to speak here on this forum without fear of persecution is the destination to which your loyalty is surely owed. If you don't like that, move out. Liberty does not transcend borders, and is earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to god. These are principles which are engrained into our declaration and constitution. This is what we are preserving; under your logic, we would ignore all history and aloofly expect people to cooperate non violently. You're living in fantasy land, and the rights which you claim are tied to "individual sovereignty" would be stolen from you without the laws, history and tradition that I seek to preserve. The constitution is the most sublime governing document ever contrived by human intelligence, and without it, and under some anarcho-capitalist utopia with no laws, you have no recourse to justice in the event of harm or malfeasance.
I'm giving you REP for this also ... IMO, Transnationalism is liberal speak for a misguided attack on National Sovergnity, and makes people like William Ayers proud.

[azxd]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard28.html
Glad you can use Google.

Do you support Ron's idea of bringing the troops home, and putting them on our border to protect this nations sovergnity, or are you done with him because he supports a strong defensive posture, and wants people to get in line and use our current system of laws ?
Just curious how selective you are with the system of laws ... I await your answer.

[Cutlerzzz]

Ron wants open borders. He just wants to get rid of the welfare state first.

[azxd]

Ron wants open borders. He just wants to get rid of the welfare state first.
And that would mean booting this girls butt to the back of the line ... YES ?

[jdcole]

All the fawning by the lonely hearts aside, I have two questions:

Did she break the law? Yes - she got a DUI.

Based upon HER status as a citizen, is that enough to deport her? Yes again.

This is an unfortunate situation all round, but if we, as a movement, demand that the government and our leaders in government respect the rule of law, then we must similarly respect the rule of law in these situations, even if they are completely fucked up. This is the reason we get liberty candidates into positions within the government, so that these laws can be reviewed, changed, and even abolished if necessary. But in order to be viewed authentic, we must bear authenticity.

[Dianne]

Deport the likes of Obama... then we'll figure out what to do with sane immigrants.

[azxd]

All the fawning by the lonely hearts aside, I have two questions:

Did she break the law? Yes - she got a DUI.

Based upon HER status as a citizen, is that enough to deport her? Yes again.

This is an unfortunate situation all round, but if we, as a movement, demand that the government and our leaders in government respect the rule of law, then we must similarly respect the rule of law in these situations, even if they are completely fucked up. This is the reason we get liberty candidates into positions within the government, so that these laws can be reviewed, changed, and even abolished if necessary. But in order to be viewed authentic, we must bear authenticity.
Very true, and glaringly obvious who actually understand and supports the rule of law, and who just wants a few things to swing in their favor.

[dannno]

And that would mean booting this girls butt to the back of the line ... YES ?

Do you enjoy seeing people suffer?

What harm is she doing you or anybody else by being here?

Ron Paul wants to take away the incentives for people to come leech off the system. If we didn't have a system to leech off of, then anybody who came here would be here to work and they would provide benefits to the economy. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show that illegal immigrants pay more taxes than they collect in benefits and that they provide an overall benefit to the economy. I'd prefer to play in a more fair system with the correct incentives, but I have no desire to see other people suffer, especially when they were playing by the rules.

[azxd]

Do you enjoy seeing people suffer?

What harm is she doing you or anybody else by being here?

Ron Paul wants to take away the incentives for people to come leech off the system. If we didn't have a system to leech off of, then anybody who came here would be here to work and they would provide benefits to the economy. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show that illegal immigrants pay more taxes than they collect in benefits and that they provide an overall benefit to the economy. I'd prefer to play in a more fair system with the correct incentives, but I have no desire to see other people suffer, especially when they were playing by the rules.
She overstayed a visitor VISA to the tune of +3 years.

Ignore the law at your own peril ... The key items of contention are designed to protect your personal sovergnity and the Sovergnity of this nation.

If you want to give that up, go right ahead ... But it does make me wonder about you and your intentions.

She did not follow the rules.

[PierzStyx]

I'll say what I always say: when someone can show me where in the US constitution the federal government is given the power to define citizenship or the power to deport people, I'll agree to it.
Also, an explanation as to how this isn't singling out a class of people for special punishment would be nice.

Oh yeah, she is hot.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment authorizes the Federal government to pass legislation to uphold Section 1 of the same amendment, which defines a citizen. I don't think its to hard to argue that Section 5 alone gives the government power to enforce who does and doesn't become a citizen and what that punishment is to be for those who are here and not citizens. The question is does exportation fit the idea of "appropriate legislation". I would say its more appropriate than fines or jail time. I'd rather be free from jail in Mexico then sitting in a US jail cell for 20 years.

[PierzStyx]

Do you enjoy seeing people suffer?

What harm is she doing you or anybody else by being here?

Ron Paul wants to take away the incentives for people to come leech off the system. If we didn't have a system to leech off of, then anybody who came here would be here to work and they would provide benefits to the economy. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show that illegal immigrants pay more taxes than they collect in benefits and that they provide an overall benefit to the economy. I'd prefer to play in a more fair system with the correct incentives, but I have no desire to see other people suffer, especially when they were playing by the rules.

But if she over stayed her visa then she isn't "playing by the rules." And no, of course no one WANTS people to suffer. But it happens sometimes when you get punished for breaking the law.

[azxd]

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment authorizes the Federal government to pass legislation to uphold Section 1 of the same amendment, which defines a citizen. I don't think its to hard to argue that Section 5 alone gives the government power to enforce who does and doesn't become a citizen and what that punishment is to be for those who are here and not citizens. The question is does exportation fit the idea of "appropriate legislation". I would say its more appropriate than fines or jail time. I'd rather be free from jail in Mexico then sitting in a US jail cell for 20 years.
And I'd rather pay for that ticket to somewhere else, than pay for 20 years of jail time.

[Feeding the Abscess]

She escaped from her master and caused him economic harm.

Ignore the law at your own peril ... The key items of contention are designed to protect your personal sovergnity and the Sovergnity of this nation.

If you want to give that up, go right ahead ... But it does make me wonder about you and your intentions.

She did not follow the rules.

Yeah dude! Way to hold up the rule of men and describe it as the rule of law!

Also, Ron opposes putting troops on the border. He said it in multiple debates, and stated multiple times this cycle that open borders is the ideal that we should work towards.

[Cutlerzzz]

And that would mean booting this girls butt to the back of the line ... YES

It would mean ending the welfare state.

[azxd]

Yeah dude! Way to hold up the rule of men and describe it as the rule of law!

Also, Ron opposes putting troops on the border. He said it in multiple debates, and stated multiple times this cycle that open borders is the ideal that we should work towards.
Gee I sure hope the opposition doesn't pick up on that flip-flop, because he said he'd rather have our troops defending our border, during the last debate.

[azxd]

Ron wants open borders. He just wants to get rid of the welfare state first.

And that would mean booting this girls butt to the back of the line ... YES ?

It would mean ending the welfare state.
I didn't ask you to repeat yourself :D

[Feeding the Abscess]

Gee I sure hope the opposition doesn't pick up on that flip-flop, because he said he'd rather have our troops defending our border, during the last debate.

No he didn't. He said he'd rather have resources on our border instead of being used on the Afghan/Pakistan border. And said he'd like a stronger immigration service to allow more people lawful entry in a previous debate.

[azxd]

No he didn't. He said he'd rather have resources on our border instead of being used on the Afghan/Pakistan border. And said he'd like a stronger immigration service to allow more people lawful entry in a previous debate.
And this is to imply what as it relates to the question ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbp132-vvIw

He's clearly talking about our troops defending an overseas border.
What else is it supposed to mean when he says use those resources here, and he's talking about borders and immigration.

And for the defenders of illegal immigration ... I suggest you listen to Ron's words more closely.

[Feeding the Abscess]

And this is to imply what as it relates to the question ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbp132-vvIw

He's clearly talking about our troops defending an overseas border.
What else is it supposed to mean when he says use those resources here, and he's talking about borders and immigration.

And for the defenders of illegal immigration ... I suggest you listen to Ron's words more closely.

He's said multiple times that he doesn't want walls or guns on the border. He's been mocked in the media for stating that during a debate. Stating the resources answer the way he did is a way to appeal to closed border types, and from the looks of it, it worked. If you really want, I'll throw a few videos from this cycle where he's said that open borders is the ideal and that there's no reason we shouldn't move in that direction.

And if you want to tout that he said he doesn't support illegal immigration, he said that we should have a more generous immigration policy, and that it should be legal (a reference to illegal immigration) in the same answer. Also in that answer is opposition to sanctioning people who hire illegals, and opposition to companies policing immigration status, saying it'd make them agents of the state. So he opposes mandates of that nature, saying it would grow the state, so how would he oppose illegal immigration? By massively growing the state and giving it insane surveillance, search, and seizure powers? His solution is to shrink the size and scope of government, by eliminating the welfare state! His position is de facto amnesty (and at that, it's part of a larger solution of eliminating the welfare state), but he's totally correct in not saying as much in a Republican primary.

Ron's a better politician than he generally gets credit for.

[Butchie]

from where did you get "shoving guns in peoples faces".

this girl should be deported because she overstayed her visa. If she played by the rules, and went back to guatamala, from where she came, she wouldn't have gotten into this problem.

I got into a discussion with this person on another topic. This user loves to throw that "gun in people's faces" statement around to justify all of his/her positions, oh, that and "initiating force", cuz you see any society that tries to have some sort of rules, and then enforces those rules is initiating force and shoving guns in people's faces.

[Butchie]

Your analysis of our need for laws and government is very distorted. There is a need for government, as much as you hate it. You would have no protection of your natural rights without government. I hate the government, but without it we would have no mechanism for protecting our rights. Stop referring to it as, "The body 'claiming a monopoly on violence'." What world are you living in? A society without laws is no society at all. The law is the collective organization of one's right to justice and due process. The law is established, as are borders. If you don't agree with our border, renounce your citizenship and go to mexico and fight for them. When nation states and laws are formed, they are recognized within certain boundaries and are enforced accordingly. Under your scenario, you would dissipate all borders along with all of the laws within them. There are borders both at the north and at the south of this country, which define people that live different lifestyles and under different bodies of laws. Laws and culture do not transcend borders, and they never have. When you cross the border of a neighboring country without being invited, you are an INVADER. When you cross onto your neighbors property, you are trespassing. This is no different. I'm not advocating any type of socialism or collectivized control over the means of production, so stop with the demagoguery.

There is nothing wrong with nationalism. If you don't like it, get out. What is a nation? A nation is an organic mixture of culture, lifestyle, social habits, faith, language, BORDERS, BLOOD, SOIL, and history. Blood spilled in the past which has allowed you to speak here on this forum without fear of persecution is the destination to which your loyalty is surely owed. If you don't like that, move out. Liberty does not transcend borders, and is earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to god. These are principles which are engrained into our declaration and constitution. This is what we are preserving; under your logic, we would ignore all history and aloofly expect people to cooperate non violently. You're living in fantasy land, and the rights which you claim are tied to "individual sovereignty" would be stolen from you without the laws, history and tradition that I seek to preserve. The constitution is the most sublime governing document ever contrived by human intelligence, and without it, and under some anarcho-capitalist utopia with no laws, you have no recourse to justice in the event of harm or malfeasance.

HEAR HEAR!!!

[azxd]

He's said multiple times that he doesn't want walls or guns on the border. He's been mocked in the media for stating that during a debate. Stating the resources answer the way he did is a way to appeal to closed border types, and from the looks of it, it worked. If you really want, I'll throw a few videos from this cycle where he's said that open borders is the ideal and that there's no reason we shouldn't move in that direction.

And if you want to tout that he said he doesn't support illegal immigration, he said that we should have a more generous immigration policy, and that it should be legal (a reference to illegal immigration) in the same answer. Also in that answer is opposition to sanctioning people who hire illegals, and opposition to companies policing immigration status, saying it'd make them agents of the state. So he opposes mandates of that nature, saying it would grow the state, so how would he oppose illegal immigration? By massively growing the state and giving it insane surveillance, search, and seizure powers? His solution is to shrink the size and scope of government, by eliminating the welfare state! His position is de facto amnesty (and at that, it's part of a larger solution of eliminating the welfare state), but he's totally correct in not saying as much in a Republican primary.

Ron's a better politician than he generally gets credit for.
Prove this, and you can be guaranteed he will loose a lot of votes.

[angelatc]

I don't advocate deportation of anyone because it doesn't work and its not compatible with my beliefs. I do believe in having people go through a legal process but I don't believe in that process being so difficult and strenuous that it costs thousands upon thousands of dollars for people who are trying to escape poverty and terrible environments they were born into. .

Bleeding heart liberal talking points. Like I said, the woman I know that moved here from South AMerican brought her whole family with her, and it didn't cost them thousands and thousands of dollars, because they didn't have it. As far as I know she's still living in subsidized housing and getting food stamps while her younger kids are going to college also on our dime.

There's no such thing as natural rights. Immigration laws do, however exist.

[angelatc]

I got into a discussion with this person on another topic. This user loves to throw that "gun in people's faces" statement around to justify all of his/her positions, oh, that and "initiating force", cuz you see any society that tries to have some sort of rules, and then enforces those rules is initiating force and shoving guns in people's faces.

Yeah, once the conversation devolves from reality into philosophy, you can walk away.

[Butchie]

Prove this, and you can be guaranteed he will loose a lot of votes.

Like mine, and just saying he favors a more generouse immigration policy is a far cry from amnesty. Ron has even spoken out against anchor babies as well. The problem with most is that the left has blurred the issue, now everyone thinks immigrant = illegal alien, there is a big difference.

BTW, I wish everyone would stop citing Ron Paul as the sole basis for their beliefs in life, makes me think more and more the sterotypes about some of you being a cult are true. I support Ron for 3 reasons: The wars, the debt, and the Patriot Act. Aside from that some of his issues are hit or miss for me, but bottom line is I always retain the right to have my opinion on something, whether Ron is for or against it.

[angelatc]

Yeah dude! Way to hold up the rule of men and describe it as the rule of law!

Also, Ron opposes putting troops on the border. He said it in multiple debates, and stated multiple times this cycle that open borders is the ideal that we should work towards.

Yes, but he also says that we should work to abolishing the welfare state, and that we can't have both. Since he has stated it would take us generations to undo the damage that the welfare state has inflicted, it stands to reason that it would take us generations to simultaneously reform immigration.

[angelatc]

If you were intelligent, you'd realize she is NOT here "illegally."

LOL - yes, she is.

[angelatc]

Do you enjoy seeing people suffer?

What harm is she doing you or anybody else by being here? .

What good is she doing? She's taking up resources, and giving us nothing in return except her obvious sense of entitlement. ( I deserve to be here, I deserve to go to school on somebody else's dime, I deserve to drive...)

[No Free Beer]

LOL - yes, she is.

Angelic, like liberals...they ignore the facts.

[azxd]

What good is she doing? She's taking up resources, and giving us nothing in return except her obvious sense of entitlement. ( I deserve to be here, I deserve to go to school on somebody else's dime, I deserve to drive...)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to angelatc again.
I hate it when that happens.

[erowe1]

I don't understand the mindset behind all those yes votes. What right does the federal government have to deport her?

[fisharmor]

cabal, I have seen so many of you pro-open borders people on this forum and your hypocrisy is so disgusting it makes me want to cringe. You are a watered down version of a globalist and a 2nd rate clown. Please stop rationalizing your desire for open borders with irrational statements like this. You have been seductively cloaking your globalism under the guise of liberty for too long. k thx

I can't point to a single thing in your post which you decry as evil transnationalism which doesn't boil down to a better-known phrase: free market.
I would never self-employ the term "transnationalist" though, because I've stopped using the word "nation" outside of its original context. A nation is a tribe of people. I appreciate the fact that you're using it in that context, by projecting tribalism bullshit into your imaginary lines on the map. The question is, do you?

There's a reason Lincoln referred to "a new nation", a reason why the crackdown on people coming into (and leaving) the US only started to get controlled after his crackdown on liberty, and a reason people who are truly tuned into the idea of liberty openly mock the idea of closed borders.


from where did you get "shoving guns in peoples faces".
Never heard that before, huh?
Which position requires the use of force, mobile enforcers with guns (which get shoved in faces), taxes to pay for those enforcers, and prisons to hold people who don't like the gun-shoving? Ours, or yours?



Change the law, or end law enforcement ... Those are your options.

Do you not see that she did in fact break the law ?

Damn, people, I even got in EARLY this time, and it's STILL GETTING IGNORED.


I'll say what I always say: when someone can show me where in the US constitution the federal government is given the power to define citizenship or the power to deport people, I'll agree to it.
When someone - ANYONE - ANYONE - wants to address this, I may change my mind.
Until then, you're all just projecting fear of outsiders onto a document that does. not. say. what. you. think. it. says.
It was wrong when you did it to Italians, it was wrong when you did it to Irish, it was wrong when you did it to Germans, and it's wrong NOW.


Let's establish a few things here...

1) In the absence of the rule of law there is no liberty, only the immensely undesirable Hobbesian state of Nature where force and fraud rule all (interestingly enough, the same end result as totalitarianism, if differently implemented.)
Except in those historical societies where this wasn't the case.


2) Sovereignty is required to establish the rule of law.
Except in those historical societies where this wasn't the case.


3) Sovereignty requires a monopoly of force over a defined geographic area.
Except in those historical societies where this wasn't the case.


4) Sovereignty cannot be maintained without being able to determine who is allowed to cross the borders of the sovereign geographic area.
Except in those historical societies where this wasn't the case.


5) What legitimizes immigration law is not that it is law, but that it is required to maintain sovereignty and as a result is also required to maintain liberty.
Except in those historical societies where this wasn't the case.

I can understand the argument of "this is how everyone's doing it, and my compulsory state education brainwashed me into believing there aren't any alternatives, so this is what I advocate". It'd just be nice if people would actually say this.

[erowe1]

LOL - yes, she is.

She's here illegally?

So, is that like if I run a red light, then from that moment on I'm illegally on the side of the light that I drove to and remain in that perpetual state of illegality until I go back to the other side?

So she broke a law and overstayed her visa. Give her whatever the ticket for that is and leave her alone until she breaks another law.

[asurfaholic]

Change the law, or end law enforcement ... Those are your options.

Do you not see that she did in fact break the law ?

So she broke the law once, so it is justified to uproot her entire life and everything she has worked for?

Or do you just hate brown people?

I say make her pay the penalty for breaking the law, but no deport. Has nothing to do with how good she looks.

[erowe1]

Gee I sure hope the opposition doesn't pick up on that flip-flop, because he said he'd rather have our troops defending our border, during the last debate.

Defending the border doesn't mean posted on the border like some kind of human wall preventing anyone from crossing. It means defending us from a military attack.

[No Free Beer]

So she broke the law once, so it is justified to uproot her entire life and everything she has worked for?

Or do you just hate brown people?

I say make her pay the penalty for breaking the law, but no deport. Has nothing to do with how good she looks.

You are the type of the people that make me sick. Stop making this about "brown people." YOU make it about race, we do not.

As I have said MANY times on MANY different threads, you all (open border agents) are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to respecting sovereignty. Here's why:

You bash the United States for not respecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of other nations when they decide in favor of military action. But, at the same time, you say it is okay for individuals to do the very same thing to the US. At the end of the day, these people who come in our country, ILLEGALLY, are INVADERS!

Now, this specific situation is a bit different because she didn't enter our country illegally, but in the overall picture, you are the biggest....THE BIGGEST hypocrite!

I told myself I wouldn't respond anymore to open border agents and I uphold my own wishes. Good day.

[No Free Beer]

Defending the border doesn't mean posted on the border like some kind of human wall preventing anyone from crossing. It means defending us from a military attack.

Illegals are invaders, bud.

Again, I hope to live up to my own wishes and ignore the open border agents. Good day.

[fisharmor]

Defending the border doesn't mean posted on the border like some kind of human wall preventing anyone from crossing. It means defending us from a military attack.

And he has also said repeatedly that the laws need to be changed.
And he's said things like how cheap labor keeps coming into the country, and jobs go begging because the cheap labor can't fill them.
He's not coming out and saying it, but he's a lot closer to our position than the tribalists think.

[fisharmor]

Illegals are invaders, bud.

Can you show me the part of the US Constitution that authorizes the federal government to create agencies to repel invasions?

(Answer: this is constitutionally the job of the militia.)

[erowe1]

You are the type of the people that make me sick. Stop making this about "brown people." YOU make it about race, we do not.

As I have said MANY times on MANY different threads, you all (open border agents) are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to respecting sovereignty. Here's why:

You bash the United States for not respecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of other nations when they decide in favor of military action. But, at the same time, you say it is okay for individuals to do the very same thing to the US. At the end of the day, these people who come in our country, ILLEGALLY, are INVADERS!

Now, this specific situation is a bit different because she didn't enter our country illegally, but in the overall picture, you are the biggest....THE BIGGEST hypocrite!

I told myself I wouldn't respond anymore to open border agents and I uphold my own wishes. Good day.

Whatever it is about with you, it's clearly not just "illegal immigration." You're as much against them coming legally as you are against them coming illegally. If that weren't the case then you'd support the solution of simply making all immigration legal. So if it's not skin color, what is it? Culture? Language? Some other arbitrary racial distinction?

[No Free Beer]

Whatever it is about with you, it's clearly not just "illegal immigration." You're as much against them coming legally as you are against them coming illegally. If that weren't the case then you'd support the solution of simply making all immigration legal. So if it's not skin color, what is it? Culture? Language? Some other arbitrary racial distinction?

Don't fucking call me a racist. I am so sick of you guys making it about that. You are just as bad as the class warfare agents on the left. My parents were immigrants, and they did it the right way. Don't give me this bullshit.

About Fisharmor's "constitution" question:

Article 1 Section 8:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

I can list more. Do you want me to?

I will leave you with what Bing so eloquently stated:

"Your analysis of our need for laws and government is very distorted. There is a need for government, as much as you hate it. You would have no protection of your natural rights without government. I hate the government, but without it we would have no mechanism for protecting our rights. Stop referring to it as, "The body 'claiming a monopoly on violence'." What world are you living in? A society without laws is no society at all. The law is the collective organization of one's right to justice and due process. The law is established, as are borders. If you don't agree with our border, renounce your citizenship and go to mexico and fight for them. When nation states and laws are formed, they are recognized within certain boundaries and are enforced accordingly. Under your scenario, you would dissipate all borders along with all of the laws within them. There are borders both at the north and at the south of this country, which define people that live different lifestyles and under different bodies of laws. Laws and culture do not transcend borders, and they never have. When you cross the border of a neighboring country without being invited, you are an INVADER. When you cross onto your neighbors property, you are trespassing. This is no different. I'm not advocating any type of socialism or collectivized control over the means of production, so stop with the demagoguery.

There is nothing wrong with nationalism. If you don't like it, get out. What is a nation? A nation is an organic mixture of culture, lifestyle, social habits, faith, language, BORDERS, BLOOD, SOIL, and history. Blood spilled in the past which has allowed you to speak here on this forum without fear of persecution is the destination to which your loyalty is surely owed. If you don't like that, move out. Liberty does not transcend borders, and is earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to god. These are principles which are engrained into our declaration and constitution. This is what we are preserving; under your logic, we would ignore all history and aloofly expect people to cooperate non violently. You're living in fantasy land, and the rights which you claim are tied to "individual sovereignty" would be stolen from you without the laws, history and tradition that I seek to preserve. The constitution is the most sublime governing document ever contrived by human intelligence, and without it, and under some anarcho-capitalist utopia with no laws, you have no recourse to justice in the event of harm or malfeasance."

[fisharmor]

Article 1 Section 8:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;"

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Do you need me to keep going...?

Do you need me to say it a third time, or is quoting you saying it enough?
Is INS a militia?
Are state police a militia?
Is the US Army a militia?

[No Free Beer]

Do you need me to say it a third time, or is quoting you saying it enough?
Is INS a militia?
Are state police a militia?
Is the US Army a militia?

You tell me...

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;"

[erowe1]

Don't fucking call me a racist. I am so sick of you guys making it about that. You are just as bad as the class warfare agents on the left. My parents were immigrants, and they did it the right way. Don't give me this bullshit.

About Fisharmor's "constitution" question:

Article 1 Section 8:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

I can list more. Do you want me to?

I will leave you with what Bing so eloquently stated:

"Your analysis of our need for laws and government is very distorted. There is a need for government, as much as you hate it. You would have no protection of your natural rights without government. I hate the government, but without it we would have no mechanism for protecting our rights. Stop referring to it as, "The body 'claiming a monopoly on violence'." What world are you living in? A society without laws is no society at all. The law is the collective organization of one's right to justice and due process. The law is established, as are borders. If you don't agree with our border, renounce your citizenship and go to mexico and fight for them. When nation states and laws are formed, they are recognized within certain boundaries and are enforced accordingly. Under your scenario, you would dissipate all borders along with all of the laws within them. There are borders both at the north and at the south of this country, which define people that live different lifestyles and under different bodies of laws. Laws and culture do not transcend borders, and they never have. When you cross the border of a neighboring country without being invited, you are an INVADER. When you cross onto your neighbors property, you are trespassing. This is no different. I'm not advocating any type of socialism or collectivized control over the means of production, so stop with the demagoguery.

There is nothing wrong with nationalism. If you don't like it, get out. What is a nation? A nation is an organic mixture of culture, lifestyle, social habits, faith, language, BORDERS, BLOOD, SOIL, and history. Blood spilled in the past which has allowed you to speak here on this forum without fear of persecution is the destination to which your loyalty is surely owed. If you don't like that, move out. Liberty does not transcend borders, and is earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to god. These are principles which are engrained into our declaration and constitution. This is what we are preserving; under your logic, we would ignore all history and aloofly expect people to cooperate non violently. You're living in fantasy land, and the rights which you claim are tied to "individual sovereignty" would be stolen from you without the laws, history and tradition that I seek to preserve. The constitution is the most sublime governing document ever contrived by human intelligence, and without it, and under some anarcho-capitalist utopia with no laws, you have no recourse to justice in the event of harm or malfeasance."

If it's not about race then what is it? Why do you consider peaceful immigration the same as invasion? Again, it's clearly not about whether it's illegal or not. So you tell us, what is it?

[Butchie]

Can you show me the part of the US Constitution that authorizes the federal government to create agencies to repel invasions?

(Answer: this is constitutionally the job of the militia.)

So if a state militia deports her that will ease your conscience? Funny how you dodge the sovereignty issue, what I'm finding more and more is people on here love to highlight one little part of someone's statement, take it out of context, then use some moral superiority argument. How is opening our borders any different than social welfare? All of you whine about how terrible things are in their country, which is unfortunate, but since when does the Constitution say it is America's job to guarantee everyone in the world a good life? Isnt' that along the same lines as us butting our noses into other nations business because we know best and we need to "fix" them?

Just how many people do you plan to let in America anyway? All 7 billion? What if they carry diseases, have a violent criminal background, how will you feed and house them all, then you have to reprint all signs in numerous different languages - unless you plan to dictate a national language, but that would be oppressive and racist now wouldn't it? I'm starting to wonder how many of you are just liberals who don't want to admit that you are liberals. For sure the NeoCons are insane with their war mongering but some of you are starting to make me want to warm up more to the Christians.

[erowe1]

Do you need me to say it a third time, or is quoting you saying it enough?
Is INS a militia?
Are state police a militia?
Is the US Army a militia?

Before pressing this point, I'd like to know how deporting this girl counts as "repelling invasion." What kind of mindset do you have to have for that to make sense?

[No Free Beer]

If it's not about race then what is it? Why do you consider peaceful immigration the same as invasion? Again, it's clearly not about whether it's illegal or not. So you tell us, what is it?

hahah what? Did you not read what I wrote above?

http://i44.tinypic.com/w1dzpf.jpg

[erowe1]

hahah what? Did you not read what I wrote above?


I did. You didn't answer the question.

Don't turn around and say your parents did it the right way. If they were immigrants, they were invaders. What are you gonna pretend it's all about whether it's legal or not?

Also, when you list "culture, lifestyle, social habits, faith, language" you're making it about race. None of those things are any of the federal government's business.

[Cabal]

You didn't answer the question.

He never does.

[azxd]

How did Ron put it the other night, when he spoke of successfully robbing a bank ?

[azxd]

So she broke the law once, so it is justified to uproot her entire life and everything she has worked for?

Or do you just hate brown people?

I say make her pay the penalty for breaking the law, but no deport. Has nothing to do with how good she looks.
Playing the race card is a sure sign of failure ... If you can't make a logical case ... LOL
Find another victim !!

[azxd]

Defending the border doesn't mean posted on the border like some kind of human wall preventing anyone from crossing. It means defending us from a military attack.
What part of illegal are you having a problem comprehending ?

[azxd]

Whatever it is about with you, it's clearly not just "illegal immigration." You're as much against them coming legally as you are against them coming illegally. If that weren't the case then you'd support the solution of simply making all immigration legal. So if it's not skin color, what is it? Culture? Language? Some other arbitrary racial distinction?
Immigration is legal via a system we have in place.
What you fail to comprehend is that laws need to be applied equally, or they are meaningless and will be abused.

[The Binghamton Patriot]

I did. You didn't answer the question.

Don't turn around and say your parents did it the right way. If they were immigrants, they were invaders. What are you gonna pretend it's all about whether it's legal or not?

Also, when you list "culture, lifestyle, social habits, faith, language" you're making it about race. None of those things are any of the federal government's business.

OK erowe stop with the racism and the demagoguery. I will state once again that in order to preserve liberty, the natural social and lifestyle constraints imposed upon a free society by its' own citizens must be in place in order to preserve the laws which allow us to exercise liberty. These constraints are not imposed by the government, but are the responsibility of parents, churches, friends, and voluntary associations; Our goal in life is to strive for excellence in virtue, but without proper constraints imposed on us on an individual level, posterity will lack the mechanism in order to preserve these foundational principles. Example: if parents do not impose proper bedtimes and study times for their children, and allow them to skip school, do drugs, and dress like a barn animal, how do you expect these children to be worthy of raising children that will be self sufficient and worthy of the mantle of liberty? You don't. This is where culture comes in. The preservation of our CULTURE (i.e. borders language, faith, blood, soil, and history) is essential to guaranteeing that posterity will have the resources from which to draw in the event that a petty dictator comes to power and attempts to revise history. Peaceful immigration is amazing, and I'm all for it, but when you have people who come here without the authority of the government to whom you have vested your authority (the duty to whom it belongs to secure the boundaries governing a society which you on this forum have supposedly attempted to preserve), you have a problem. When large numbers of people come here en masse uninvited and without proper permission granted by the collective organization of laws known as government, they are INVADING. When you encroach on someone's property and trespass, you are violating property rights. The same thing can be said here. Those of a foreign nation who come here, arrive with the expectation that they can do whatever they want, and import their culture here without any repercussions. I say, get out. You are a hypocrite of the highest order, someone who doesn't seek to impose their culture or brand of government on a small middle eastern country, but will allow migrants of the THIRD WORLD to come here with disease, low skills, and no desire to assimilate into our advanced society.

[erowe1]

What part of illegal are you having a problem comprehending ?

The part about how doing something illegal = invasion.

So she broke a law that was the equivalent of a traffic infraction. Fine her accordingly and be done with it. The latitude and longitude she happens to reside is no more the federal government's business than mine or yours are.

[No Free Beer]

I did. You didn't answer the question.

Don't turn around and say your parents did it the right way. If they were immigrants, they were invaders. What are you gonna pretend it's all about whether it's legal or not?

Also, when you list "culture, lifestyle, social habits, faith, language" you're making it about race. None of those things are any of the federal government's business.

I feel either you don't get what we are discussing, or you and I are approaching this topic from different angles.

Are you talking specifically about the subject of this young lady? If so, I have stated that she did not enter this country illegally. However, she did over stay her visa. Therefore, she should be deported. That's how it works with everyone, no need to make any exceptions because she could be considered, "brown."

I am talking in general terms. We have laws. We are a nation. A nation is enforced by borders. The U.S. Constitution specifically gives authority to the federal government, allowing them to enforce our laws on the border. Why? Because it is also a national security issue. The federal government has the authority to follow who comes in and out of this country. Again, it is a national security issue. To put it differently, it is a "defense" issue. When someone follows our rules and would like to visit the US or reside here, they are okay. Why? Because those are the rules of our federal government, supported by the constitution. My parents followed the rules and came here legally, based on US law. You are not making the distinction between immigration v illegal immigration v defense. For you to imply that I am a racist simply because I want to enforce our laws and borders is quite ridiculous. I don't care where the illegals come from, they are invaders and breaking our laws and should be treated as such. If a foreign country puts troops on our soil, we have a right as a country to protect ourselves. If an individual does the very same thing, we should apply the same strategy. This is why you all are hypocrites.

About culture, language, soil, etc. , you are right. The government doesn't have the authority to define what our culture should be like. But, are you going to ignore the facts that almost all the countries in the world have their own culture? Are you saying there isn't an American culture? What does this have anything to do with our government enforcing our borders? I don't get your argument?

I feel as though you are trying to set up a trap of some sort, but don't seem to understand where you are going with this.

We have laws. We are a nation. We have borders. The Constitution authorizes our government to protect them from ANY invader. Period.

do you understand?

Either way, I have a bunch of studying to do. I will check back before UNC vs Duke tonight...

[erowe1]

OK erowe stop with the racism and the demagoguery. I will state once again that in order to preserve liberty, the natural social and lifestyle constraints imposed upon a free society by its' own citizens must be in place in order to preserve the laws which allow us to exercise liberty. These constraints are not imposed by the government, but are the responsibility of parents, churches, friends, and voluntary associations; Our goal in life is to strive for excellence in virtue, but without proper constraints imposed on us on an individual level, posterity will lack the mechanism in order to preserve these foundational principles. Example: if parents do not impose proper bedtimes and study times for their children, and allow them to skip school, do drugs, and dress like a barn animal, how do you expect these children to be worthy of raising children that will be self sufficient and worthy of the mantle of liberty? You don't. This is where culture comes in. The preservation of our CULTURE (i.e. borders language, faith, blood, soil, and history) is essential to guaranteeing that posterity will have the resources from which to draw in the event that a petty dictator comes to power and attempts to revise history. Peaceful immigration is amazing, and I'm all for it, but when you have people who come here without the authority of the government to whom you have vested your authority (the duty to whom it belongs to secure the boundaries governing a society which you on this forum have supposedly attempted to preserve), you have a problem. When large numbers of people come here en masse uninvited and without proper permission granted by the collective organization of laws known as government, they are INVADING. When you encroach on someone's property and trespass, you are violating property rights. The same thing can be said here. Those of a foreign nation who come here, arrive with the expectation that they can do whatever they want, and import their culture here without any repercussions. I say, get out. You are a hypocrite of the highest order, someone who doesn't seek to impose their culture or brand of government on a small middle eastern country, but will allow migrants of the THIRD WORLD to come here with disease, low skills, and no desire to assimilate into our advanced society.

Free citizens do not have the right to impose lifestyle constraints on other free citizens.

Why should I care what skills somebody has if they come to some place near me? Does their lack of skill affect me somehow?

And when you keep bringing up words like "culture" and "assimilate" you are making it about race.

And your whole post is confusing. What's "these constraints are not imposed by the government" mean? We're talking about deporting someone. That's the government.

[The Binghamton Patriot]

The part about how doing something illegal = invasion.

So she broke a law that was the equivalent of a traffic infraction. Fine her accordingly and be done with it. The latitude and longitude she happens to reside is no more the federal government's business than mine or yours are.

you are refusing to recognize that the latitude and longitude in which this illegal lives, is under the jurisdiction of a country to which she is not a legal citizen. She may have no fault in this, and the fault lies entirely with the people that brought her here at birth. She was not born here. IF she were born here, she would be a citizen, which tells me she was smuggled in or came here illegally, or overstayed her visa. If a child grows up with a brain disorder because one of the parents dropped he/she on their head at a young age, does this alleviate the responsibility that the parent has for developing another human life? The parents are entirely responsible for this, and this girl has no one to blame but the people who smuggled her in.

[No Free Beer]

He never does.
hahaha you never answered bing's statement...you hypocrite.

[erowe1]

Are you talking specifically about the subject of this young lady? If so, I have stated that she did not enter this country illegally. However, she did over stay her visa. Therefore, she should be deported. That's how it works with everyone, no need to make any exceptions because she could be considered, "brown."


The question of the thread is not about how it does work but how it should work. Should we or should we not deport people like that? The correct answer is no.

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Free citizens do not have the right to impose lifestyle constraints on other free citizens.

Why should I care what skills somebody has if they come to some place near me? Does their lack of skill affect me somehow?

And when you keep bringing up words like "culture" and "assimilate" you are making it about race.

And your whole post is confusing. What's "these constraints are not imposed by the government" mean? We're talking about deporting someone. That's the government.

YES, free citizens, such as parents, have the moral responsibility to raise children that are going to be inheriting the responsibility of preserving liberty, responsibility, and free markets. Parents have the DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO provide guidance, constraints, and thresholds in which their children live and operate. Stop with the over generalizations and race baiting. Race is not tied to culture, as anyone can come here, learn english, read american newspapers, play american sports, and assimilate into our society. Culture involves becoming an advanced communicator in english, and learning how to spread ideas through this mechanism. You're really embarrassing yourself.

[erowe1]

you are refusing to recognize that the latitude and longitude in which this illegal lives, is under the jurisdiction of a country to which she is not a legal citizen.

Correct. I refuse to acknowledge that. And I have trouble understanding the mindset of those who do acknowledge it. I know Ron Paul doesn't. Nobody has jurisdiction over my latitude and longitude, nor yours. You can keep me out of your private property, but beyond that, you have no jurisdiction, nor does anyone else.

[Butchie]

Free citizens do not have the right to impose lifestyle constraints on other free citizens.

Why should I care what skills somebody has if they come to some place near me? Does their lack of skill affect me somehow?

And when you keep bringing up words like "culture" and "assimilate" you are making it about race.

And your whole post is confusing. What's "these constraints are not imposed by the government" mean? We're talking about deporting someone. That's the government.

Yes, they do, I can't tell you not to smoke, but I can tell you not to blow it in my face. This fairytale notion some of you have of "freedom" is silly. Every society has to come up with some set of laws and some manner of enforcing those laws, it will never please everyone, but that is life.

Tell you what, how about you, and those who are like minded, pool your money, buy some property and start your "free" community, I promise whether your society sinks or swims I will in no way interfer so long as what you do remains on your property. I would love to see if your system of open borders and no force will last a week.

[erowe1]

YES, free citizens, such as parents, have the moral responsibility to raise children that are going to be inheriting the responsibility of preserving liberty, responsibility, and free markets. Parents have the DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO provide guidance, constraints, and thresholds in which their children live and operate. Stop with the over generalizations and race baiting. Race is not tied to culture, as anyone can come here, learn english, read american newspapers, play american sports, and assimilate into our society. Culture involves becoming an advanced communicator in english, and learning how to spread ideas through this mechanism. You're really embarrassing yourself.

You mentioned more than just language earlier. But whether language or culture, I have the right to speak the language I want and conform to the cultural norms I want, and it's none of the federal government's business.

[No Free Beer]

Correct. I refuse to acknowledge that. And I have trouble understanding the mindset of those who do acknowledge it. I know Ron Paul doesn't. Nobody has jurisdiction over my latitude and longitude, nor yours. You can keep me out of your private property, but beyond that, you have no jurisdiction, nor does anyone else.

^^^ blind Ron Paul supporter.

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Correct. I refuse to acknowledge that. And I have trouble understanding the mindset of those who do acknowledge it. I know Ron Paul doesn't. Nobody has jurisdiction over my latitude and longitude, nor yours. You can keep me out of your private property, but beyond that, you have no jurisdiction, nor does anyone else.

you if misguided if you think ron paul doesn't believe in borders. He sure as hell doesn't advocate the type of transnationalism for which you are publicly advocating on a forum in his name. Ron is about as anti-nwo as you're going to find.

[erowe1]

Y
Tell you what, how about you, and those who are like minded, pool your money, buy some property and start your "free" community,

I've already done that. Now explain to me how it's any of the US federal government's business is someone I allow onto this property is one of their legal citizens or not.

[No Free Beer]

You mentioned more than just language earlier. But whether language or culture, I have the right to speak the language I want and conform to the cultural norms I want, and it's none of the federal government's business.

Ask Switzerland how that's working.

[erowe1]

you if misguided if you think ron paul doesn't believe in borders. He sure as hell doesn't advocate the type of transnationalism for which you are publicly advocating on a forum in his name. Ron is about as anti-nwo as you're going to find.

Don't change the subject.

[No Free Beer]

I've already done that. Now explain to me how it's any of the US federal government's business is someone I allow onto this property is one of their legal citizens or not.

You don't seem to understand the definition of "nation"

[erowe1]

Ask Switzerland how that's working.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean that you really think it is the federal government's business what language I speak and what cultural norms I follow?

[erowe1]

You don't seem to understand the definition of "nation"

Maybe I just don't accept your definition. What, you can define a word and from that you have the authority to extrapolate an ethical system?

The only kind of a nation I can support is a republic. That is clearly not what you support, otherwise you would agree with what I said about my property.

[No Free Beer]

He never does.

I never do? I suggest you read the rest of the thread. Or can't you?

[No Free Beer]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean that you really think it is the federal government's business what language I speak and what cultural norms I follow?

No, but the government of the US has a right to implement the official language of government.

What Verizon does with its answering machines is their business.

Keep up.

[No Free Beer]

Maybe I just don't accept your definition. What, you can define a word and from that you have the authority to extrapolate an ethical system?

The only kind of a nation I can support is a republic. That is clearly not what you support, otherwise you would agree with what I said about my property.

I have no problem with what you do with your property as long as it's supported by the Constitution.

When someone comes in here illegally, they are not obeying our laws. And the constitution allows us to do something about it.

[No Free Beer]

Anyway, I have wasted 45 min on here instead of studying. I will be back later.

[erowe1]

No, but the government of the US has a right to implement the official language of government.

I don't even see why that's an issue. So what? They don't have authority over what language I speak. The makeup of languages and cultures within the nation's borders is none of their business. They have no right to make any laws regulating them.

[erowe1]

I have no problem with what you do with your property as long as it's supported by the Constitution.

When someone comes in here illegally, they are not obeying our laws. And the constitution allows us to do something about it.

The Constitution allows you to come onto my property and kick someone out because you think they're not within the borders of your nation legally?

If that's the case, then that's a pretty major flaw in the Constitution isn't it. Wouldn't we be better off as a republic?

[Butchie]

I've already done that. Now explain to me how it's any of the US federal government's business is someone I allow onto this property is one of their legal citizens or not.

So long as they stay on your property and you provide for them and they are not using one ounce of govt resources or working illegally, I have no problem with that. I could care less what anyone does on their property so long as it doesn't "blow into my yard".

[erowe1]

So long as they stay on your property and you provide for them and they are not using one ounce of govt resources or working illegally, I have no problem with that. I could care less what anyone does on their property so long as it doesn't "blow into my yard".

Then the federal government has no business restricting immigration. They just need to stop giving out "government resources." We're on the same page then. The payoff of this for the thread is that the girl shouldn't get deported, since deporting her would take government resources.

[MelissaWV]

Indeed, you both are.

What we have here is Government flailing around creating a "problem" when in fact they benefit from it. Conflict is good.

We all already have proof of our citizenship status. We all already have seen advertising campaigns where a company tries to claim something is "made in America." We all hear the complaints about immigrants sopping up resources (though frankly our citizens do a good job of that, too).

1. Require citizenship for Government services. I'd like to see welfare go away, but it's not going to do so anytime soon. If we are going to pay for "welfare" then at least restrict it to citizens. Require a birth certificate or proof of citizenship from each person to receive aid. Check them during audits where you contact the issuing agency/hospital for confirmation of veracity. No e-verify, no special national ID, no SS #. There will be rare cases where someone has no access at all to their birth records, but that seems simple enough to resolve.

Schools are also a Government service. Again, I'd like to see Government out of education, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. Public schools should not accept non-citizens. This is very easy to verify, just as above.

2. They took our jobs!!! I don't think every employer should be required to check citizenship. That gets us back into e-verify. I do think that large corporations should think long and hard about a competitor coming up with a "Made in America, by Americans, for Americans" campaign and destroying them. We already have wage and employee-rights laws that are also not going away soon, so don't give me crap about a wave of immigrants working for $2/hour in a factory setting here. There will be migrant workers working for very little, but we already have that, and those SHOULD be cash-only jobs that are really none of my business. If private people/companies want to employ illegals, go for it. They're also opening themselves up to liability and theft issues, because a dishonest employee with foreign citizenship and no documentation is going to be able to slip away with whatever they want.

3. Criminals. We hear anecdotes regarding the evil illegal driving drunk without a license and hitting the bus full of nuns and babies and puppies. It's depressing, but don't we already have laws? How is the guy being illegal the key part of that? Arrest them, take their prints, create a record, and deal with them as a criminal. Of course, I would like jails to pay for themselves...

4. Privatize. This is the part that tears a lot of "keep 'em out" people up. If I decide I want to take in 5 foreign kiddos without any documentation, who came across the border and were running wild until they sought help at my church, I should be able to. When I put them into a community school, I should be able to (but not in a public school). If I pay privately for them to go to college, I should be able to. What is happening there is that I am putting more money into different sectors of the economy than I normally would. Money is going in, circulating, and so on... but very little is being "taken out" of the pot. There is no welfare involved, here, just my private charity. Likewise maybe their mom (or dad) is with them and I employ them in some kind of odd job around my home. I should be able to. Not only are they providing a service, which I then pay for, but they are then going to spend that money in the community as well.

5. "Official" language. This has been batted around a lot in this thread. The fact is that the Government SHOULD have one language, so long as it's going to print anything. Right now the Government prints more than you would ever dream. It's awful. Print it in English and Spanish? Twice as much awful. Add Creole (yes, that's the third language of choice; call the Medicaid hotline sometime)? Thrice as awful. Do it all in English, and allow private companies to translate at their own cost as a community service. They can affix their logo to it, along with the Government logo, and distribute the translated publications. This also assures that each community's needs are met. Spanish might be useless in one neighborhood, while essential in another. Sometimes Vietnamese is going to be the most popular language. Sometimes you might even want a Braille publication.

6. Streamline the process. Cut out the red tape, and really look for people who want to come here, invest, make a difference.

[Butchie]

Then the federal government has no business restricting immigration. They just need to stop giving out "government resources." We're on the same page then. The payoff of this for the thread is that the girl shouldn't get deported, since deporting her would take government resources.

I was giving you some credit, then you turn around and say something stupid like that, thanks for ruining what may have been an intelligent discussion.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I'm someone that believes additional penalties, or alternative penalties should be used. I believe deportation is a bit extreme. I believe punishment for violating the law should still happen. However, I apply the golden rule to this scenario.

[RiseAgainst]

Your analysis of our need for laws and government is very distorted.

Interesting. Do you believe in the philosophy of liberty, defined at it's core by the naturally observable right to self ownership, and the understanding of the Non-Agression Principle? Dr. Ron Paul does, as did his lifelong friend Murray Rothbard, among countless scores of others he references and recommends you read.


There is a need for government, as much as you hate it.

Actually, there is not, as much as you love it. The empirical, economical, philosophical and moral case has been put quite well to rest by literally thousands of years of philosophical understanding culminating in liberty's great renaissance in the works of Ludwig von Mises, and carried forward by his heir, and again lifelong friend of Dr. Paul, Murray Rothbard. Dr. Paul himself in his book Liberty Defined recommends reading "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe & "Abolish Government" by Lysander Spooner. Two wonderfully anti-state philosophers who completely understand the philosophy of liberty to it's truest extent from it's very base in the recognition of individual sovereignty through the principle of self-ownership.


You would have no protection of your natural rights without government.

This is among the more ludicrous statements I have ever heard uttered. An institution which by it's very nature destroys natural rights can in no rational, logical or empirical sense 'protect' natural rights. That which destroys X cannot possibly protect X. This isn't rocket science.


I hate the government, but without it we would have no mechanism for protecting our rights.

I'm not quite sure you do. Of course I'm far more sure you have, at best, an incredibly tentative grasp on the subject to begin with so it's hard for you to really establish an emotion towards something you don't even understand. Again, that which destroys X cannot possibly protect X.


Stop referring to it as, "The body 'claiming a monopoly on violence'."

Statists hate being confronted with the reality of that which they advocate. You have been conditioned so much so, that your own mind desparately needs the dialectic it has been served in order to soothe and absolve itself from the violent reality which it advocates. The funny thing is, when it suits the subject they can easily and triumphantly call this out in others. I'm sure that you have no problem seeing through a claim for yet more government intervention in the name of "it's for the children". You can see that the actions called for in this manner are detrimental to essential liberty, for the other the call of "it's for the children" soothes their mind and absolves them from the reality of the actual force and denial of liberties they advocate. Your claim here is no different.


What world are you living in?

Presumably the same as you, though certainly I have to question that at times.


A society without laws is no society at all.

Comprehension fail. Laws, rules, order, justice. The common calling card for the State to the intellectually weak. I have never advocated for a society with "no rules", though certainly through the veil of your indoctrination that can be difficult to see. You have been trained to inextricably link rules and order with a State with monopoly on violence. This is not the only option available, and in fact if your interest is in a just and moral society, if your interest is in the protection of individual rights and property, if your interest is anything other than lining the pockets of the well connected a State with monopoly on violence power is by far the least effective method of achieving these things.


The law is the collective organization of one's right to justice and due process.

There is no extrapolative function, no multiplier effect, no collective of rights. Rights belong to individuals alone, and no group or collective together can do anything other than each individual can do on his own. One person does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of another person. Likewise, 10,000 people do not have the right to infringe upon the right of one person.


The law is established, as are borders.

Incorrect, the 'law' (as it stands in the US today) and borders are decreed by tyrants. However, we've also already been over this, establishment does not a sound argument make.


If you don't agree with our border, renounce your citizenship and go to mexico and fight for them.

Of course it wouldn't be a national socialist retort without this gem. 'Murrica, love it or leave it boi! For those of us who reside in reality, and have use of the faculties we have been blessed with, we can easily see that the notion of not abandoning ones property, family and life do not, either implicitly or explicitly, confer any consent whatsoever. If you offer a slave an option of being a slave for his current master, X, or leaving to slavehood under a new master, Y, and he resigns himself to service under master X he has in no way consented to his slavery at base.


When nation states and laws are formed, they are recognized within certain boundaries and are enforced accordingly.

They are formed through violent agression and the absolute destruction of the individual rights of those unfortunate souls who happen to have been unlucky enough to reside within their new master's imaginary lines. They are mere constructs with the express purpose of concentrating the power of the few over the many.


Under your scenario, you would dissipate all borders along with all of the laws within them.

Interesting, please tell me more about what I think. I would do nothing of the sort, nor have I ever in any remote way suggested so. As we have established from the very beginning, the very basis for the philosophy of liberty is the natural right of self-ownership. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not inclined to give you dissertation level discussion on this topic as I have neither the time nor space, and these principles are so basic to the understanding of liberty I have to continually question how so many so called "liberty" minded people have absolutely no grasp of them. That being said, and in as little detail as possible, a natural self-owner cannot ever be allowed to realize her self-ownership without the existence of private property. These boundaries, of natural self-owners property, are the only just and naturally observable borders. Within these 'borders' it naturally follows that rules of conduct will be set by the property owner.


There are borders both at the north and at the south of this country, which define people that live different lifestyles and under different bodies of laws.

As has been discussed, and again reinforced above, these 'borders' (imaginary lines) have no rational or just claim. They are not the result of natural self-owners expressing their private property, they are the result of tyranical bodies unjustly claiming a monopoly on violence within their imaginary lines by decree.


Laws and culture do not transcend borders, and they never have.

Now I know you are lying through your teeth, simply to suit your desired end. Up here in Minnesota I have a HELL of a lot more in common with the average Canadian than I do with the average New Mexican. All of this, of course, continues to miss the just of the point. I'm not sure why I have to repeat this so often to 'liberty' lovers, but rights belong to individuals, not collectives. Your grand desire for nationalism, collectivism, and a 'national identitiy and culture' is in direct opposition to individual liberty. It denies the individual his right of voluntary association, and the ability to express his association through private property and exchange.


When you cross the border of a neighboring country without being invited, you are an INVADER. When you cross onto your neighbors property, you are trespassing. This is no different.

This is downright laughable. Your understanding of property rights, much aparently like your understanding of the nature of rights themselves, is atrocious. When you cross onto a natural self-owners private property without his consent, you are absolutely and without question trespassing. This trespass is only realized because of the justness of the property owners claim to said property. If I wander on to your land, and then claim that you are on my property without my consent, no rational being could summate that you are in a state of trespass on my property. It is ONLY in the justness of the property claim that the trespass is validated. No such justness of claim exists for a body of tyrants and their imaginary lines. They have no claim to the land, and no just claim to trespass against it.


I'm not advocating any type of socialism or collectivized control over the means of production, so stop with the demagoguery.

Everything that you have stated thus far is positively oozing with collectivism. You have outright rejected the conept of self-ownership and respect for a self-owners private property.


There is nothing wrong with nationalism.

There is everything wrong with nationalism, as evidenced by your every utterance. Nationalism convinces an otherwise would be supporter of individual liberty such as yourself, to scream for the collective, to deny individuals their naturally observable rights. It whips you into a false frenzy of blind hatred and xenophobia, condemning the rights of every single human outside of your personally subscribed collective, all based on the geographic region you happened to drop out of your mother on.


If you don't like it, get out.

:rolleyes: Here we go again, thanks Toby Keith. SIEG HEIL!!


What is a nation? A nation is an organic mixture of culture, lifestyle, social habits, faith, language, BORDERS, BLOOD, SOIL, and history.

Other than your, now constant, appeal to 'borders', what you are describing here is a nation, not a Nation or a State.


Blood spilled in the past which has allowed you to speak here on this forum without fear of persecution is the destination to which your loyalty is surely owed.

Lol, how classic. An appeal to emotion based on the blood of soldiers. Setting aside the sheer lunacy of this emotional appeal, I have to ask. Have you stuck your ass on the line? I have spilled my blood in that mud. I have had my life nearly taken from me, and forever altered on the battlefield. I could make the same ridiculous appeal to emotion here, and ask whether you have, and where you think you get the right to question me since I have spilled my blood, but this, much like all of your argumentative devices, serves only to attempt to derail the conversation away from any meaningful and intelligent debate on actual points. It is pure propaganda, but little else I have come to expect from you.


If you don't like that, move out.

LMFAO, you really managed to put this in three separate times? Here's a quick sign that you're on shaky ground in even your own mind, if you have to appeal to emotion, and start shouting ad hominem and things like "then just leave", you would probably do well with some self reflection.


Liberty does not transcend borders, and is earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny.

And here we get to the root of the issue. Apparently you do not believe that natural rights exist. Why do you support Ron Paul, one of the most ardent supporters of natural rights?


Resistance to tyranny is obedience to god.

Huzzah! We are in COMPLETE agreement on something!! :D


These are principles which are engrained into our declaration and constitution.

I'm not sure you actually understand the DoI or Constitution at all. If you think that liberty is something that is "earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny", and NOT a naturally evident right of ALL human beings, then you are in disagreement with the DoI and Constitution.


This is what we are preserving; under your logic, we would ignore all history and aloofly expect people to cooperate non violently.

So, clearly then you are absolutely okay with the government we have, right? The Constitution either authorizes the government as we have it, or it is POWERLESS to stop it. The only one who is ignoring history is the statist, who somehow magically believes against the backdrop of history that if only the 'right people' were in power and if only we wrote the 'right words' on a piece of paper all of the thousands of years of mans history with the State would be suddenly turned on it's head. As history has shown you repeatedly and without contestation, this is delusional in the highest accord. The US Constitution was a BEAUTIFUL document in concept, the limited state envisioned by the founders a wonderful goal to aim for amidst the backdrop of Monarchy and feudalism. It was the greatest attempt Statism has ever had. And it resulted in the LARGEST State mankind has ever seen. Even if I were to be convinced to completely abandon the principle of self-ownership, which is required to hold a statist position, history would clearly tell me that your utopia is unachievable. IOW, in order to even begin to try and rationalize a "means justify the ends" stance, the means must actually ACHIEVE THE ENDS.


You're living in fantasy land, and the rights which you claim are tied to "individual sovereignty" would be stolen from you without the laws, history and tradition that I seek to preserve.

Without individual soveriegnty, without self-ownership, you have no rights. And I am living in a fantasy land?


The constitution is the most sublime governing document ever contrived by human intelligence, and without it, and under some anarcho-capitalist utopia with no laws, you have no recourse to justice in the event of harm or malfeasance.

You have little care for any rational discourse or objective discussion. You have set your mind, albeit helped along by indoctrination, and have closed it off to all other possibilities. When confronted with opposition you resort to fist pounding and temper tantrums, name calling and hyperbole. Instead of receiving new information, willing to understand and learn, even if in the end you still disagree, you plug your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs, then proceed to spew misconception, inference and regurgitated talking points offered to you by that which denies you your very liberty.

The saddest fact is that after a post filled with hollow talking points, appeals to emotion, strawmen, red herrings and outright ad hominem, the weak minded are right there to slap you on the back for your "smack down". It is times like these that I feel pity for the 'liberty' movement. Too many are more interested in affirming their own misconceived notions than with any pursuit of a rational and just understanding of the nature of what it is they seek.

You are free to respond in any manner you like, I care not for your conversational company any longer. You lack the ability to consider any position that questions your currently held position, you lack the ability to expand your understanding in any way. You are stuck on an ego driven ideological island, content with shouting whatever your flavor of the time is, regardless of it's realistic outcomes and how they may line up with what you profess to desire. Any opportunity for meaningful debate with you is long since passed, if ever such a time existed to begin with. If it feeds your ego to respons as you will, and declare your trouncing complete since I do not respond to your further regurgitated vile, you are welcome to it, it seems you need that comfort far more than I.

Peace

[kylejack]

If we would legalize immigration for all non-criminals and diseased, we'd see a lot less illegal immigration. Time to get rid of our racist policies.

[azxd]

You don't seem to understand the definition of "nation"
That does seem to be a root problem.

[No Free Beer]

Interesting. Do you believe in the philosophy of liberty, defined at it's core by the naturally observable right to self ownership, and the understanding of the Non-Agression Principle? Dr. Ron Paul does, as did his lifelong friend Murray Rothbard, among countless scores of others he references and recommends you read.



Actually, there is not, as much as you love it. The empirical, economical, philosophical and moral case has been put quite well to rest by literally thousands of years of philosophical understanding culminating in liberty's great renaissance in the works of Ludwig von Mises, and carried forward by his heir, and again lifelong friend of Dr. Paul, Murray Rothbard. Dr. Paul himself in his book Liberty Defined recommends reading "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe & "Abolish Government" by Lysander Spooner. Two wonderfully anti-state philosophers who completely understand the philosophy of liberty to it's truest extent from it's very base in the recognition of individual sovereignty through the principle of self-ownership.



This is among the more ludicrous statements I have ever heard uttered. An institution which by it's very nature destroys natural rights can in no rational, logical or empirical sense 'protect' natural rights. That which destroys X cannot possibly protect X. This isn't rocket science.



I'm not quite sure you do. Of course I'm far more sure you have, at best, an incredibly tentative grasp on the subject to begin with so it's hard for you to really establish an emotion towards something you don't even understand. Again, that which destroys X cannot possibly protect X.



Statists hate being confronted with the reality of that which they advocate. You have been conditioned so much so, that your own mind desparately needs the dialectic it has been served in order to soothe and absolve itself from the violent reality which it advocates. The funny thing is, when it suits the subject they can easily and triumphantly call this out in others. I'm sure that you have no problem seeing through a claim for yet more government intervention in the name of "it's for the children". You can see that the actions called for in this manner are detrimental to essential liberty, for the other the call of "it's for the children" soothes their mind and absolves them from the reality of the actual force and denial of liberties they advocate. Your claim here is no different.



Presumably the same as you, though certainly I have to question that at times.



Comprehension fail. Laws, rules, order, justice. The common calling card for the State to the intellectually weak. I have never advocated for a society with "no rules", though certainly through the veil of your indoctrination that can be difficult to see. You have been trained to inextricably link rules and order with a State with monopoly on violence. This is not the only option available, and in fact if your interest is in a just and moral society, if your interest is in the protection of individual rights and property, if your interest is anything other than lining the pockets of the well connected a State with monopoly on violence power is by far the least effective method of achieving these things.



There is no extrapolative function, no multiplier effect, no collective of rights. Rights belong to individuals alone, and no group or collective together can do anything other than each individual can do on his own. One person does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of another person. Likewise, 10,000 people do not have the right to infringe upon the right of one person.



Incorrect, the 'law' (as it stands in the US today) and borders are decreed by tyrants. However, we've also already been over this, establishment does not a sound argument make.



Of course it wouldn't be a national socialist retort without this gem. 'Murrica, love it or leave it boi! For those of us who reside in reality, and have use of the faculties we have been blessed with, we can easily see that the notion of not abandoning ones property, family and life do not, either implicitly or explicitly, confer any consent whatsoever. If you offer a slave an option of being a slave for his current master, X, or leaving to slavehood under a new master, Y, and he resigns himself to service under master X he has in no way consented to his slavery at base.



They are formed through violent agression and the absolute destruction of the individual rights of those unfortunate souls who happen to have been unlucky enough to reside within their new master's imaginary lines. They are mere constructs with the express purpose of concentrating the power of the few over the many.



Interesting, please tell me more about what I think. I would do nothing of the sort, nor have I ever in any remote way suggested so. As we have established from the very beginning, the very basis for the philosophy of liberty is the natural right of self-ownership. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not inclined to give you dissertation level discussion on this topic as I have neither the time nor space, and these principles are so basic to the understanding of liberty I have to continually question how so many so called "liberty" minded people have absolutely no grasp of them. That being said, and in as little detail as possible, a natural self-owner cannot ever be allowed to realize her self-ownership without the existence of private property. These boundaries, of natural self-owners property, are the only just and naturally observable borders. Within these 'borders' it naturally follows that rules of conduct will be set by the property owner.



As has been discussed, and again reinforced above, these 'borders' (imaginary lines) have no rational or just claim. They are not the result of natural self-owners expressing their private property, they are the result of tyranical bodies unjustly claiming a monopoly on violence within their imaginary lines by decree.



Now I know you are lying through your teeth, simply to suit your desired end. Up here in Minnesota I have a HELL of a lot more in common with the average Canadian than I do with the average New Mexican. All of this, of course, continues to miss the just of the point. I'm not sure why I have to repeat this so often to 'liberty' lovers, but rights belong to individuals, not collectives. Your grand desire for nationalism, collectivism, and a 'national identitiy and culture' is in direct opposition to individual liberty. It denies the individual his right of voluntary association, and the ability to express his association through private property and exchange.



This is downright laughable. Your understanding of property rights, much aparently like your understanding of the nature of rights themselves, is atrocious. When you cross onto a natural self-owners private property without his consent, you are absolutely and without question trespassing. This trespass is only realized because of the justness of the property owners claim to said property. If I wander on to your land, and then claim that you are on my property without my consent, no rational being could summate that you are in a state of trespass on my property. It is ONLY in the justness of the property claim that the trespass is validated. No such justness of claim exists for a body of tyrants and their imaginary lines. They have no claim to the land, and no just claim to trespass against it.



Everything that you have stated thus far is positively oozing with collectivism. You have outright rejected the conept of self-ownership and respect for a self-owners private property.



There is everything wrong with nationalism, as evidenced by your every utterance. Nationalism convinces an otherwise would be supporter of individual liberty such as yourself, to scream for the collective, to deny individuals their naturally observable rights. It whips you into a false frenzy of blind hatred and xenophobia, condemning the rights of every single human outside of your personally subscribed collective, all based on the geographic region you happened to drop out of your mother on.



:rolleyes: Here we go again, thanks Toby Keith. SIEG HEIL!!



Other than your, now constant, appeal to 'borders', what you are describing here is a nation, not a Nation or a State.



Lol, how classic. An appeal to emotion based on the blood of soldiers. Setting aside the sheer lunacy of this emotional appeal, I have to ask. Have you stuck your ass on the line? I have spilled my blood in that mud. I have had my life nearly taken from me, and forever altered on the battlefield. I could make the same ridiculous appeal to emotion here, and ask whether you have, and where you think you get the right to question me since I have spilled my blood, but this, much like all of your argumentative devices, serves only to attempt to derail the conversation away from any meaningful and intelligent debate on actual points. It is pure propaganda, but little else I have come to expect from you.



LMFAO, you really managed to put this in three separate times? Here's a quick sign that you're on shaky ground in even your own mind, if you have to appeal to emotion, and start shouting ad hominem and things like "then just leave", you would probably do well with some self reflection.



And here we get to the root of the issue. Apparently you do not believe that natural rights exist. Why do you support Ron Paul, one of the most ardent supporters of natural rights?



Huzzah! We are in COMPLETE agreement on something!! :D



I'm not sure you actually understand the DoI or Constitution at all. If you think that liberty is something that is "earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny", and NOT a naturally evident right of ALL human beings, then you are in disagreement with the DoI and Constitution.



So, clearly then you are absolutely okay with the government we have, right? The Constitution either authorizes the government as we have it, or it is POWERLESS to stop it. The only one who is ignoring history is the statist, who somehow magically believes against the backdrop of history that if only the 'right people' were in power and if only we wrote the 'right words' on a piece of paper all of the thousands of years of mans history with the State would be suddenly turned on it's head. As history has shown you repeatedly and without contestation, this is delusional in the highest accord. The US Constitution was a BEAUTIFUL document in concept, the limited state envisioned by the founders a wonderful goal to aim for amidst the backdrop of Monarchy and feudalism. It was the greatest attempt Statism has ever had. And it resulted in the LARGEST State mankind has ever seen. Even if I were to be convinced to completely abandon the principle of self-ownership, which is required to hold a statist position, history would clearly tell me that your utopia is unachievable. IOW, in order to even begin to try and rationalize a "means justify the ends" stance, the means must actually ACHIEVE THE ENDS.



Without individual soveriegnty, without self-ownership, you have no rights. And I am living in a fantasy land?



You have little care for any rational discourse or objective discussion. You have set your mind, albeit helped along by indoctrination, and have closed it off to all other possibilities. When confronted with opposition you resort to fist pounding and temper tantrums, name calling and hyperbole. Instead of receiving new information, willing to understand and learn, even if in the end you still disagree, you plug your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs, then proceed to spew misconception, inference and regurgitated talking points offered to you by that which denies you your very liberty.

The saddest fact is that after a post filled with hollow talking points, appeals to emotion, strawmen, red herrings and outright ad hominem, the weak minded are right there to slap you on the back for your "smack down". It is times like these that I feel pity for the 'liberty' movement. Too many are more interested in affirming their own misconceived notions than with any pursuit of a rational and just understanding of the nature of what it is they seek.

You are free to respond in any manner you like, I care not for your conversational company any longer. You lack the ability to consider any position that questions your currently held position, you lack the ability to expand your understanding in any way. You are stuck on an ego driven ideological island, content with shouting whatever your flavor of the time is, regardless of it's realistic outcomes and how they may line up with what you profess to desire. Any opportunity for meaningful debate with you is long since passed, if ever such a time existed to begin with. If it feeds your ego to respons as you will, and declare your trouncing complete since I do not respond to your further regurgitated vile, you are welcome to it, it seems you need that comfort far more than I.

Peace

You are an anarchist

[azxd]

Then the federal government has no business restricting immigration. They just need to stop giving out "government resources." We're on the same page then. The payoff of this for the thread is that the girl shouldn't get deported, since deporting her would take government resources.Her staying also consumed resources ... Try another approach to circumventing the law.

[azxd]

I'm someone that believes additional penalties, or alternative penalties should be used. I believe deportation is a bit extreme. I believe punishment for violating the law should still happen. However, I apply the golden rule to this scenario.
South of the border, she'd have already been locked up ... If you haven't done so, read Mexico's laws concerning illegal aliens.
In fact, read most any other nations laws regarding this subject, and you will find that our biggest problem is being to nice, when compared to other nations.

[Southron]

Just so I can get called names again by the one-worlders, deport her.

[kylejack]

South of the border, she'd have already been locked up ... If you haven't done so, read Mexico's laws concerning illegal aliens.
In fact, read most any other nations laws regarding this subject, and you will find that our biggest problem is being to nice, when compared to other nations.
I thought we believed in freedom here, and I thought that was something we were proud of. Freedom to associate, freedom to travel.

[azxd]

If we would legalize immigration for all non-criminals and diseased, we'd see a lot less illegal immigration. Time to get rid of our racist policies.
How are the current policies racist ?
Be specific, please.

[Southron]

I thought we believed in freedom here, and I thought that was something we were proud of. Freedom to associate, freedom to travel.

Freedom to establish our own republics and choose who may live there and participate in the political process?

[kylejack]

How are the current policies racist ?
Be specific, please.
Sure. Immigrants from most Hispanic countries are not eligible for the Diversity Visa lottery. Other than a family-connection immigration, high-level ($1M plus) investor, or very high level employment, the Diversity Visa is about the only way to immigrate to this country. The average Mexican citizen that isn't filthy rich and doesn't have a parent or child who is an American citizen can't legally immigrate to America, no matter how many forms they fill out, no matter how many years they wait in line.

[azxd]

I thought we believed in freedom here, and I thought that was something we were proud of. Freedom to associate, freedom to travel.
Freedom from being invaded or forced to change, via the protective forces we maintain under our system of laws ;)

Like I said before, but will expand on now ... Don't like the current laws, work to change them.

The bitching and calling others names because they disagree with another AND the current laws, just shows how ignorant some are of the system we live within, and are able to change.

Don't like the law and others opinions based on the laws, get off the thread, and work to change the laws.

[kylejack]

I did not call anyone any names.

[azxd]

Freedom to establish our own republics and choose who may live there and participate in the political process?
Obviously they want to elect a dictator, but know they won't get the votes, unless bribery is used LOL

[azxd]

I did not call anyone any names.
It was a general statement and not directed at anyone specific.
Your response just provided the opportunity.

[Butchie]

Sure. Immigrants from most Hispanic countries are not eligible for the Diversity Visa lottery. Other than a family-connection immigration, high-level ($1M plus) investor, or very high level employment, the Diversity Visa is about the only way to immigrate to this country. The average Mexican citizen that isn't filthy rich and doesn't have a parent or child who is an American citizen can't legally immigrate to America, no matter how many forms they fill out, no matter how many years they wait in line.

Give me a break, so you're actually telling me there is a whole seperate immigration process put in place for people from "Hispanic Countries", show me one of these "Hispanic only" immigration forms, I'm sure the ACLU would have a field day with it.

BTW, the average citizen in ANY country, including America, is not filthy rich either.

[heavenlyboy34]

Didn't read the entire thread, but both sides are missing the solution that fits everyone best-private ownership of all land. Land owners at the border will then have incentive to keep trespassers off. The militia would serve as backup in case of an invasion to serious for regular folks to handle.

PS-the name-calling that seems to be going on both sides of the argument isn't advancing the conversation.

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Interesting. Do you believe in the philosophy of liberty, defined at it's core by the naturally observable right to self ownership, and the understanding of the Non-Agression Principle? Dr. Ron Paul does, as did his lifelong friend Murray Rothbard, among countless scores of others he references and recommends you read.



Actually, there is not, as much as you love it. The empirical, economical, philosophical and moral case has been put quite well to rest by literally thousands of years of philosophical understanding culminating in liberty's great renaissance in the works of Ludwig von Mises, and carried forward by his heir, and again lifelong friend of Dr. Paul, Murray Rothbard. Dr. Paul himself in his book Liberty Defined recommends reading "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe & "Abolish Government" by Lysander Spooner. Two wonderfully anti-state philosophers who completely understand the philosophy of liberty to it's truest extent from it's very base in the recognition of individual sovereignty through the principle of self-ownership.



This is among the more ludicrous statements I have ever heard uttered. An institution which by it's very nature destroys natural rights can in no rational, logical or empirical sense 'protect' natural rights. That which destroys X cannot possibly protect X. This isn't rocket science.



I'm not quite sure you do. Of course I'm far more sure you have, at best, an incredibly tentative grasp on the subject to begin with so it's hard for you to really establish an emotion towards something you don't even understand. Again, that which destroys X cannot possibly protect X.



Statists hate being confronted with the reality of that which they advocate. You have been conditioned so much so, that your own mind desparately needs the dialectic it has been served in order to soothe and absolve itself from the violent reality which it advocates. The funny thing is, when it suits the subject they can easily and triumphantly call this out in others. I'm sure that you have no problem seeing through a claim for yet more government intervention in the name of "it's for the children". You can see that the actions called for in this manner are detrimental to essential liberty, for the other the call of "it's for the children" soothes their mind and absolves them from the reality of the actual force and denial of liberties they advocate. Your claim here is no different.



Presumably the same as you, though certainly I have to question that at times.



Comprehension fail. Laws, rules, order, justice. The common calling card for the State to the intellectually weak. I have never advocated for a society with "no rules", though certainly through the veil of your indoctrination that can be difficult to see. You have been trained to inextricably link rules and order with a State with monopoly on violence. This is not the only option available, and in fact if your interest is in a just and moral society, if your interest is in the protection of individual rights and property, if your interest is anything other than lining the pockets of the well connected a State with monopoly on violence power is by far the least effective method of achieving these things.



There is no extrapolative function, no multiplier effect, no collective of rights. Rights belong to individuals alone, and no group or collective together can do anything other than each individual can do on his own. One person does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of another person. Likewise, 10,000 people do not have the right to infringe upon the right of one person.



Incorrect, the 'law' (as it stands in the US today) and borders are decreed by tyrants. However, we've also already been over this, establishment does not a sound argument make.



Of course it wouldn't be a national socialist retort without this gem. 'Murrica, love it or leave it boi! For those of us who reside in reality, and have use of the faculties we have been blessed with, we can easily see that the notion of not abandoning ones property, family and life do not, either implicitly or explicitly, confer any consent whatsoever. If you offer a slave an option of being a slave for his current master, X, or leaving to slavehood under a new master, Y, and he resigns himself to service under master X he has in no way consented to his slavery at base.



They are formed through violent agression and the absolute destruction of the individual rights of those unfortunate souls who happen to have been unlucky enough to reside within their new master's imaginary lines. They are mere constructs with the express purpose of concentrating the power of the few over the many.



Interesting, please tell me more about what I think. I would do nothing of the sort, nor have I ever in any remote way suggested so. As we have established from the very beginning, the very basis for the philosophy of liberty is the natural right of self-ownership. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not inclined to give you dissertation level discussion on this topic as I have neither the time nor space, and these principles are so basic to the understanding of liberty I have to continually question how so many so called "liberty" minded people have absolutely no grasp of them. That being said, and in as little detail as possible, a natural self-owner cannot ever be allowed to realize her self-ownership without the existence of private property. These boundaries, of natural self-owners property, are the only just and naturally observable borders. Within these 'borders' it naturally follows that rules of conduct will be set by the property owner.



As has been discussed, and again reinforced above, these 'borders' (imaginary lines) have no rational or just claim. They are not the result of natural self-owners expressing their private property, they are the result of tyranical bodies unjustly claiming a monopoly on violence within their imaginary lines by decree.



Now I know you are lying through your teeth, simply to suit your desired end. Up here in Minnesota I have a HELL of a lot more in common with the average Canadian than I do with the average New Mexican. All of this, of course, continues to miss the just of the point. I'm not sure why I have to repeat this so often to 'liberty' lovers, but rights belong to individuals, not collectives. Your grand desire for nationalism, collectivism, and a 'national identitiy and culture' is in direct opposition to individual liberty. It denies the individual his right of voluntary association, and the ability to express his association through private property and exchange.



This is downright laughable. Your understanding of property rights, much aparently like your understanding of the nature of rights themselves, is atrocious. When you cross onto a natural self-owners private property without his consent, you are absolutely and without question trespassing. This trespass is only realized because of the justness of the property owners claim to said property. If I wander on to your land, and then claim that you are on my property without my consent, no rational being could summate that you are in a state of trespass on my property. It is ONLY in the justness of the property claim that the trespass is validated. No such justness of claim exists for a body of tyrants and their imaginary lines. They have no claim to the land, and no just claim to trespass against it.



Everything that you have stated thus far is positively oozing with collectivism. You have outright rejected the conept of self-ownership and respect for a self-owners private property.



There is everything wrong with nationalism, as evidenced by your every utterance. Nationalism convinces an otherwise would be supporter of individual liberty such as yourself, to scream for the collective, to deny individuals their naturally observable rights. It whips you into a false frenzy of blind hatred and xenophobia, condemning the rights of every single human outside of your personally subscribed collective, all based on the geographic region you happened to drop out of your mother on.



:rolleyes: Here we go again, thanks Toby Keith. SIEG HEIL!!



Other than your, now constant, appeal to 'borders', what you are describing here is a nation, not a Nation or a State.



Lol, how classic. An appeal to emotion based on the blood of soldiers. Setting aside the sheer lunacy of this emotional appeal, I have to ask. Have you stuck your ass on the line? I have spilled my blood in that mud. I have had my life nearly taken from me, and forever altered on the battlefield. I could make the same ridiculous appeal to emotion here, and ask whether you have, and where you think you get the right to question me since I have spilled my blood, but this, much like all of your argumentative devices, serves only to attempt to derail the conversation away from any meaningful and intelligent debate on actual points. It is pure propaganda, but little else I have come to expect from you.



LMFAO, you really managed to put this in three separate times? Here's a quick sign that you're on shaky ground in even your own mind, if you have to appeal to emotion, and start shouting ad hominem and things like "then just leave", you would probably do well with some self reflection.



And here we get to the root of the issue. Apparently you do not believe that natural rights exist. Why do you support Ron Paul, one of the most ardent supporters of natural rights?



Huzzah! We are in COMPLETE agreement on something!! :D



I'm not sure you actually understand the DoI or Constitution at all. If you think that liberty is something that is "earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny", and NOT a naturally evident right of ALL human beings, then you are in disagreement with the DoI and Constitution.



So, clearly then you are absolutely okay with the government we have, right? The Constitution either authorizes the government as we have it, or it is POWERLESS to stop it. The only one who is ignoring history is the statist, who somehow magically believes against the backdrop of history that if only the 'right people' were in power and if only we wrote the 'right words' on a piece of paper all of the thousands of years of mans history with the State would be suddenly turned on it's head. As history has shown you repeatedly and without contestation, this is delusional in the highest accord. The US Constitution was a BEAUTIFUL document in concept, the limited state envisioned by the founders a wonderful goal to aim for amidst the backdrop of Monarchy and feudalism. It was the greatest attempt Statism has ever had. And it resulted in the LARGEST State mankind has ever seen. Even if I were to be convinced to completely abandon the principle of self-ownership, which is required to hold a statist position, history would clearly tell me that your utopia is unachievable. IOW, in order to even begin to try and rationalize a "means justify the ends" stance, the means must actually ACHIEVE THE ENDS.



Without individual soveriegnty, without self-ownership, you have no rights. And I am living in a fantasy land?



You have little care for any rational discourse or objective discussion. You have set your mind, albeit helped along by indoctrination, and have closed it off to all other possibilities. When confronted with opposition you resort to fist pounding and temper tantrums, name calling and hyperbole. Instead of receiving new information, willing to understand and learn, even if in the end you still disagree, you plug your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs, then proceed to spew misconception, inference and regurgitated talking points offered to you by that which denies you your very liberty.

The saddest fact is that after a post filled with hollow talking points, appeals to emotion, strawmen, red herrings and outright ad hominem, the weak minded are right there to slap you on the back for your "smack down". It is times like these that I feel pity for the 'liberty' movement. Too many are more interested in affirming their own misconceived notions than with any pursuit of a rational and just understanding of the nature of what it is they seek.

You are free to respond in any manner you like, I care not for your conversational company any longer. You lack the ability to consider any position that questions your currently held position, you lack the ability to expand your understanding in any way. You are stuck on an ego driven ideological island, content with shouting whatever your flavor of the time is, regardless of it's realistic outcomes and how they may line up with what you profess to desire. Any opportunity for meaningful debate with you is long since passed, if ever such a time existed to begin with. If it feeds your ego to respons as you will, and declare your trouncing complete since I do not respond to your further regurgitated vile, you are welcome to it, it seems you need that comfort far more than I.

Peace


this is the rage you can incite in a transnationalist when you rip apart their logic

[No Free Beer]

Sure. Immigrants from most Hispanic countries are not eligible for the Diversity Visa lottery. Other than a family-connection immigration, high-level ($1M plus) investor, or very high level employment, the Diversity Visa is about the only way to immigrate to this country. The average Mexican citizen that isn't filthy rich and doesn't have a parent or child who is an American citizen can't legally immigrate to America, no matter how many forms they fill out, no matter how many years they wait in line.

why do people keep bringing up Hispanics? GOOD GOD!

[MelissaWV]

why do people keep bringing up Hispanics? GOOD GOD!

Well, in that particular case, because it was relevant?

Policies vary from nation to nation, and "Hispanic nations" wind up in a different pile than, say, Western European ones. Of course therein lies the rub. I think it has more to do with geography, political considerations, and financial backgrounds than any kind of cultural blacklisting. If the nation were so united against "Hispanic immigrants," then it seems unlikely that Cubans would be allowed to stay just because they land in Florida.

[kylejack]

Give me a break, so you're actually telling me there is a whole seperate immigration process put in place for people from "Hispanic Countries", show me one of these "Hispanic only" immigration forms, I'm sure the ACLU would have a field day with it.

BTW, the average citizen in ANY country, including America, is not filthy rich either.
No, what I'm telling you is that there is a Diversity Visa Lottery program administered by CIS which gives out immigration visas on a random basis (limited number of visas issued per year), and that Mexicans (for example) are not allowed to participate in it.

[kylejack]

why do people keep bringing up Hispanics? GOOD GOD!
Because someone asked me to explain the racist immigration policy.

[kylejack]

Well, in that particular case, because it was relevant?

Policies vary from nation to nation, and "Hispanic nations" wind up in a different pile than, say, Western European ones. Of course therein lies the rub. I think it has more to do with geography, political considerations, and financial backgrounds than any kind of cultural blacklisting. If the nation were so united against "Hispanic immigrants," then it seems unlikely that Cubans would be allowed to stay just because they land in Florida.
Well, I guess we allow Cubans because most of them are pretty white. Conditions in the Dominican Republic are far worse than Cuba, but we're certainly not extending them the same advantage.

[Feeding the Abscess]

1: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder

2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful


1: to enter for conquest or plunder

2: to encroach upon : infringe

3

a : to spread over or into as if invading : permeate <doubts invade his mind>
b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>

It's obvious that those who use "invasion" terminology are tribalist.

[Butchie]

It's obvious that those who use "invasion" terminology are tribalist.

Yes we are, and proud of it.

[MelissaWV]

Well, I guess we allow Cubans because most of them are pretty white. Conditions in the Dominican Republic are far worse than Cuba, but we're certainly not extending them the same advantage.

Sure we do. The Dominicans and Haitians just go to Puerto Rico.

[No Free Beer]

Invader

1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval" (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Invader

1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval" (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

Those are all negative associations. Encroach comes from the Germanic term for crooked or crook, and in the context of immigration all definitions of encroach imply collective nefarious planning.

If we're going to assign collective values to groups, whites are the vast majority of the voting bloc in the US, and are the main contributor to the expansion in size and scope of the government, at all levels. Nazi Germany? White. Communist Russia? White. British Empire? White. Spanish conquistadors? White. American empire? White. Slave trade? White. Extermination of native Americans? White.

Save the world; deport whites.

[fisharmor]

What part of illegal are you having a problem comprehending ?

What part of making it illegal is unconstitutional to begin with are you having a problem comprehending?


Before pressing this point, I'd like to know how deporting this girl counts as "repelling invasion." What kind of mindset do you have to have for that to make sense?

Fair enough. You make a salient point (which I'll be lifting next time this comes up ;) ) that in order for immigration to be considered an invasion, you have to consider all immigration an invasion, or you have to accommodate "legal invasion" in your worldview. Of course, if you do, you're back to the constitutionality of the federal government defining legal and illegal invasion...


Immigration is legal via a system we have in place.
What you fail to comprehend is that laws need to be applied equally, or they are meaningless and will be abused.

What you fail to comprehend is that this comes up every time this topic comes up and there is never a defense for the idea that defining legal vs. illegal immigration is constitutional.


OK erowe stop with the racism and the demagoguery.
You guys leave us little choice. There's no legal argument in favor of curtailing immigration.


I will state once again that in order to preserve liberty, the natural social and lifestyle constraints imposed upon a free society by its' own citizens must be in place in order to preserve the laws which allow us to exercise liberty.
Laws allow us to exercise liberty. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Gratuitous assertion is gratuitous. I gratuitously deny your assertion. You have no point.


These constraints are not imposed by the government, but are the responsibility of parents, churches, friends, and voluntary associations; Our goal in life is to strive for excellence in virtue, but without proper constraints imposed on us on an individual level, posterity will lack the mechanism in order to preserve these foundational principles. Example: if parents do not impose proper bedtimes and study times for their children, and allow them to skip school, do drugs, and dress like a barn animal, how do you expect these children to be worthy of raising children that will be self sufficient and worthy of the mantle of liberty? You don't.
So, keeping foreigners out is the same as making sure your kids get a decent night's sleep? I know hispanics get loud at weekend parties... is it because you don't want them keeping anyone up?


This is where culture comes in. The preservation of our CULTURE (i.e. borders language, faith, blood, soil, and history) is essential to guaranteeing that posterity will have the resources from which to draw in the event that a petty dictator comes to power and attempts to revise history. Peaceful immigration is amazing, and I'm all for it, but when you have people who come here without the authority of the government to whom you have vested your authority (the duty to whom it belongs to secure the boundaries governing a society which you on this forum have supposedly attempted to preserve), you have a problem.
I HAD thought, by coming to this site, that by allowing government to arrogate to itself powers which the supreme law of the land explicitly forbids it, we have a problem... and that others here agreed with that. But I guess as long as that arrogated power is keeping out foreigners, that's ok, right?

When large numbers of people come here en masse uninvited and without proper permission granted by the collective organization of laws known as government, they are INVADING.
Actually the dictionary.com definition of invade (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invade) defines the word to mean that the person invading is an enemy, taking possession by force.
Even your definition unequivocally includes similar ideas :
1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval" (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

I await, with baited breath, the reasoning behind the idea that cutting my grass for a substandard wage is equivalent to theft or destruction of my property.

When you encroach on someone's property and trespass, you are violating property rights. The same thing can be said here. Those of a foreign nation who come here, arrive with the expectation that they can do whatever they want, and import their culture here without any repercussions. I say, get out. You are a hypocrite of the highest order, someone who doesn't seek to impose their culture or brand of government on a small middle eastern country, but will allow migrants of the THIRD WORLD to come here with disease, low skills, and no desire to assimilate into our advanced society.
Your head is in the sand, sir. There are as many doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other "advanced society" types cutting grass and hanging drywall as there are farm peons. They can't practice their trade here because of your unconstitutional immigration laws. Even if they could they'd need to jump through your cartel laws. So please, don't pretend you're righteous here. They can't get into your "advanced society" because advanced society doesn't want them. From where I'm standing, yeah, that actually does stink of racism.


you if misguided if you think ron paul doesn't believe in borders. He sure as hell doesn't advocate the type of transnationalism for which you are publicly advocating on a forum in his name. Ron is about as anti-nwo as you're going to find.

I have no qualms whatsoever stating that I am not of a mind with Ron Paul on this issue. The constitutionality of immigration laws has not been tested, it was part of the progressive power grab, and on the surface (read: outside of lawyer bullshit) it's a 10th Amendment issue and therefore not the federal government's purview. As someone who places importance on the constitution, I think Ron Paul is wrong.

You don't seem to understand the definition of "nation"

I do, and I already explained that your employing that word actually does make this about race. Or at the very least, tribes.


You are an anarchist
I actually am an anarchist and freely admit it. I am an anarchist for one, and only one reason:
People like you are NOT constitutionalists.

[RickBelmont]

Deport her, she is not a citizen of the United States and broke our laws, it is really that simple.

[fisharmor]

Deport her, she is not a citizen of the United States and broke our laws, it is really that simple.
Aw... jeez.... seriously?

[Revolution9]

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-07-03-top_ten_num5.png

This Sesame Street thinking is why I don't give the anarcho-label slapping community any cred.

Rev9

[No Free Beer]

What part of making it illegal is unconstitutional to begin with are you having a problem comprehending?



Fair enough. You make a salient point (which I'll be lifting next time this comes up ;) ) that in order for immigration to be considered an invasion, you have to consider all immigration an invasion, or you have to accommodate "legal invasion" in your worldview. Of course, if you do, you're back to the constitutionality of the federal government defining legal and illegal invasion...



What you fail to comprehend is that this comes up every time this topic comes up and there is never a defense for the idea that defining legal vs. illegal immigration is constitutional.


You guys leave us little choice. There's no legal argument in favor of curtailing immigration.


Laws allow us to exercise liberty. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Gratuitous assertion is gratuitous. I gratuitously deny your assertion. You have no point.


So, keeping foreigners out is the same as making sure your kids get a decent night's sleep? I know hispanics get loud at weekend parties... is it because you don't want them keeping anyone up?


I HAD thought, by coming to this site, that by allowing government to arrogate to itself powers which the supreme law of the land explicitly forbids it, we have a problem... and that others here agreed with that. But I guess as long as that arrogated power is keeping out foreigners, that's ok, right?

Actually the dictionary.com definition of invade (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invade) defines the word to mean that the person invading is an enemy, taking possession by force.
Even your definition unequivocally includes similar ideas :
1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval" (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

I await, with baited breath, the reasoning behind the idea that cutting my grass for a substandard wage is equivalent to theft or destruction of my property.

Your head is in the sand, sir. There are as many doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other "advanced society" types cutting grass and hanging drywall as there are farm peons. They can't practice their trade here because of your unconstitutional immigration laws. Even if they could they'd need to jump through your cartel laws. So please, don't pretend you're righteous here. They can't get into your "advanced society" because advanced society doesn't want them. From where I'm standing, yeah, that actually does stink of racism.



I have no qualms whatsoever stating that I am not of a mind with Ron Paul on this issue. The constitutionality of immigration laws has not been tested, it was part of the progressive power grab, and on the surface (read: outside of lawyer bullshit) it's a 10th Amendment issue and therefore not the federal government's purview. As someone who places importance on the constitution, I think Ron Paul is wrong.


I do, and I already explained that your employing that word actually does make this about race. Or at the very least, tribes.


I actually am an anarchist and freely admit it. I am an anarchist for one, and only one reason:
People like you are NOT constitutionalists.\



haahahh what? You never responded to my Constitutional statements. BECAUSE YOU WERE WRONG!!!

[Revolution9]

Lol, people who don't want to shove guns in peoples faces are irrational. People who do are rational. Got it. kthxbai

What is someone who shoves a gun in the face of someone who shoved a gun in someone's face?

Rev9

[No Free Beer]

I give up. People who live a free country don't seem to understand that they live within borders. Yet, the praise open borders. Unbelievable. Another admits he is an anarchist, yet chastises another, claiming they are not constitutionalists. I feel as though I am on a leftist website, like moveon.org.

Enjoy your hypocrisy.

[Keith and stuff]

Why on earth not? Her dad is a citizen and lives in CA and pays taxes.

I would like all government colleges to be privatized. We are close to that in NH (with claims of only 5% of funding coming from the state government) but until that happens, illegal immigrants should not be getting massive substitutes at taxpayer expense. Maybe you don't think it is welfare, but I don't understand how someone can support giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition.

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Just so I can get called names again by the one-worlders, deport her.

deport her is right

[fisharmor]

\



haahahh what? You never responded to my Constitutional statements. BECAUSE YOU WERE WRONG!!!

How was I wrong?
First of all, erowe is right, and I admit that: you need to define how cutting my grass for a substandard wage is an invasion before your constitutional invasion explanation can even gain traction.
Even if you can come up with some cockamamie idea for how that works, you still have to contend with the fact that congress has the power to call forth the militia to repel invasions and, according to the 10th Amendment, that's the only invasion-repelling power it has.
You say congress can regulate the militia: fine. Does that include redefining the militia?

mi·li·tia
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.


So the federal government gets to redefine "invasion", then gets to redefine "militia" to mean not "thing that prevents us from becoming power-grabbing asshats" and to instead mean "any agency we can concoct to deal with any problem whatsoever"?

Again - yes, I'm an anarchist, because I tried being a constitutionalist, but there's no shortage of people who can't follow the constitution who claim to be strict constitutionalists. In short, I won't wear that badge, because it's meaningless - and you are case in point.

[No Free Beer]

deport her is right

naw brah, we need open borders. There is no such thing as America. There is no such thing as the word culture. There is no such thing as government. There is no such thing as the US Constitution. No such thing.

OPEN BORDERS 2016!

[No Free Beer]

How was I wrong?
First of all, erowe is right, and I admit that: you need to define how cutting my grass for a substandard wage is an invasion before your constitutional invasion explanation can even gain traction.
Even if you can come up with some cockamamie idea for how that works, you still have to contend with the fact that congress has the power to call forth the militia to repel invasions and, according to the 10th Amendment, that's the only invasion-repelling power it has.
You say congress can regulate the militia: fine. Does that include redefining the militia?

mi·li·tia1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.


So the federal government gets to redefine "invasion", then gets to redefine "militia" to mean not "thing that prevents us from becoming power-grabbing asshats" and to instead mean "any agency we can concoct to deal with any problem whatsoever"?

Again - yes, I'm an anarchist, because I tried being a constitutionalist, but there's no shortage of people who can't follow the constitution who claim to be strict constitutionalists. In short, I won't wear that badge, because it's meaningless - and you are case in point.

I proved that the Constitution supported my position. You didn't. I am so sick of you open border people that pick and choose when to look at our Constitution.

If you are so open borders, why do you even follow the Constitution? The Constitution is for Americans, no one else.

[fisharmor]

I proved that the Constitution supported my position. You didn't. I am so sick of you open border people that pick and choose when to look at our Constitution.

If you are so open borders, why do you even follow the Constitution? The Constitution is for Americans, no one else.

Answer the question!
How does cutting my grass for a substandard wage qualify as an invasion????
You talk about picking and choosing!
Hypocrite!

ETA: yeah, it IS about tribes with you, isn't it?
Show me where the word "citizen" shows up in the bill of rights, hypocrite!

[No Free Beer]

Answer the question!
How does cutting my grass for a substandard wage qualify as an invasion????
You talk about picking and choosing!
Hypocrite!

ETA: yeah, it IS about tribes with you, isn't it?
Show me where the word "citizen" shows up in the bill of rights, hypocrite!

What does my point/position have to do with cutting grass? I am talking about anyone who enters this country illegally. Who and what are you talking about?

US Constitution - Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Anymore questions?

[Butchie]

Answer the question!
How does cutting my grass for a substandard wage qualify as an invasion????
You talk about picking and choosing!
Hypocrite!

ETA: yeah, it IS about tribes with you, isn't it?
Show me where the word "citizen" shows up in the bill of rights, hypocrite!

Just so I understand here - it's your stance that our founders were for open borders? The country they just fought so hard to get they wanted to dissolve into a wide open community for the rest of the world?

[No Free Beer]

Just so I understand here - it's your stance that our founders were for open borders? The country they just fought so hard to get they wanted to dissolve into a wide open community for the rest of the world?

Wait, let him ignore the Constitution again, then get to your question.

Oh, wait...he's an anarchist. Why the hell does it even matter?

[Revolution9]

Save the world; deport whites.

Go to Mexico or Guatemala and they will accommodate you if you overstay your visa. They don't like being invaded by gringoes.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Answer the question!
How does cutting my grass for a substandard wage qualify as an invasion????
You talk about picking and choosing!
Hypocrite!

ETA: yeah, it IS about tribes with you, isn't it?
Show me where the word "citizen" shows up in the bill of rights, hypocrite!

Here is one. How does selling art to people at work in the DEA via cold call canvassing of offices and other sensitive gov institutions count/not count as an invasion. These were Israelis. They were caught snooping in places they shouldn't have been and used the poor dumb fool from another land angle. They were deported.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Answer the question!
How does cutting my grass for a substandard wage qualify as an invasion????
You talk about picking and choosing!
Hypocrite!

ETA: yeah, it IS about tribes with you, isn't it?
Show me where the word "citizen" shows up in the bill of rights, hypocrite!

They weren't that accommodating to the guys in the red uniforms and promptly 'deported' them, sometimes in a pine box. I would imagine they weren't considered citizens. I would imagine these were some of the contingent of jokers who were "eating out our substance" and they were keen to put a rout to that kind of relationship with a massive boot to the arse..metaphorically speaking.

Rev9

[No Free Beer]

*crickets*

[kylejack]

I am happy to count as friends several tax-paying undocumented immigrants. I'm glad they're here.

[No Free Beer]

I am happy to count as friends several tax-paying undocumented immigrants. I'm glad they're here.

Good for you.

[AuH20]

Milton Friedman declared that you cannot maintain a nation with a generous welfare state and a lax immigration policy. As a political movement, we can't even get a department shrunken never-mind abolish the welfare leviathan and the open border apologists are hellbent on accelerating the descent into a more protracted class struggle. Genius I might add.

[No Free Beer]

Milton Friedman declared that you cannot maintain a nation with a generous welfare state and a lax immigration policy. As a political movement, we can't even get a department shrunken never-mind abolish the welfare leviathan and the open border apologists are hellbent on accelerating the descent into a more protracted class struggle. Genius I might add.


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

[Cutlerzzz]

Just so I understand here - it's your stance that our founders were for open borders? The country they just fought so hard to get they wanted to dissolve into a wide open community for the rest of the world? Tell me, what federal immigration laws existed during the time the country was founded? How many existed before the progressive era?

[Enforcer]

I am happy to count as friends several tax-paying undocumented immigrants. I'm glad they're here.

Thank you for your post. You even said undocumented immigrants. The Ron Paul that I know has a view on immigration. Here is an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxzZjmZ-1dc

Now, having Ron Paul on record, I am not swayed by the anti-immigrant lobby's arguments. Let's review them again:

The anti - immigrant lobby calls the undocumented workers "invaders." After defining the word, the definition does not apply to people such as kylejack refers to. An undocumented worker is NOT stealing "your" job. Jobs belong to the employer that creates them. The undocumented worker is not part of an army to conquer the U.S. They are coming here to take advantage of jobs and opportunities WILLINGLY offered. The anti - immigrant lobby, knowing that their position has been debunked, still invokes this ludicrous charge. A lie told a thousand times is easier to believe than the simple truth nobody ever heard before. Anti-immigrants rely on the psychological observation. Can you guess the name of the man that made that observation noteworthy?

Secondly, we keep referring to the subject as "illegal immigration." Entering the United States without human registration papers is NOT a crime; at best it is a federal civil misdemeanor. George Bush's Attorney General, Michael Mukasey RULED:

"...the Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer applied only in criminal cases and that deportation was a civil action

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/09immig.html?_r=1

"On Sunday, April 19, 2009, Secretary Napolitano went on CNN’s “State of the Union” and proclaimed that crossing the border illegally is not a crime."

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/20/napolitano-illegal-immigration-not-a-crime/

Napolitano was speaking as the head of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security

"Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative (R-CO), in a Mar. 29, 2006 USA Today editorial opinion entitled "Myths vs. Facts," wrote:

"[A] myth is that House Republicans want to make illegal presence in the USA a felony. The truth is Democrats voted for the felony provision, and a majority of Republicans (including me) voted against it. Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction."

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=781

Bear in mind this admonition by Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

“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/

We've had "open borders" since the before the colonists came here. The issue doesn't have squat to do with National Sovereignty (which is a National Socialist argument since it precludes the unalienable Rights of the individual.) What is meant by open borders is the ability to conduct trade in a free market economy. Having free trade does not mean you cannot regulate the flow of goods, services, and travel by human beings. Free trade means you can conduct business without having to seek citizenship. Individuals have unalienable Rights.

The bottom line is: the anti - immigrant lobby is so far removed from reality that they cannot read their own quotes to see it testifies more AGAINST their position than for it.

NOTE: It is fashionable to call improper entry by the term "illegal" immigration. Accurately speaking, improper actions are NOT crimes; therefore, they are NOT illegal, but improper. There is a world of difference between unlawful acts, illegal acts and improper acts. They are not the same thing if you care to check the terms.

[No Free Beer]

Thank you for your post. You even said undocumented immigrants. The Ron Paul that I know has a view on immigration. Here is an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxzZjmZ-1dc

Now, having Ron Paul on record, I am not swayed by the anti-immigrant lobby's arguments. Let's review them again:

The anti - immigrant lobby calls the undocumented workers "invaders." After defining the word, the definition does not apply to people such as kylejack refers to. An undocumented worker is NOT stealing "your" job. Jobs belong to the employer that creates them. The undocumented worker is not part of an army to conquer the U.S. They are coming here to take advantage of jobs and opportunities WILLINGLY offered. The anti - immigrant lobby, knowing that their position has been debunked, still invokes this ludicrous charge. A lie told a thousand times is easier to believe than the simple truth nobody ever heard before. Anti-immigrants rely on the psychological observation. Can you guess the name of the man that made that observation noteworthy?

Secondly, we keep referring to the subject as "illegal immigration." Entering the United States without human registration papers is NOT a crime; at best it is a federal civil misdemeanor. George Bush's Attorney General, Michael Mukasey RULED:

"...the Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer applied only in criminal cases and that deportation was a civil action

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/09immig.html?_r=1

"On Sunday, April 19, 2009, Secretary Napolitano went on CNN’s “State of the Union” and proclaimed that crossing the border illegally is not a crime."

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/20/napolitano-illegal-immigration-not-a-crime/

Napolitano was speaking as the head of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security

"Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative (R-CO), in a Mar. 29, 2006 USA Today editorial opinion entitled "Myths vs. Facts," wrote:

"[A] myth is that House Republicans want to make illegal presence in the USA a felony. The truth is Democrats voted for the felony provision, and a majority of Republicans (including me) voted against it. Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction."

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=781

Bear in mind this admonition by Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

“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/

We've had "open borders" since the before the colonists came here. The issue doesn't have squat to do with National Sovereignty (which is a National Socialist argument since it precludes the unalienable Rights of the individual.) What is meant by open borders is the ability to conduct trade in a free market economy. Having free trade does not mean you cannot regulate the flow of goods, services, and travel by human beings. Free trade means you can conduct business without having to seek citizenship. Individuals have unalienable Rights.

The bottom line is: the anti - immigrant lobby is so far removed from reality that they cannot read their own quotes to see it testifies more AGAINST their position than for it.

NOTE: It is fashionable to call improper entry by the term "illegal" immigration. Accurately speaking, improper actions are NOT crimes; therefore, they are NOT illegal, but improper. There is a world of difference between unlawful acts, illegal acts and improper acts. They are not the same thing if you care to check the terms.

ant-immigrant lobby?

No one is against immigration.

Typical from the OBA (Open Border Agents)

[No Free Beer]

I have said this a few times, but this is my last post on this thread. The sheer ignorance of people and their lack of respect for definitions and our constitution simply amazes me.

Lively debate. Good day.

[RiseAgainst]

Lively debate. Good day.

Really? What I saw was some people using rational, intelligible logic, philosophy and reasoning in an attempt to engage in an intelligent discourse.

The response? "Lolz, ur stupidz hedz."

Lively debate indeed...

[kylejack]

ant-immigrant lobby?

No one is against immigration.
VDARE, NumbersUSA, FAIR, there are plenty of organizations out there that are advocating a reduction of immigration, both legal and illegal.

[azxd]

Didn't read the entire thread, but both sides are missing the solution that fits everyone best-private ownership of all land. Land owners at the border will then have incentive to keep trespassers off. The militia would serve as backup in case of an invasion to serious for regular folks to handle.

PS-the name-calling that seems to be going on both sides of the argument isn't advancing the conversation.
Talk to the ranchers who's land has and is still being destroyed ... A few of them tried to keep people off their land, and our government took them to court for their efforts.

They can't protect their land ... Period.
It's not allowed.

But I'd also bet there are a few shallow graves no one will ever know about ... A battle on the border is or wil be the result of a failed federal government to control the situation, and being willing to sue ANY State that tries to do what the Federal government fails to do.

No one wants a war on the border !!!

[azxd]

why do people keep bringing up Hispanics? GOOD GOD!
I usually attrbite race as a defense, as belonging to a racist ... But I've been wrong before.

[azxd]

No, what I'm telling you is that there is a Diversity Visa Lottery program administered by CIS which gives out immigration visas on a random basis (limited number of visas issued per year), and that Mexicans (for example) are not allowed to participate in it.
Sorry, but I gotta ask for a citation on this, as I have never heard/seen such a claim validated.

[Enforcer]

VDARE, NumbersUSA, FAIR, there are plenty of organizations out there that are advocating a reduction of immigration, both legal and illegal.


Oh,

kyklejack, you let me down there.

NUMBERSUSA, FAIR and CIS... along with about nine other of those anti - immigrant groups are the brainchild of one man, John Tanton. Tanton is a racist extraordinaire:

http://www.splcenter.org/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance/numbersusa-the-grassroots-organizer

http://www.newcomm.org/content/view/2131/108/

I personally recall Tanton from the 1980s and his support of David Duke. NONE of the current anti - immigrant arguments are new to me. I lived through the era, once working with Sam Dickson's office. Here is some relevant information:

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2011/09/14/the-company-they-keep-examining-the-tanton-networks-white-nationalist-ties-via-georgia/

[kylejack]

Oh,

kyklejack, you let me down there.

NUMBERSUSA, FAIR and CIS... along with about nine other of those anti - immigrant groups are the brainchild of one man, John Tanton. Tanton is a racist extraordinaire:

http://www.splcenter.org/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance/numbersusa-the-grassroots-organizer

http://www.newcomm.org/content/view/2131/108/

I personally recall Tanton from the 1980s and his support of David Duke. NONE of the current anti - immigrant arguments are new to me. I lived through the era, once working with Sam Dickson's office. Here is some relevant information:

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2011/09/14/the-company-they-keep-examining-the-tanton-networks-white-nationalist-ties-via-georgia/
I'm not endorsing the organizations. He was saying there weren't any, and I was pointing out a few.

[kylejack]

Sorry, but I gotta ask for a citation on this, as I have never heard/seen such a claim validated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa#Changes

[Enforcer]

Milton Friedman declared that you cannot maintain a nation with a generous welfare state and a lax immigration policy. As a political movement, we can't even get a department shrunken never-mind abolish the welfare leviathan and the open border apologists are hellbent on accelerating the descent into a more protracted class struggle. Genius I might add.

The one thing I find about this debate is that the dishonesty is deplorable.

While Milton Friedman did say you cannot have open borders AND a welfare state, he DID NOT say you could not have open borders OR a welfare state.

Old myths die hard, but the reality is, undocumented immigrants DO NOT QUALIFY FOR ENTITLEMENTS AND HAVEN'T SINCE 1996. When are you going to get into the 21st century???

You are talking about "genius" while you clearly advocate a class warfare struggle with false allegations.

[Enforcer]

I don't understand one thing:

How come, in a free market economy, so many people think the only way you should be able to exercise your unalienable Rights is if you become a citizen?

How come, even amongst constitutionalists, people want to give the government the power to grant Rights when the Declaration of Independence states that these come from your Creator and are unalienable?

[AuH20]

The one thing I find about this debate is that the dishonesty is deplorable.

While Milton Friedman did say you cannot have open borders AND a welfare state, he DID NOT say you could not have open borders OR a welfare state.

Old myths die hard, but the reality is, undocumented immigrants DO NOT QUALIFY FOR ENTITLEMENTS AND HAVEN'T SINCE 1996. When are you going to get into the 21st century???

You are talking about "genius" while you clearly advocate a class warfare struggle with false allegations.


Look up EMTALA and get back to me.

[Enforcer]

Tell me, what federal immigration laws existed during the time the country was founded? How many existed before the progressive era?

The current immigration laws were rammed through Congress by liberal Ted Kennedy and were designed to self implode.

[Southron]

I don't understand one thing:

How come, in a free market economy, so many people think the only way you should be able to exercise your unalienable Rights is if you become a citizen?

How come, even amongst constitutionalists, people want to give the government the power to grant Rights when the Declaration of Independence states that these come from your Creator and are unalienable?

Let non-citizens exercise their unalienable rights in the country they hold citizenship.

[azxd]

Immigration is legal via a system we have in place.
What part of making it illegal is unconstitutional to begin with are you having a problem comprehending?
WOW ... That's just dumb ... I never said it was Constitutional or unConstitutional.

But, being as you wrote it that way ... I guess there is nothing that makes something that is illegal, unConstitutional ... Until someone get's off their ass and challenges the law as currently written.




What part of illegal are you having a problem comprehending ?
What you fail to comprehend is that laws need to be applied equally, or they are meaningless and will be abused.
What you fail to comprehend is that this comes up every time this topic comes up and there is never a defense for the idea that defining legal vs. illegal immigration is constitutional.


How about dropping the Constitutional drivel, getting off this forum, and working to change the current laws.

You might think you're doing the big thing by claiming something is unConstitutional, and HEY ... You might even be right.

But the simple fact is Constitutional or not, laws exist, and they need to be enforced equally, until people like you are able to grow a big enough pair and rally enough support to get the laws overturned, if they are in fact found to be unConstitutional.

So, to bad, so sad ... Go cry about the laws you disagree with on a forum, and make ineffective arguments about laws you want to ignore.

It's sad and pathetic that anyone would blatantly promote ignoring laws that are on the books ... Go get them changed.
Until you do that, they need to be enforced, equally.

Is that so hard to comprehend ?

[azxd]

Deport her, she is not a citizen of the United States and broke our laws, it is really that simple.

Aw... jeez.... seriously?
If you break the law ... I suspose you want special privileges (the law you broke ignored) ... YES ?

[azxd]

I give up. People who live a free country don't seem to understand that they live within borders. Yet, the praise open borders. Unbelievable. Another admits he is an anarchist, yet chastises another, claiming they are not constitutionalists. I feel as though I am on a leftist website, like moveon.org.

Enjoy your hypocrisy.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to No Free Beer again.

[kylejack]

If you break the law ... I suspose you want special privileges (the law you broke ignored) ... YES ?
The penalty for DUI is a fine, or probation, or imprisonment, or some combination of those. Deportation is permitted but not required. They're perfectly within the law just giving her the penalties for DUI.

[Cutlerzzz]

The current immigration laws were rammed through Congress by liberal Ted Kennedy and were designed to self implode.

The immigration system was founded in the progressive era, through the Immigration Acts of 1917 and 1924.

[azxd]

naw brah, we need open borders. There is no such thing as America. There is no such thing as the word culture. There is no such thing as government. There is no such thing as the US Constitution. No such thing.

OPEN BORDERS 2016!
I could havee sworn I clicked the link for the Ron Paul forums, but this sure seems like the official Obama forum and it's expected responses.
Viva Socialism, and Viva Che

[azxd]

Answer the question!
How does cutting my grass for a substandard wage qualify as an invasion????
You talk about picking and choosing!
Hypocrite!

ETA: yeah, it IS about tribes with you, isn't it?
Show me where the word "citizen" shows up in the bill of rights, hypocrite!
LOL

[Cutlerzzz]

I could ahve sowrn I clicked the link for the Ron Paul forums, but this sure seems like the official Obama forum and it's expected responses.
Viva Socialism, and Viva Che

You're advocating the government establishes an immigration quota system and calling other people socialists? Unbelievable.

[kylejack]

I could havee sworn I clicked the link for the Ron Paul forums, but this sure seems like the official Obama forum and it's expected responses.
Viva Socialism, and Viva Che
LOL. Obama has greatly increased deportations. He doesn't want to give the Republicans anything to hit him on.

[azxd]

The only soultion is to laugh, and keep stockpiling.

[Kluge]

Deport her!













To my lap.











Hah. Now figure out if this is really Kluge or not. :p