OBAMA TO GRANT IMMUNITY TO YOUNG ILLEGALS

[Reason]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/232923-obama-makes-election-year-change-in-immigration-policy

[jkr]

h1b voters?

[Reason]

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/15/obama-jobs-program-help-illegals-compete-with-americans-for-scarce-jobs?utm_source=e_breitbart_com

[Lucille]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Twitter that Obama's action could even be illegal.

“President Obama’s attempt to go around Congress and the American people is at best unwise and possibly illegal,” Graham said in a Tweet.

Oh, Lindz. Haven't you heard that Obama IS the law? You and the other unprincipled and uninspired GOP mopes and hacks let the executive branch get away with murder (literally), and now you're gonna whine about executive power.

"L'État, c'est moi."
--King Obama

[Southron]

Is he trying to lose the election?

[alucard13mmfmj]

Is Obama the most racist president I've ever seen? I thought president supposed to unite all Americans, not further put them into subcategories or cause tension between groups.

I assume most, if not all of them are going to be Latinos... What about Illegals from asia or russia or africa? I assume they get screwed because they aren't part of the Latino voting base.

Man this country's fall from grace... Seems 80% of the people are voting for the wrong reasons and selfishly. What happened to voting what is in the best interest of the country... not in the best interest of your race, religion, nationality, etc etc.

The guy, Lew rockwell, from Mises Institute is right... our country is not the best. i think he mentioned switzerland as being better in some ways.

[Reason]

Is he trying to lose the election?

Yes he is trying to lose the election by gaining a massive voter base...

[alucard13mmfmj]

When was the last time there was a principled man in office?

I hear Romney is hiding... He doesn't want to anger the Latino voters. What a coward, trying to hide from the issue and not being honest. I'm sure most, if not all of the GOP, opposes this amnesty and would like immigration reform. How can Romney represent the GOP (even though he is supposed to represent the constitution/USA), if he got no backbone?

Ron would be railing this and he wouldn't care about losing votes because he didn't cater to special groups.

[John F Kennedy III]

Is he trying to lose the election?

90% of the immigrants that come here vote Democrat.

[ProIndividual]

Wow, Obama is unintentionaly free market (because it's anti-free market to be against immigration). All immigrants should be allowed in, the market should determine immigration levels, not arbitrary anti-market government quotas. Libertarianism 101.

Here come the paelocon talking points...(example: "Day took our jerbz!")

[realtonygoodwin]

Illegal immigration vs legal immigration.

There is a process to enter this country legally. People that choose not to follow the process are law-breakers. Criminals. We should deport everyone who is here illegally (at least attempt it), and make them get at the back of the line. There are many people waiting for the chance to come here legally, and the illegal immigrants jump in front of them.

At the same time, we need to make it much easier, faster, and cheaper to come here legally.


Interesting that most open-border types lump all immigrants together.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Illegal immigration vs legal immigration.

There is a process to enter this country legally. People that choose not to follow the process are law-breakers. Criminals. We should deport everyone who is here illegally (at least attempt it), and make them get at the back of the line. There are many people waiting for the chance to come here legally, and the illegal immigrants jump in front of them.

At the same time, we need to make it much easier, faster, and cheaper to come here legally.


Interesting that most open-border types lump all immigrants together.

This is one of the reasons I left the democrats...

[John F Kennedy III]

Illegal immigration vs legal immigration.

There is a process to enter this country legally. People that choose not to follow the process are law-breakers. Criminals. We should deport everyone who is here illegally (at least attempt it), and make them get at the back of the line. There are many people waiting for the chance to come here legally, and the illegal immigrants jump in front of them.

At the same time, we need to make it much easier, faster, and cheaper to come here legally.


Interesting that most open-border types lump all immigrants together.

Approximately 30 million illegals here. I'm all for deporting every single one. Their legal family members can leave with them if they want.

[awake]

Everything is a vote buy. His heart is a ballot box.

[realtonygoodwin]

This is one of the reasons I left the democrats...

What is?

[DamianTV]

Im curious how many people reading this thread have Immigrated to the U.S.?

Now, of those people, has anyone been provided an opportunity to Legally Immigrate? How many have not been at least offered an Incentive to Immigrate Illegally? Is our angst against the people who want a better life, or the Politicians who have done everything in their power to not only ruin the economies of the countries from which our immigrants have immigrated from but prevented Legal Immigration while heavily rewarding Illegal Immigration?

This is pretty much the same as the Banks. Take away all that the Banks have stolen and leave them with the Power to Print Money and the Banks will simply buy it all back with the flip of a pen. Kicking all the Illegals out without removing the Incentives to Immigrate Illegally in the long run will accomplish nothing.

[CaptainAmerica]

.. its called deferment and it lasts 2 years. Do you all seriously suggest to just round them up? and even if you did round them up is it right? We have some far more f-ed up things going on than to beat our heads on a wall over illegal immigration right now...and obviously Mr.O is just making a political move

[John F Kennedy III]

.. its called deferment and it lasts 2 years. Do you all seriously suggest to just round them up? and even if you did round them up is it right? We have some far more f-ed up things going on than to beat our heads on a wall over illegal immigration right now...and obviously Mr.O is just making a political move

I do not support "rounding them up" because that would lead to massive violations of the liberties of US citizens. It would give the government an excuse to go into every house. But there are plenty of places that hire illegals where it would be simple to go and get them and deport them. There are of course a few other non invasive ways to do it. I just don't feel like typing it all out...

[CaptainAmerica]

I do not support "rounding them up" because that would lead to massive violations of the liberties of US citizens. It would give the government an excuse to go into every house. But there are plenty of places that hire illegals where it would be simple to go and get them and deport them. There are of course a few other non invasive ways to do it. I just don't feel like typing it all out... No it is not simple, that also violates civil liberties of americans just attempting it. Ron Paul is right about getting rid of the welfare state to reduce illegal immigration, because face it...we will never have a perfect 0 percent illegal immigration happening and if we did there would probably be something very sinister going on with how the government enforces such a thing

[John F Kennedy III]

No it is not simple, that also violates civil liberties of americans just attempting it. Ron Paul is right about getting rid of the welfare state to reduce illegal immigration, because face it...we will never have a perfect 0 percent illegal immigration happening and if we did there would probably be something very sinister going on with how the government enforces such a thing

To be honest I do not care what it violates to go to where they work and arrest and deport them. I don't. They are illegal. We have to do something to get rid of them. Of course there are far worse things to be worried about, but 30 million illegals is a major problem too. Certainly not #1 on my list. Especially since it's being used as a distraction from the nanny/police state that has been installed and the NWO tightening their grip on the US even more.


No it is not simple, that also violates civil liberties of americans just attempting it. Ron Paul is right about getting rid of the welfare state to reduce illegal immigration, because face it...we will never have a perfect 0 percent illegal immigration happening and if we did there would probably be something very sinister going on with how the government enforces such a thing

I didn't read all of your post before commenting. I do absolutely believe getting rid of the welfare state is the best way to get rid of illegal immigrants.

[DamianTV]

If we allow our Government to "simply round up all the illegals", we will have nothing short of the Hollocaust of the 21st Century. Is that really how a group that believes in Liberty and Freedom and the protection of the Individual against the Abusive State will Lead by Example?

[Demigod]

Wow, Obama is unintentionaly free market (because it's anti-free market to be against immigration). All immigrants should be allowed in, the market should determine immigration levels, not arbitrary anti-market government quotas. Libertarianism 101.

Here come the paelocon talking points...(example: "Day took our jerbz!")

Yes this was cool while America had swats of land where immigrants could settle.Today they would all just go to the biggest city's and form ghettos where criminals would rule supreme.

[realtonygoodwin]

I agree also with removing the incentives for people coming here illegally. That of course is the first step. We would see a lot of self-deportation.

[John F Kennedy III]

I agree also with removing the incentives for people coming here illegally. That of course is the first step. We would see a lot of self-deportation.

Yeah plus the welfare state is a huge reason why so many US citizens blindly support our government. The government is "taking care of them".

[Southron]

Yes he is trying to lose the election by gaining a massive voter base...

Most Hispanics I know are apolitical. For those that do vote, I suspect they would have voted for him anyway.

On the other hand, this is red meat for his opposition.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes he is trying to lose the election by gaining a massive voter base...

^^^

This. And I doubt the hand-wringing Congress will do a damn thing about it.

[LibertyEagle]

//

[Southron]

Approximately 30 million illegals here. I'm all for deporting every single one. Their legal family members can leave with them if they want.

If you come down hard on employers first, many will self deport when they can't find work, thus making the task monumentally easier.

After that, once legal contact is made with police, you can deport those remaining and not have to do expensive raids.

[DamianTV]

But to keep them from just hopping back over the border again, the incentives need to be removed. Should any of them self-deport as mentioned, it is far less likely that they will come back. Many already have just because of the lack of jobs. Unemployment at 12% my ass.

[CaptainAmerica]

Most Hispanics I know are apolitical. For those that do vote, I suspect they would have voted for him anyway.

On the other hand, this is red meat for his opposition. There are plenty of irish illegal immigrants ,chinese illegal immigrants and other kinds of illegal immigrants. Like I said though I think ending the welfare state makes more sense

[John F Kennedy III]

There are plenty of irish illegal immigrants ,chinese illegal immigrants and other kinds of illegal immigrants. Like I said though I think ending the welfare state makes more sense

And illegal Canadian immigrants.

[Origanalist]

And illegal Canadian immigrants.

Thems the worst.

[Liberty74]

So it's true. An illegal supporting illegals. Who would have thought?

This is classic leftism strategy. Forget the issues. Divide Americans, call everyone who disagree a racist and conquer.

[Southerner]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/15/obama_s_illegal_amnesty_decree_is_worse_than_anyth ing_richard_nixon_did

[showpan]

Obama is not for free market...lol...just as NAFTA was not free trade. This little election year wag the dog trick is just another tool to gain votes and wash away more of the middle class that has already been decimated by globalist policies. I wonder how many are already on their way? If history repeats itself, when Bush promised amnesty...millions came flooding in.

[Southerner]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/15/obama-move-on-immigration-is-unconstitutional-disaster-for-unemployed/

[Feeding the Abscess]

To be honest I do not care what it violates to go to where they work and arrest and deport them. I don't. They are illegal. We have to do something to get rid of them. Of course there are far worse things to be worried about, but 30 million illegals is a major problem too. Certainly not #1 on my list. Especially since it's being used as a distraction from the nanny/police state that has been installed and the NWO tightening their grip on the US even more.

The only way to do what you described above is to erect a complete and total nanny/police state.


If you come down hard on employers first, many will self deport when they can't find work, thus making the task monumentally easier.

We're for less burdensome regulation, except for when we're for more burdensome regulation.

[DamianTV]

And illegal Canadian immigrants.

Im guessing this means Americans that have immigrated to Canada due to the lack of jobs in the US! :p

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Why should I care about this? Are this kids on govt assistance?

[Southron]

We're for less burdensome regulation, except for when we're for more burdensome regulation.

I'm for U.S. citizens. Citizens of other countries are free to live in peace in their countries of citizenship.

[John F Kennedy III]

Why should I care about this? Are this kids on govt assistance?

Is who on government assistance?

[showpan]

The only way to do what you described above is to erect a complete and total nanny/police state.



We're for less burdensome regulation, except for when we're for more burdensome regulation.

We already have a police state. If the current laws were actually enforced, then new laws and regulations wouldn't be needed. That is, If employers were actually punished for hiring them, and all the incentives taken away. Also, why is that when I call ICE, they never show up?

[Feeding the Abscess]

We already have a police state. If the current laws were actually enforced, then new laws and regulations wouldn't be needed. That is, If employers were actually punished for hiring them, and all the incentives taken away. Also, why is that when I call ICE, they never show up?

Government shouldn't be imposing regulations on business. It's inherently anti-market, and gives a competitive advantage to huge conglomerates over smaller companies.

Additionally, if people want to hire immigrants, let them; who are you (or anyone else, for that matter) to tell me I can't hire the person of my choice for the job I need filled? Must we grovel in front of the government for permission to conduct economic exchange?

[ProIndividual]

Yes this was cool while America had swats of land where immigrants could settle.Today they would all just go to the biggest city's and form ghettos where criminals would rule supreme.

Paleocon talking points right on cue.

You do realize we live on less than 5% of the land right? That immigrants in a welfare state don't actually take more than they give to the economy right? That native wages and incomes don't go down with immigration, they go up, right? that they commit less crime than natives, right? That in free market economics we're shown data to prove that immigration is CONDUSIVE to economic growth, right?

Like I said, here come the paleocon talking points...all of which real free market advocates know have been disproven for decades.

Border hawks = anti-libertarian paleocons

[showpan]

Government shouldn't be imposing regulations on business. It's inherently anti-market, and gives a competitive advantage to huge conglomerates over smaller companies.

Additionally, if people want to hire immigrants, let them; who are you (or anyone else, for that matter) to tell me I can't hire the person of my choice for the job I need filled? Must we grovel in front of the government for permission to conduct economic exchange?

your free market world without borders does not, has not and will not ever exist as long as capitalism has a say.

That being said, this is the USA...mot Mexico. Not China, Not Bangladesh. The unfair advantage is created by your straw man....not mine.

[dillo]

Oh, Lindz. Haven't you heard that Obama IS the law? You and the other unprincipled and uninspired GOP mopes and hacks let the executive branch get away with murder (literally), and now you're gonna whine about executive power.

"L'État, c'est moi."
--King Obama

Lindsey Grahm talking about illegal acts, oh lawdy

[John F Kennedy III]

The only way to do what you described above is to erect a complete and total nanny/police state.

To go where they work and arrest and deport them? Please explain.

[Feeding the Abscess]

To go where they work and arrest and deport them? Please explain.

How are you going to find out where they work?

[AuH20]

90% of the immigrants that come here vote Democrat.

The democrats do offer them the fruits of our federal taxes as well as local property taxes. I can't completely blame them. With all that said, we have enough parasites in this country, from the defense contractors to the lawyers. We don't need anymore. I'm not in favor of a wasteful roundup, but there must be a national push made to eliminate the incentives. The ones who want to stay and make a life here will do it an orderly fashion, while the parasites will leave once the many incentives are removed.

[The Free Hornet]

Wow, Obama is unintentionaly free market (because it's anti-free market to be against immigration). All immigrants should be allowed in, the market should determine immigration levels, not arbitrary anti-market government quotas. Libertarianism 101.

Neither "Libertarianism 101" nor "free market" dictates that they ought to have a vote to regulate my life or steal my earnings. Coming here, working, being free, and keeping what they earn is liberty. Voting is not. As a simple reform, I would not extend the vote to non-natural born citizens. And although I wouldn't require ID, I would require some proof that this person has paid more to government than they have likely received in the last year. No more votes for sponges! If a state has a property tax, then votes should be given based on those too. Pay more property tax, get more votes.

I would support ending anonymous voting too as I have no right to regulate your lives in secrecy. If I want to keep my opinion secret, then not voting is an option.

[row333au]

This is like a catch, tag and release program, so when time comes Pres B O gets his bite votes....

[showpan]

This is like a catch, tag and release program, so when time comes Pres B O gets his bite votes....

omg, tag and release..that's just what it is too....the rich assholes who thought of this probably view us all as animals....lol

[Lord Xar]

……
Border hawks = anti-libertarian paleocons

Proud of it... you can wax poetic all you want about "libertarianism".. but your open border philosophy is a recipe for disaster.

.. your utopian daydream will just promote more big government.. more welfare ... and a general flooding of our schools and hospitals. Until we can deal with the handouts nanny state why would any sane person entertain open borders

[John F Kennedy III]

I want closed borders. I believe in national sovereignty.

[Raudsarw]

Free immigration is the libertarian position. I find no problem with this. It is the welfare state that attracts illegal immigrants. Take your frustration out on the state, not poor people coming here to make their lives better.




.. your utopian daydream will just promote more big government.. more welfare ... and a general flooding of our schools and hospitals. Until we can deal with the handouts nanny state why would any sane person entertain open borders

Because it would only strengthen our argument that the welfare state is unsustainable. You want big government to prevent big government? Seriously?

[row333au]

USA and any other country for that matter have limited resources, and at such can only absorb up to a certain threshold of influx since the existing population have also constant and expanding growth that needs to be priorities as their population before them have created wealth to ensure a return to their investment of securing futures of their descendants. A sudden concentration of burden mass population have to compete with those resources as of those existing as it gets worst in a recession and depression state of economy.... thus will bring down living condition and opportunities.... the larger the burden population the larger the 3rd world state condition.

One crucial key of a trans-multinational globalist is to make all countries in a 3rd world state in order to create a super powerful crony corporation and corrupt government partnership paradise, which will evolve with having ruling class over working class that can easily transfer sovereignty wealth to their ultra rich individuals conglomerate corporate executives and pyramid control and influence with wealth creation for lobbyist, politicians and government officials. The best model of these are South America, Southeast Asia, etc... the extreme is communist China.

The real reason for the intentional failures of borders and the illegal immigration going out of control is to do with NAFTA and creating a NAU super government (North American Union) to amalgamate three countries Mexico, USA and Canada as one country.... imagine competing for general entry employment under below minimum wage, manufacturing and farming under monsanto, three military forces under corrupt environment can alienate populations, etc....

[Raudsarw]

I don't really care about fictious borders drawn up by the criminal organization known as the government of the United States anyway.

[Don Lapre]

Raudsarw, your take might make a lot of sense... to an 11 year old.


If someone breaks into your home while your gone, and robs you blind, forget about calling the police - or attempting to use the justice system to regain your losses.

The police and justice system, set up by criminal organization known as the government, is not to be regarded.


Enjoy complete anarchy.

I'm sure it'll work out for ya just the way you want it to.

[Demigod]

All who say that immigrants are only interested in welfare are dead wrong.Most of them go to your country to get jobs and live a better life.

If you open those borders completely there would be an influx of tens of millions of workers.They will start taking your wages down by means of competition and that will only lead to the emergence and strengthening of the nationalists and racist who will promise to kick the immigrants out.And when those immigrants will come and there will be no more jobs because the job market is saturated do you think that they will just go back home ? No they will turn eventually to a life of crime ( maybe not everyone but most will )

This will only lead to a political strife that will bring nothing good to your country.Some states will want to stop immigrant and deport them the others where immigrants had became a very big minority will not and they will start to group in time.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I want closed borders. I believe in national sovereignty.

This.

[PaulConventionWV]

Approximately 30 million illegals here. I'm all for deporting every single one. Their legal family members can leave with them if they want.

Wouldn't that destroy the economy overnight?

[asurfaholic]

When you are a nation in fear of terrorists everywhere, it makes no sense to be cool with allowing millions of illegals to stay in the country. Obviously they are either not worried about terrorism, or they are inviting it to happen. Either way the govt is seriously making a mistake.

Personally, I am not worried about a bunch of mexicans. The problem is the welfare state and the ongoing drug war. Welfare state has a bunch of non immigrants stealing from me too, and the drug war empowers those who live under the radar. Honestly, most of the illegals I know are working for their money, and working hard. My helper (im an electrician) has over stayed his visa, but I don't want to see him gone. There is just no better help than him. Americans are lazy. These guys are willing to do the job - and if you ever watch them work, they are extremely efficient. They don't ask for much other than a paycheck.

On the other hand there are some black people who get govt money down the road from me. They have all day to try and do something productive, and they refuse. Grass is over grown, lots of parties and people sitting around. At night things get stolen. Those are the people I want gone. Latinos are generally respectful of authority and rules. They are here because there is lots of work that is available and americans can't or wont do the work.

[Lord Xar]

Free immigration is the libertarian position. I find no problem with this. It is the welfare state that attracts illegal immigrants. Take your frustration out on the state, not poor people coming here to make their lives better.




Because it would only strengthen our argument that the welfare state is unsustainable. You want big government to prevent big government? Seriously?

We already know its unsustainable. The pink elephant in the room. But unlike you, I don't believe all of a sudden the politicians and people will wise up. And if they do, the system is already so over burdened the prospect of cutting is not even possible -thus our 16trillion on the books debt. This is just a smaller piece to a bigger puzzle that is a globalization ... nau

Your desires will just push the plan to fruition much faster ... my goal is that education can outpace the plan.

You think hordes of dependants with little knowledge of the constitution or its history will allow the spicket to run dry? "Seriously". Also, disallowing open borders is not a recipe for a bigger govt. The govt services needed to entertain open borders should tell u all u need go know.

[Lord Xar]

I want closed borders. I believe in national sovereignty.
Co-sign

[alucard13mmfmj]

I left democrats because they want to give cheaters and people who did something illegal a "break" so they can become citizens or get "perks". Even if the they come here illegally, they should apply for immigration like everyone else and wait their turn. My grandparents and aunts/uncle/parents went through immigration the long, legal way. They came from Hong Kong/China and went through Angel Island in San Francisco.

I do agree there needs to be immigration reform... make it easier/cheaper/less beauracracy. It is better to document the illegals than to have them run around with assumed identities and etc etc.

A lot of them dont have insurance... When I was 10, my family car broke down and was on side of road. A car struck us from behind. Illegal driving the car gave us wrong address for contact information and didn't have insurance... or even a license. My mom has neck/back pains ever since *12 years ago*.

But yeah... why make laws like immigration laws when no one is gonna enforce it. Makes no sense. It is like one of those asinine laws that no one knows or bothers to enforce.

However... I rather have those illegals go to school and do something than to have nothing to do and join gangs and shoot up the place.

[John F Kennedy III]

Wouldn't that destroy the economy overnight?

Our economy is on life support anyway. There are plenty of people here to fill the jobs that would be vacated. Plus that's millions that wouldn't be getting money from the welfare state anymore....we would possibly hurt for a few weeks, but it would be an overall plus for sure.

[Noob]

Tell congress to oppose this.

http://capwiz.com/caps/issues/alert/?alertid=61471086

[DamianTV]

School is where they learn to join gangs and shoot up the place.

Hit and Runs arent exclusive to illegal immigrants. There is too much incentive for a person to commit a Hit and Run over taking resposibility for their actions. I think nearly every aspect of our lives in modern society are based on separating the individual from individual responsibility over anything.

The Incentives to Immigrate Illegally far outweigh the Incentives to Immigrate Legally. We all hear that Generation X has a snowballs chance in hell of ever collecting a dime from the busted ass Social(ist In)Security system that everyone is "required" to pay into. Do we not believe that ANY immigrants are also not well aware of this? How is that even an incentive to immigrate legally? Lets move to another country and pay out the ass into a foreign ponzi scheme that we wont get a damn thing out of if we follow the rules?

I could go off for endless hours on the Incentives of Immigrating Illegally, but Im going to summarize by saying that people respond to incentives.

Extending beyond the Incentives part of my argument, I cant blame any human for wanting to better themselves. But what we get is not the Creme of the Crop, we get the Cream of the CRAP. If the US had a Mass Exodus of Citizens going to Mexico and Canada (which we do), the ones leaving would be those who felt they could better their situation by leaving. Our best and brightest would leave. But it wouldnt account for everyone leaving, they would only make up a percentaage. What I continuously hear is that the immigrants that come here are real criminals that are looking for a means to evade their capture by moving to a country where there arent any arrest warrants for them, yet. These people can come here and find jobs more easily than the people that live here because they speak a different language, which somehow makes them more qualified than us, despite many being unable to perform basic math functions. And that isnt to bag on their schools, schools around the world are nothing more than Government Indoctrination Centers. Thus, there is a huge misunderstood difference between Education and Knowledge. So I wont fault them for not going to school. I will fault them for not knowing jack shit. However, that lack of knowledge can be overcome by teaching ones self. Learning the language of the land. Again, Learning is not the same as Education / Indoctrination. Once they come here, so many dont want to learn to speak english. And if they dont want to learn english, they probably dont want to learn how to do basic math skills. But maybe they do have some basic math. My problem is that they do not want to continue to Learn. Dont get me wrong, there are a lot of Americans that do the same thing. Just ask your grandparents about learning how to use a computer.

Many choose to self-segregate and displace us from our herritage by ignoring it and replacing it with their own. Demands are made that Govt Publications be made in their Native Language. Demands are made to be provided preferencial treatment over the local populus in most aspects of life. They demand to be rewarded by not becoming a part of the society to which they have moved. This is their new immigrated culture, to dissolve the old one. Like a cancer. This is their society. To destroy ours. But to look down on one individual, the one individual cant accomplish the things an entire population can do. We can welcome an individual with the intent of becoming a part of our culture, but we cant welcome the population of an entire country into our country by sacrificing all that we are and have been to oblivion. That is an invasion. An invasion embraced by the hive mind but not much by the individual. And our laws favor the hive mind over the individual.

History is rewritten to favor whoever is in power. Im sure that given enough time and enough distortion, they'd probably even go so far as to say that George Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, hell even Obama, Romney, and Ron Paul were all Hispanic. They purposefully forget our truths. They willfully alter the books to say that their own selfish values have more merit than things like a Limited Constitutional Govt and Honest Money System so that a few can put themselves on a pedestal above the rest.

And all of these things are accomplished by our politicians willingness to pander and cater to them so that our slave labor employers can hire cheaper labor.

[ProIndividual]

And all of these things are accomplished by our politicians willingness to pander and cater to them so that our slave labor employers can hire cheaper labor.

Did you really just compare competition in the labor market (which keeps labor costs at market level instead of artificially inflated by state protectionism) to SLAVE LABOR? It's a willing contract. You have no right to a job. You have no right to tell me who I can hire, or for how much, as long as they willingly agree to it. You're advocating anti-free market labor market protectionism to keep labor costs artifically high. This DOES NOT keep standards of living higher...it increases unemployment just like artifical prices for labor due to minimum wage and union labor protectionism does.

The rest of your post wreaked of xenophobia. All your worries about bad incentives for immigration (there is no such thing as "illegal" immigrants, as they have a natural right to movement across arbitrary and imaginary lines drawn by states...unless you concede somehow we get our rights from states, not from Creation, or if you're an atheist, by virtue of our humanity) are reasons to end collectivist programs like welfare, SS, etc, not reasons to stand against a natural right like movement across borders in a free market for labor. And the old BS saying "can't have open borders in a welfare state" has been disproven with data for decades. We know that "illegal" immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take, and if they could pay taxes legally, they would contribute more on average per capita than natives.

This is all one big anti-free market argument you're making. This "culture war" argument you make is collectivism and nationalism...not individualism and patriotism.

Just because Obama does it doesn't mean it's logically wrong. Just because Ron Paul supports it doesn't make it logically right. This is one time Obama accidentally went to the free market side of things, and one time he accidentally got it right. Fuck him and Romney, but he got this right. Stop the nonsense, please. Educate yourself on free markets, stop listening to Ron and Hoppe on this...it's the one place they get it wrong, and it's provable with data.

[ProIndividual]

I want closed borders. I believe in national sovereignty.

Then you're anti-free market and for protectionism, logically (closed borders are labor protectionism, or xenophobia in culture, or both). I believe in individual sovereignty. The nation is a collectivist entity. Nationalism is not patriotism, they are opposed concepts (nationalism means "love of the state", patriotism means "love of countrymen"). The nation is not synonymous with country (one means "state", one means "people"...hence "nation-state" not "country-state") Nationalism and statism are mental disorders.

Individual rights do not have borders ("inalienable" or "unalienable" literally mean "not subject to border or statute", hence the "un" and "alien", and the term "alien" when refering to immigrants). Individual rights of nonviolent individuals always trumps the powers and authorities of states (collectives). You're not libertarian or free market on this issue. You do not support individual rights on this issue.

The "good of the collective" has been the cause of, and excuse for, every atrocity in human history.

Breaking unjust laws like immigration quotas is Civil Disobedience, and I encourage it. It's also not in the Constitution to have quotas on immigration, and they are not the original intent.

I hope more Mexicans jump that border and break the tyrannical laws until our government supports free markets and justice in labor markets and individual rights, and makes it legal to cross as long as you pass a simple background check and medical exam (as the original intent of the Constitution desired).

Until then, why wait 131 years on average to come in legally?

http://images.forbes.com/media/2010/06/09/0609_how-long-citizen-chart.jpg

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/special-report-immigration-opening-borders-mexico-let-them-in_2.html

Would you wait 131 years on average to exercise your individual right to free movement? If you would, you'd be dead on average before exercising that right. Do you really think this law is enforcable with those wait times? Think about it rationally. The law is creating criminals, just like drug laws.

Most crossings are not done on private property, BTW, most are done on public property (aka thoroughfares). Hence, they are not aggression...but the law is aggression. It's anti-free market and wrong ethically, period.

[alucard13mmfmj]

http://images.forbes.com/media/2010/06/09/0609_how-long-citizen-chart.jpg

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/special-report-immigration-opening-borders-mexico-let-them-in_2.html



it makes sense to let people into the country that could advance the country ^^..

[showpan]

Did you really just compare competition in the labor market (which keeps labor costs at market level instead of artificially inflated by state protectionism) to SLAVE LABOR? It's a willing contract. You have no right to a job. You have no right to tell me who I can hire, or for how much, as long as they willingly agree to it. You're advocating anti-free market labor market protectionism to keep labor costs artifically high. This DOES NOT keep standards of living higher...it increases unemployment just like artifical prices for labor due to minimum wage and union labor protectionism does.

The rest of your post wreaked of xenophobia. All your worries about bad incentives for immigration (there is no such thing as "illegal" immigrants, as they have a natural right to movement across arbitrary and imaginary lines drawn by states...unless you concede somehow we get our rights from states, not from Creation, or if you're an atheist, by virtue of our humanity) are reasons to end collectivist programs like welfare, SS, etc, not reasons to stand against a natural right like movement across borders in a free market for labor. And the old BS saying "can't have open borders in a welfare state" has been disproven with data for decades. We know that "illegal" immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take, and if they could pay taxes legally, they would contribute more on average per capita than natives.

This is all one big anti-free market argument you're making. This "culture war" argument you make is collectivism and nationalism...not individualism and patriotism.

Just because Obama does it doesn't mean it's logically wrong. Just because Ron Paul supports it doesn't make it logically right. This is one time Obama accidentally went to the free market side of things, and one time he accidentally got it right. Fuck him and Romney, but he got this right. Stop the nonsense, please. Educate yourself on free markets, stop listening to Ron and Hoppe on this...it's the one place they get it wrong, and it's provable with data.

Did you actually just state that more competition in an already artificially overburdened employer market was a good thing....lol...and higher wages mean lower living standards.....my god...you got your chinese hat on backwards and NO, you don't have the right to hire anyone you want.

I read a book today...oh boy

[ProIndividual]

it makes sense to let people into the country that could advance the country ^^..

And you can't make those valuations..they're impossible to make. The guy who started google came here as a child of two poor immigrants...read the article I linked where the graph came from. Hoppe is wrong (on this one issue). Go to Reason TV and watch their series on immigration in their archives.

Again, this "good of the collective" argument is trampling individual natural rights that do not get limited because of borders and do not exist because of the state and its borders.

[ProIndividual]

Did you actually just state that more competition in an already artificially overburdened employer market was a good thing....lol...and higher wages mean lower living standards.....my god...you got your chinese hat on backwards and NO, you don't have the right to hire anyone you want.

I read a book today...oh boy

So you're against free markets in labor...good to know. The only artifical part of the labor market is minimum wage, union wages, and border labor protectionism. You can laugh, but this is the economic free market position that I take...you on the other hand make excuses for why you support protectionism. It isn't immigration that caused our economic woes, and since we KNOW immigration is CONDUSIVE to economic growth, you're shooting yourself in the foor so you can take the blame off what causes the problems...the state's laws (like the FED, for example).

Border hawks = anti-free market and anti-individual rights (at least on this issue)

And you say I don't have the right to hire anyone I want...so you don't believe in freedom of association, property rights, or contracts. It's that simple. I have property (a job), they have property (labor), and we can exchange those properties any way we see fit of our own free will, for any price we negotiate...any interventionism on your part to stop that free contractual relationship is tyranny. You're advocating trampling individual natural rights for the "good of the collective". It's logically collectivist.

So you support free trade EXCEPT in labor? You support free markets EXCEPT in labor? You support individual rights EXCEPT in contract, labor, and movement? You support freedom of association EXCEPT in labor? You support noninterventionism EXCEPT in labor, immigration, and contracts? You only support initiation of aggression and tyranny in immigration, contracts, etc?

Your position is horrid on this subject. Anyone should be allowed in that that the market dictates should come in, as long as they can pass a simple criminal background check and medical exam. I support them coming in "illegally" until the law is changed to reflect what it should be in a free market and free society.

Attack the causes of our economic woes, don't cut off your nose to spite your face on this issue, and simultaneously abaondon liberty to do it.

The border hawk position has no place in libertarianism. It's simply anti-liberty and pro-interventionism. It's anti-free trade. It's anti-contract. It's anti-individual rights. It's just totally opposed to everything we obstensibly stand for.

[Raudsarw]

View Post
Approximately 30 million illegals here. I'm all for deporting every single one. Their legal family members can leave with them if they want.

What the hell am I reading? It would require violence on a massive scale. It would be akin to the mass deportations in the Soviet Union! I thought this was a forum for people who love liberty, but we seem to have a majority in this thread advocating statist violence. By what right does the state stop me from inviting into my home who I want to, or hiring who I want to?

[LibertyRevolution]

Borders should be closed, this is a sovereign county.
If you came here illegally, then you are a criminal and should be deported.
If you come here illegally with intentions to have a child that is born in a America, they should deport you and your child.
If you hire an illegal then you should be fined, closed, your business license revoked, and denied application for a new business license.

Why do I feel this way?
I lost my job when my boss replaced my crew with illegals that spoke no English, then replaced me with someone that spoke English & Spanish!
I gave 15 years to that company and what do I get for it?
I get to watch as the years I spent training a crew got wasted as they and I were replaced by some criminal scum that cant even answer a question for a customer!

[Weston White]

Barry Soetoro is just attempting to set himself up with retroactive citizenship, for when he is to ultimately be exposed, by real investigators such as Sheriff Arpaio and crew, Jerome Corsi, and now Lord Monckton.

[showpan]

The only artifical part of the labor market is minimum wage, union wages, and border labor protectionism. You can laugh, but this is the economic free market position that I take...

Well here in America, there are things called laws. You don't have the right to hire anyone you want, not that you would hire anyone to play your online games for you.
The artificial employer labor market at present time has been created by NAFTA and immigration.....since you don't work, I wouldn't expect you to understand this.

[Lord Xar]

http://images.forbes.com/media/2010/06/09/0609_how-long-citizen-chart.jpg
.

You are intellectually dishonest. You posted that image to make an emotional plea.

How many 40yr old PHD BIOENGEERING applicants are there clamoring to get into the United States compared to under-educated hispanics? You tell me? That graph is based on a % of the total of those who have gained citizenship. If you have 5million mexicans trying to get in, and you have only 5 40yr old PH'ds, are you suggesting that the weight of allowance should be equal when we allow say, 500k mexicans per ONE 40yr old phd applicant?


YOU WANT the brightest and those who have the most to offer in first. Would you invest your money in a low return, prone to loss investment OR one in which your returns yields great results?

Also, how long is the wait for a 30yr old Britain, H.S. diploma?
Also, how long is the wait for a 40yr old Mexican, PH.D., Bio-engineer?

Between 2008 - 2010, we had a total of : 3,280,569 immigrants to this country (legal) - (not counting the millions of illegal immigrants, mostly from mexico). Now, out of that 3mill+, 494,029 were from Mexico. About 15%. How many from the United Kingdom? Half of a percent ~ 42k. So, look at the numbers, not some half-assed graph that somebody with an agenda created to create a meme.

Shame on you.

[anaconda]

Will he include himself in the amnesty deal?

[Victor Grey]

The nation is a collectivist entity. Nationalism is not patriotism, they are opposed concepts (nationalism means "love of the state", patriotism means "love of countrymen").
The nation is not synonymous with country (one means "state", one means "people"...hence "nation-state" not "country-state") Nationalism and statism are mental disorders.


A nation, is a collectivized group of people with a common language, culture, ethnicity, geographic descent, or history.

A country, is a government-lead state with political commonality.

Your definitions are backwards.

[Dianne]

When you are a nation in fear of terrorists everywhere, it makes no sense to be cool with allowing millions of illegals to stay in the country. Obviously they are either not worried about terrorism, or they are inviting it to happen. Either way the govt is seriously making a mistake.

Personally, I am not worried about a bunch of mexicans. The problem is the welfare state and the ongoing drug war. Welfare state has a bunch of non immigrants stealing from me too, and the drug war empowers those who live under the radar. Honestly, most of the illegals I know are working for their money, and working hard. My helper (im an electrician) has over stayed his visa, but I don't want to see him gone. There is just no better help than him. Americans are lazy. These guys are willing to do the job - and if you ever watch them work, they are extremely efficient. They don't ask for much other than a paycheck.

On the other hand there are some black people who get govt money down the road from me. They have all day to try and do something productive, and they refuse. Grass is over grown, lots of parties and people sitting around. At night things get stolen. Those are the people I want gone. Latinos are generally respectful of authority and rules. They are here because there is lots of work that is available and americans can't or wont do the work.

I actually saw a special on CNN not long ago. And they reported that the first three months of 2012, the U.S. Border Patrol detained around 30,000 non mexicans crossing the U.S./Mexico border; mostly males from those countries listed in this article. Now you can imagine, if 30,000 were stopped; how many made it across?

http://usopenborders.com/2012/02/channel-2-uncovers-proof-terrorists-crossed-mexican-border/

The U.S. Border Patrol has captured thousands of people they say are classified as OTM which stands for “other than Mexican.” Documents show many of them are from terrorists nations like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen. Federal authorities call those groups SIAs, which stands for “special interest aliens”.

Federal officials have offered few details about the number of actual terrorists caught along the border.

Retired immigration agent Michael Cutler says the actual threat is being covered up. “Incredibly the government is attempting to keep the citizens like a bunch of mushrooms. Keep us in the dark and feed us a bunch of manure.”

Government officials have denied that terrorists have crossed our open border. Still, Channel 2 Action News has proof they have. Channel 2 Anchor Justin Farmer found documents filed in federal court in San Antonio, Texas, in May. They show an indictment against Ahmed Muhammad Dhakane for allegedly smuggling hundreds of people from Brazil to Mexico, then into the U.S. The federal indictment states it includes some Somalis from the terrorist group Al Shabob. Terrorism experts say the group is responsible for terrorist attacks and suicide bombings worldwide.

[PaulConventionWV]

Borders should be closed, this is a sovereign county.
If you came here illegally, then you are a criminal and should be deported.
If you come here illegally with intentions to have a child that is born in a America, they should deport you and your child.
If you hire an illegal then you should be fined, closed, your business license revoked, and denied application for a new business license.

Why do I feel this way?
I lost my job when my boss replaced my crew with illegals that spoke no English, then replaced me with someone that spoke English & Spanish!
I gave 15 years to that company and what do I get for it?
I get to watch as the years I spent training a crew got wasted as they and I were replaced by some criminal scum that cant even answer a question for a customer!

Your boss must have hired them for a reason. Why do you think it's necessary to get a license to practice business? Start your own business. Just because bad things happen to good people in this economy, that doesn't mean we should make it worse by reinforcing the already stifling regulations with more regulations.

[PaulConventionWV]

Barry Soetoro is just attempting to set himself up with retroactive citizenship, for when he is to ultimately be exposed, by real investigators such as Sheriff Arpaio and crew, Jerome Corsi, and now Lord Monckton.

Who are these people? I know who Lord Monckton is, but who are those other people?

[matt0611]

As long as the illegals are playing by the same rules I have to live by (they are paying taxes etc) and are not criminals I don't really care.

We need to stop all of the government incentives that give these people benefits on the expense of the taxpayers though.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Only border I believe in is the one between my property and my neighbor's.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Tell congress to oppose this.

http://capwiz.com/caps/issues/alert/?alertid=61471086

Hate to tell you this, but King Obama did it without congresional approval. Congress at this point is just a sideshow.

[Philhelm]

I have been working at an immigration law firm for about a year, and while I am certainly not an expert on immigration law (which can be pretty convoluted), I do have some experience. I cannot help but think that this is just a blend of "It's for the children" legislation and a money-making scheme. The law is not currently in effect, but the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services has been advised to begin working out how to implement this. I quickly scanned the criteria yesterday, and there were about five or six requirements. Of what I remember off hand:

1. Alien must have entered the U.S. before the age of 14 years.
2. Alien must not be over the age of 30 years.
3. Alien must have resided in the U.S. for at least 5 years.
4. Alien must not have committed serious offenses.

Of course, there will be the accompanying filing fees (and attorney fees if they use legal representation). I would imagine there will be plenty of people that can qualify, and I would speculate that the filing fee would be somewhere around $500 to $1,500 per applicant.

Meanwhile, U.S. citizens have to pay $1,490 (plus attorney fees potentially) in order to gain Permanent Residence for an alien spouse and wait 3 years for naturalization (Non-spouse immigrants can generally naturalize in 5 years after gaining Permanent Residence. And they have to sign and Affidavit of Support, which is essentially an enforceable contract in which the U.S. citizen petitioner agrees to pay the spouse if they separate (The idea is to ensure that the immigrant does not end up using means-tested federal benefits).

There are already ways for illegal children to become Permanent Residents. Any child under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court, due to neglect, abuse, or abandonment, can easily gain permanent residence and naturalize in 5 years. Even illegal aliens that marry U.S. citizens get forgiven, and can naturalize in three years. What bothers me, as a U.S. citizen by birthright (for what that's worth), is that if I wanted to marry a woman that resides in a foreign nation, I would have to pay plenty of filing fees and wait several months until the consulate issues her a visa before she could live with me. Meanwhile, people who simply enter illegally get no such hassle if the U.S. citizen spouse files for them.

[Origanalist]

Your boss must have hired them for a reason. Why do you think it's necessary to get a license to practice business? Start your own business. Just because bad things happen to good people in this economy, that doesn't mean we should make it worse by reinforcing the already stifling regulations with more regulations.
So your answer is we all start our own business? Yes let's all just start companies and hire illegals, what could go wrong?

Sure he or she hired them for a reason, they were willing to work for less than the market supported.

[Origanalist]

As long as the illegals are playing by the same rules I have to live by (they are paying taxes etc) and are not criminals I don't really care.

We need to stop all of the government incentives that give these people benefits on the expense of the taxpayers though.

How are they playing by the same rules you have to live by? Did you sneak into Mexico or some other country and falsify your identity?

[DerailingDaTrain]

This country only hates illegals when we are in a depression/recession.

Edit: Most of this country

[DerailingDaTrain]

Raudsarw, your take might make a lot of sense... to an 11 year old.


If someone breaks into your home while your gone, and robs you blind, forget about calling the police - or attempting to use the justice system to regain your losses.

The police and justice system, set up by criminal organization known as the government, is not to be regarded.


Enjoy complete anarchy.

I'm sure it'll work out for ya just the way you want it to.

How I read this:

"I need someone to take care of me and protect me at all times. I can't make rational decisions myself because I'm not responsible or intelligent enough."

[Ender]

As long as the illegals are playing by the same rules I have to live by (they are paying taxes etc) and are not criminals I don't really care.

We need to stop all of the government incentives that give these people benefits on the expense of the taxpayers though.

THIS.

No welfare benefits and criminal behavior= aliens should be welcome.

Most do not realize that the strongest economic times came from immigrant migration to the US, especially when there was not a bunch of draconian laws to keep them out. If they are working, they are helping the economy, not taking from it.

Many immigrants were hated by those that had previously immigrated. The Irish were treated abominably; now it is Mexicans. My person POV is that all the current hype on "illegal" immigration is to get Americans to accept a National ID.

Getting rid of the WoD will also dry up over-the-border illegal issues.

[Origanalist]

THIS.

No welfare benefits and criminal behavior= aliens should be welcome.

Most do not realize that the strongest economic times came from immigrant migration to the US, especially when there was not a bunch of draconian laws to keep them out. If they are working, they are helping the economy, not taking from it.

Many immigrants were hated by those that had previously immigrated. The Irish were treated abominably; now it is Mexicans. My person POV is that all the current hype on "illegal" immigration is to get Americans to accept a National ID.

Getting rid of the WoD will also dry up over-the-border illegal issues.

All well and good. Meanwhile, back in realityville, there is going to be no ending of welfare or the war on drugs unless RP gets elected.

So your points are moot.

[UpperDecker]

As long as the illegals are playing by the same rules I have to live by (they are paying taxes etc) and are not criminals I don't really care.

We need to stop all of the government incentives that give these people benefits on the expense of the taxpayers though.

so that leaves us with MAYBE 1/4 of the illegal immigrant population. a lot of people forget that 75+% of them commit fraud and identity theft to work here, which in many cases hurts US citizens. think about the impact it makes when one steals the SSN of a child and runs up a massive medical bill that they will never pay. that ruins people, and far too often it is the identity of children being stolen.

i do agree with the second sentence though, the best way to deal with the issue is to cut off benefits and jobs.

[Ender]

All well and good. Meanwhile, back in realityville, there is going to be no ending of welfare or the war on drugs unless RP gets elected.

So your points are moot.

So, RP is the only person in the whole nation that understands this? Better get off your duff and do something about it then.

The town I am in has a 25% population of Hispanics that do all the work for the rich folk. They are not on welfare and they work their asses off. They are also part of the reason this area supports the affluent.

Illegal immigration has been going down for years- it is only news worthy so that people can run around with their hands in the air and demand that government be even more involved in their lives.

[Ender]

so that leaves us with MAYBE 1/4 of the illegal immigrant population. a lot of people forget that 75+% of them commit fraud and identity theft to work here, which in many cases hurts US citizens. think about the impact it makes when one steals the SSN of a child and runs up a massive medical bill that they will never pay. that ruins people, and far too often it is the identity of children being stolen.

i do agree with the second sentence though, the best way to deal with the issue is to cut off benefits and jobs.

You DO know that the SSN is unconstitutional?

[Zippyjuan]

Total estimated illegal aliens in the US has been declining since 2007. Down by over two million- from 12.6 million to 10.3 million.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/opinion/the-next-immigration-challenge.html

THE immigration crisis that has roiled American politics for decades has faded into history. Illegal immigration is shrinking to a trickle, if that, and will likely never return to the peak levels of 2000. Just as important, immigrants who arrived in the 1990s and settled here are assimilating in remarkable and unexpected ways.

Taken together, these developments, and the demographic future they foreshadow, require bold changes in our approach to both legal and illegal immigration. Put simply, we must shift from an immigration policy, with its emphasis on keeping newcomers out, to an immigrant policy, with an emphasis on encouraging migrants and their children to integrate into our social fabric. “Show me your papers” should be replaced with “Welcome to English class.”

Restrictionists, including those driving much of the debate on the Republican primary trail, still talk as if nothing has changed. But the numbers are stark: the total number of immigrants, legal and illegal, arriving in the 2000s grew at half the rate of the 1990s, according to the Census Bureau.

The most startling evidence of the falloff is the effective disappearance of illegal border crossers from Mexico, with some experts estimating the net number of new Mexicans settling in the United States at zero. The size of the illegal-immigrant population peaked in 2007, with about 58 percent of it of Mexican origin, according to the Pew Hispanic Center; since 2008, that population has shrunk by roughly 200,000 a year. Illegal immigrants from Asia and other parts of the globe have similarly dwindled in numbers.

This new equilibrium is here to stay, in large part because Mexico’s birthrate is plunging. In 1970 a Mexican woman, on average, gave birth to 6.8 babies, and when they entered their 20s, millions journeyed north for work. Today the country’s birthrate — at 2.1 — is approaching that of the United States. That portends a shrinking pool of young adults to meet Mexico’s future labor needs, and less competition for jobs at home.

If the number of immigrants is declining, what about that other nativist bugbear, assimilation? There’s little doubt that immigrants’ potential as economic contributors turns on their ability to assimilate. Fortunately, recent studies by John Pitkin, Julie Park and me show that immigrant parents and children, especially Latinos, are making extraordinary strides in assimilating.

Today, barely a third of adult immigrants have a high-school diploma. But the children of Latino immigrants have always outperformed their parents in educational achievement. By 2030 we expect 80 percent of their children who arrived in the 1990s before age 10 to have completed high school and 18 percent to have a bachelor’s degree.

[KingRobbStark]

All the more people to vote for him and all the more people to kill with drones. Its a double win for that maggot.

[UpperDecker]

You DO know that the SSN is unconstitutional?

yes, but that is not the point. it is what we have at the moment and the fact is that these acts are hurting people.

[UpperDecker]

So, RP is the only person in the whole nation that understands this? Better get off your duff and do something about it then.

The town I am in has a 25% population of Hispanics that do all the work for the rich folk. They are not on welfare and they work their asses off. They are also part of the reason this area supports the affluent.

Illegal immigration has been going down for years- it is only news worthy so that people can run around with their hands in the air and demand that government be even more involved in their lives.

i grew up in an agricultural town with the hispanic population being over 70% and sadly this was not the case. of course i will not generalize because i worked with some really hard working illegal immigrants, but there were also some very bad ones.

also, i don't want the government all over everything, but isn't protecting our borders one of the few things that they are actually supposed to do?

[alucard13mmfmj]

Might as well annex Mexico if Mexicans want to come to USA so badly... or maybe we should help by visiting the Mexican cartel with US airforce.

If we gonna bomb someone... I rather it be on the drug cartels than brown skinned, muslims trying to defend their country, despite how backwards they might be.

[Origanalist]

//

[Origanalist]

So, RP is the only person in the whole nation that understands this? Better get off your duff and do something about it then.

The town I am in has a 25% population of Hispanics that do all the work for the rich folk. They are not on welfare and they work their asses off. They are also part of the reason this area supports the affluent.

Illegal immigration has been going down for years- it is only news worthy so that people can run around with their hands in the air and demand that government be even more involved in their lives.

And you know this how?

[Origanalist]

You DO know that the SSN is unconstitutional?

Tell that to the government and quite paying it.

Again, everything you are saying is true, but, so is the fact that it doesn't matter to the criminals running the show. So all your assertments are right in theory but wrong in reality.

I have an idea, why dont we end these programs before we allow another country to empty into ours?

[DamianTV]

The Law doesnt matter to the people that make the Laws. They have more guns than YOU do, but not all of us collectively.

[Ender]

Tell that to the government and quite paying it.

Again, everything you are saying is true, but, so is the fact that it doesn't matter to the criminals running the show. So all your assertments are right in theory but wrong in reality.

I have an idea, why dont we end these programs before we allow another country to empty into ours?

Freedom is freedom- either we live free or we don't. It seems ironic to want to enforce unconstitutional laws until we get some constitutional laws- but maybe my reality is different than yours.

The Mexican illegal immigrant statistics are down and have been decreasing since 2005.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20464559/pew-study-mexican-immigration-u-s-down-sharply

Also- the heavy Hispanic community where I live is taking no jobs from anyone. No other group will take the cleaning, gardening, maintenance jobs that these people are doing. A lady in the home health care business here cannot keep any other workers besides the Hispanic community- no one wants these jobs.

[ProIndividual]

A nation, is a collectivized group of people with a common language, culture, ethnicity, geographic descent, or history.

A country, is a government-lead state with political commonality.

Your definitions are backwards.

No they aren't...you might want to do a little research beyond PC colloquialisms in your PC state sanctioned dictionaries.


The English term patriot is first attested in the Elizabethan era, via Middle French from Late Latin (6th century) patriota "countryman", ultimately from Greek πατριώτης (patriōtēs) "countryman", from πατρίς, "fatherland".

Notice the collectivist/authoritarian word "state" is not included, and either is its synonym "nation".


The word country has developed from the Late Latin contra meaning "against", used in the sense of "that which lies against, or opposite to, the view", i.e. the landscape spread out to the view. From this came the Late Latin term contrata, which became the modern Italian contrada. The term appears in the Vulgate version of Matthew 12:30 "Qui non est mecum, contra me est: et qui non congregat mihi, spargit. (He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.)

Notice again, the word does not derive from "state" or "nation", as nations-states and earlier mega states like Dynasties and Empires did not exist as long as countries. Countries existing for way longer than the last 6,000 years...and the states have only existed for the last 6,000 years (with nation-states existing for the minority of that period). It is anthropologically impossible for countries to have any relation to states in their historical definition.


A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.[1] In this definition, a nation has no physical borders. However, it can also refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up.

The sentence following is incorrect so I didn't include it. Clearly, country is not synonymous (and never was except in incorrect usage via colloquilaisms) to "nation". Nations are founded on nationalism (which I'll define next), and they are built on the idea of collectivism (not individualism) and exclusion of others not defined as worthy by the collective or opposed to the "collective good". Again, nation is not synonymous with country. If they were synonmous "patriot" would be synonymous with "nationalist"...but they are opposed concepts, because patriotism is usually taken to be a defense of countrymen, or individualism and autonomy within a collective culture (like individual rights in the American Revolution, and the Enlightenment more generally). Nationalism forsakes individualism and individual autonomy within the group, and instead values collective goods and collective adherence to social norms. Logically, patriotism leads to a more individualist society, while nationalism leads to collectivist and brutal societies with tyrannical bents. Although nations can be borderless (like the Gangster Disciple Nation, the Latin King Nation, the Satan Disciple Nation, the Vice Lord Nation - all street gangs operating in many different geographic places) they are always coercive and collectivist. If you step out of line from the collective, you will be punished. They always make attemptes to claim territory.

Hence, nationalism leads directly to statism (a state being a monopoly on violence in a certain geographic area that has the power to extort and declare itself "legal"). Hence, the "nation-state".

To view the words "country" and "nation" as synonymous, and the words "patriot" and "nationalist" as synonymous is to say Nazis were patriots even though they were nationalists, and that they didn't harm their country by trying to advance the "collective good" of the fascist state. Of course, any reasonable person would say that Nazis were not patriots, and that people who tried to assasinate Hitler were the patriots. Any reasonable person would say the Nazi Party and nation-state harmed the country.


Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation.

Again, notice "nation", not "country". Also notice the word "ideology", as it it NOT a philosophy because it lacks one or more of the five criteria to be a philosophy (LOGIC, ETHICS, aesthetics, epistemology, and metaphysics). It's a problem ideology like most, as it promotes anti-free market and pro-authoritarian collectivism...all for the "good of the collective". It is so powerful as a horrible idea, that it leads people who think of themselves as pro-free market and libertarian to advocate things that are definately opposed to that stated principle and stated philosophy.


There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.

Hence why nationalists turn to xenophobia so quickly. It's their collectivist tendancy and fear of diversity (which the market always brings). Hence, most nationalist movements hinder the markets (anti-free market).


Statism (French; étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.

You are advocating statism by interfering with the market in areas of culture, labor markets, and immigration (and therefore social policy). You're using the statist approach to social engineering if you advocate for closed borders (a state aggression that does not exist if the state stays out of the free market on immigration, culture, and labor), or any border controls whatsoever beyond criminal background checks and medical exams.


Some analyses use a dichotomy between state and society, viewing the state as a homogeneous institution capable of using political power to force policy on a passive or resisting society

Society, the countrymen (aka the country), and the market are constantly at odds with the state. Individual patriots are constantly aggressed against by nationalists, especially nationalist statists.


Right-wing authoritarianism and traditionalist conservativism, on the other hand, views a strong, authoritative state as required to legislate or enforce traditional morality and cultural practices.

Hence, not very libertarian, free market, or non-aggressive. Because conservatism is an ideology based another ideology (statism), it lacks certain elements of philosophy, logically (but is mislabeled and misdefined constantly as a "political philosophy"). Both strands of authoritarianism have no place in libertarianism or in free markets.


The ideology of statism espoused by fascism holds that sovereignty is not vested in the people but in the nation state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, prestige and well-being of the state.

Sounds like closed border policy to me. Taking the nation-state as sovereign above the individual sovereign is ultimately statist and fascist. The enhancement of the "collective" nation-state is not to be prized above the individual...or the guy who invented Google would never have lived in this country since he was a child of two poor immigrants. How can you make valuations on human lives when you can't foresee the future value they can represent? Answer: You can't.


The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit.

This whole concept is anti-individualism, and therefore anti-libertarian. There is actually no "state sovereignty" or "national sovereignty", there is only individual sovereignty. We give over, ONLY of our own free will and consent, our individual sovereignty to allow a territory to become soverign. That sovereignty only lasts as long as our consent. Consent is derived individually, not through elections. If someone's inalienable individual rights are trampled against their will, the nation-state (both nation and state) lack the authority ethically to hinder that individual's pursuits. They must consent to the trampling of their sovereignty, or the sovereignty of the collective (nation-state) is ILLEGITIMATE.

Since you KNOW rights come from our Creator or from virtue of our humanity (for the athiests in the crowd), then you also logically know the nation-state does not invent, grant, or take away rights...it can only uphold or aggress against them. It upholds individual rights (the only type of rights are individual) by simply not acting. In the case of immigration, the immigrant has the EXACT SAME natural individual rights as you or I as citiczens of the USA...otherwise you concede that the government grants our rights, and can repeal them at will. Since they have the same exact individual natural rights as you or I, the state can no more stop them from movement than it can us...and any attempt to stop us from moving is clearly tyranny. Therefore, any attempt to stop the movement of peoples in the labor market is not only anti-free market, but is by definition anti-liberty, anti-libertarian therefore, and tyrannical.

You have NO RIGHT to inpede free markets and individual natural rights for the "good of the collective". Your collectivism is your flaw. You must fix it, or be the enemy of liberty and free markets, PERIOD.

I fear this movement is becoming more neocon by the day...I am getting more pessismistic by the day, as I've watched Rand move incrimentally toward neocon positions (on drones being legal with HIS exceptions, with unconstitutional acts of war like Iran sanctions being okay with HIS exceptions, and his support for a tyrant-to-be Romney because it will further his career), and the way so many people hate the free market positions of liberty and prosperity on immigration while making excuses for their overt collectivism and xenophobia (and ignoranceo n economics, apparently). There are far too many tyrants in this movement...it's killing what it started out to save: liberty and free markets.

Change your minds, or be doomed as tyrants in the annals of history. Even minarchists like Reason Magazine and Reason TV and CATO Institute (all libertarians) agree with me. This is the free market position. This is the libertarian position. You cannot be for free markets and liberty and simultaneously cheerlead for closed borders.

Read more, folks. You have a lot of learning left to do on what you CLAIM to support. And if you do not support free markets and liberty, please count me out of your movement....because it's movement for tyranny.

[Origanalist]

Freedom is freedom- either we live free or we don't. It seems ironic to want to enforce unconstitutional laws until we get some constitutional laws- but maybe my reality is different than yours.

The Mexican illegal immigrant statistics are down and have been decreasing since 2005.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20464559/pew-study-mexican-immigration-u-s-down-sharply

Also- the heavy Hispanic community where I live is taking no jobs from anyone. No other group will take the cleaning, gardening, maintenance jobs that these people are doing. A lady in the home health care business here cannot keep any other workers besides the Hispanic community- no one wants these jobs.

This is simply a talking point for the illegal enablers. My better half was a maid, but the illegals made the place so hostile for Americans to work at that she quit. And the one illegal that worked with her was shunned by the rest. They do not just do the work in the fields you name, they are very heavy in the skilled trades and the last time I worked on a big project non-illegals were almost non -existent in the field I am in, and in some others. They didn't take my presence too kindly. And I know people in landscaping that have to compete with the illegals, I myself am a contractor that has to.


Freedom is freedom- either we live free or we don't.

So you have opted out of the SS program?

[ProIndividual]

How is advocating for another tyranny (like closed borders) advancing the end of tyranny in other areas (like collectivism of welafre and social programs)? It logically isn't. You guys seem to think liberty needs to be restored in a certain order (1,2,3,...) or it cannot be restroed. WRONG. It will be restored when a tyranny is ended, in any order. To attack one individual right so until you can restore another is hypocritical at best. And again, your ideas are founded in economic ignorance. Milton Friedman's "can't have open borders ina welafre state" has been disproven with data for decades. We know "illegal" immigrants contrinute more to the economy than they take in social programs. So there is nothing to fear. Immigration is NOT subsidized by the state, and moving to a new country can be somewhat expensive (even if in just loss of life itself). It therefore takes motivated individual to immigrate, and they generally do not get on welfare or move to get welfare. If you guys read the article I linked to, where I got the graph, you'd know that. In 99% of cases immigrants move to lesser welfare states to find WORK. Only in 1% of cases did they move, when given an open and free choice, to the most lucrative welfare states.

This whole issue is solved in one law: No immigrants can get any social service for free until 1 (or 2, or 10; you decide) years after entry. This is how certain countriesi n Europe handled the issue, and they have no undo strain on their welfare systems because of it. We should do the same easy fix.

But I'd bet dollars to donuts, that even if we did pass such a law, most of the posters here would STILL be anti-immigration due to xenophobic anti-diversity arguments that are predictable form anti-market nationalists. Then it would be "they'll have us speakin' spanish, herp derp", "they'll take our jerbs, herp derp", and "they'll vote liberal, herp derp". I say this, because I think for most (not all of you) the economic arguments are not only anti-free market unknowingly, but are sophstic cover for xenophobia that unerlies their true opinions.

I'd LOVE to see a poll done on these forums from you guys..."How many people would advocate border controls that only consist of background checks and medical exams IF immigrants couldn't legally get any social program benefits (a law was passed that outright prevented immigrants from receiving welfare, free schooling, etc. for X amount of years after entry into the country)?"

As a matter of fact...I'm starting that poll to see....

[Origanalist]

We know "illegal" immigrants contrinute more to the economy than they take in social programs.

Really? How do we know this?


In 99% of cases immigrants move to lesser welfare states to find WORK. Only in 1% of cases did they move, when given an open and free choice, to the most lucrative welfare states.


So California is not a "lucritive welfare State"? Oregon? Washington?


Immigration is NOT subsidized by the state,

The hell you say, they are subsidised plenty when they get here.

[ProIndividual]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381015-Immigration-Policy-Poll-Law-to-Prevent-Immigrants-from-Getting-Benefits-for-X-Years

Take the poll.

[Origanalist]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381015-Immigration-Policy-Poll-Law-to-Prevent-Immigrants-from-Getting-Benefits-for-X-Years

Take the poll.

Sounds like an order. No.

[ProIndividual]

Really? How do we know this?

By economic studies done on the subject.


So California is not a "lucritive welfare State"? Oregon? Washington?

Those are States, not states...one is a State in the union, one is the entire nation-state. What is generally meant by "state" is nation-state, not State in the Union. In total, America is not lucrative welfare state when compared with many other countries. However, the 99% I referenced was from, and I said this, European immigration. You're trying to apply your oinion with no stats, and my stats to where they do not apply. You have less evidence than I do, either way. Read the article I linked you to with the graph instead of asking me these questions. It's wasting my time since you can just read it for yourself. Also, go to the libertarian website Reason TV and watch their immigration videos...as a matter of fact, I link you to those too:

http://www.reason.tv/topics/show/immigration

If that's not enough, try Mises.org, or the CATO Institute. It's pretty universal that libertarians support my ideas on immigration...the only major one who doesn't is Hoppe, and that's who Ron was influenced by with his border hawkish political ideas. But Hans in contradicted logically, ethically, and empirically (with data) by almost all other libertarian learned people.


The hell you say, they are subsidised plenty when they get here.

You're taking my statement out of context...I may have unclearly said, but I did intend to say if you reread it in this context, that their MOVING is not subsidized by the state. Mexico does not pay them to move to the USA, and the USA does not re-imburse their moving fees. It takes motivation and work ethic to be an immigrant (you generally have to save up to move)...especially an "illegal" one who is risking their freedom and very lives.

In cases that have been studied thoroughly, barely 1% of immigrants go to the most lucrative welfare states when given a choice. Most go to where employment opportunities are (and the studies also never show a clear link between going to a welfare state and getting on welfare...some likely went there because they had a job offer).

[ProIndividual]

Sounds like an order. No.

It's not an order...either take it or don't. I'll just count your inaction as proving my hypothesis for that hypothetical vote.

[Origanalist]

It's not an order...either take it or don't. I'll just count your inaction as proving my hypothesis for that hypothetical vote.

Do as you please.

[Origanalist]

Read the article I linked you to with the graph

I must have missed that, please give the link again and I will read it.

[Athena]

We know "illegal" immigrants contrinute more to the economy than they take in social programs.

This is technically true, but it depends on how you define and value aspects of "the economy". Yes, Big Ag brings in huge parts of the GPD because of, in part, undocumented workers being poorly paid, no labor rights, etc. But those are jobs that would go to Americans with better pay otherwise (probably - I realize that part is disputed but am incredibly skeptical.) So if you define the economy as GPD and oligarch profits, yes, open immigration is a net "good" for "the economy."

[Ender]

This is technically true, but it depends on how you define and value aspects of "the economy". Yes, Big Ag brings in huge parts of the GPD because of, in part, undocumented workers being poorly paid, no labor rights, etc. But those are jobs that would go to Americans with better pay otherwise (probably - I realize that part is disputed but am incredibly skeptical.) So if you define the economy as GPD and oligarch profits, yes, open immigration is a net "good" for "the economy."

The problem is that our financial setup is based on mercantilism- which the Revolution was fought over- and is no longer real capitalism; the things you are citing are unconstitutional.

[Athena]

The problem is that our financial setup is based on mercantilism- which the Revolution was fought over- and is no longer real capitalism; the things you are citing are unconstitutional.

Well, yeah, but the American Revolution was fought before the industrial revolution, which kind of defines capitalism as it's understood today, so...

[Ender]

Well, yeah, but the American Revolution was fought before the industrial revolution, which kind of defines capitalism as it's understood today, so...

So, you are saying that truth changes because of the stupidity of the people?

Capitalism is the right to sell and trade in the open market; it is the right to succeed and to fail. If you make a whatchamagidget that everyone likes, you have the right to sell it and people have the right to buy. When something becomes overwhelmingly popular then the price goes down as more people buy and everybody wins. If you make a gadget that no one likes, then you have the right to close shop and look elsewhere for a money-making enterprise.

Mercantilism serves the elite, while the masses are made to buy and to adhere to rules that profit the few. THIS is why the Revolutionary War was fought and THIS is where we are again today.

[DerailingDaTrain]

This is simply a talking point for the illegal enablers. My better half was a maid, but the illegals made the place so hostile for Americans to work at that she quit. And the one illegal that worked with her was shunned by the rest. They do not just do the work in the fields you name, they are very heavy in the skilled trades and the last time I worked on a big project non-illegals were almost non -existent in the field I am in, and in some others. They didn't take my presence too kindly. And I know people in landscaping that have to compete with the illegals, I myself am a contractor that has to.



So you have opted out of the SS program?

//

[ProIndividual]

I must have missed that, please give the link again and I will read it.

It's 2 pages...Forbes magazine:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/special-report-immigration-opening-borders-mexico-let-them-in.html

The videos at Reason and articles (and books) at CATO will give you access to an abundance of studies. Even the border hawk economists agree "illegals" add more to the economy than they take away via government programs and tax evasion...they find other reasons to oppose immigration (usually cutlure war stuff, because most of them admit immigration is condusive to economic growth and there is no negative correlation, let alone causation, between native wages, native unemployment rates, and native poverty rates and immigration levels...as you'll see in that article, American wages GREW during our greatest periods of immigration because of the competition in the free labor market). Much of economics (and libertarianism in general) is is counter intuitive, but deductively logical.

[Origanalist]

My response to this is always: If you can't compete in the workforce with someone who doesn't even speak our language then there is something wrong with you.
What? That doesn't even make sense. WTH does language have to do with anything?

Did you even read my post?

[ZenBowman]

How is advocating for another tyranny (like closed borders) advancing the end of tyranny in other areas (like collectivism of welafre and social programs)? It logically isn't. You guys seem to think liberty needs to be restored in a certain order (1,2,3,...) or it cannot be restroed. WRONG. It will be restored when a tyranny is ended, in any order. To attack one individual right so until you can restore another is hypocritical at best. And again, your ideas are founded in economic ignorance. Milton Friedman's "can't have open borders ina welafre state" has been disproven with data for decades. We know "illegal" immigrants contrinute more to the economy than they take in social programs. So there is nothing to fear. Immigration is NOT subsidized by the state, and moving to a new country can be somewhat expensive (even if in just loss of life itself). It therefore takes motivated individual to immigrate, and they generally do not get on welfare or move to get welfare. If you guys read the article I linked to, where I got the graph, you'd know that. In 99% of cases immigrants move to lesser welfare states to find WORK. Only in 1% of cases did they move, when given an open and free choice, to the most lucrative welfare states.

What is sad is that people on here easily see the inhumanity and barbarity of deporting illegals when done by another country, and rightfully denounce it then (see:http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?380511-Israel-Rounds-Up-Africans-Who-Threaten-the-%93Character%94-of-the-Jewish-State) - but then those same people cheer on deportation of illegals when we do it.

[Origanalist]

It's 2 pages...Forbes magazine:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/special-report-immigration-opening-borders-mexico-let-them-in.html

The videos at Reason and articles (and books) at CATO will give you access to an abundance of studies. Even the border hawk economists agree "illegals" add more to the economy than they take away via government programs and tax evasion...they find other reasons to oppose immigration (usually cutlure war stuff, because most of them admit immigration is condusive to economic growth and there is no negative correlation, let alone causation, between native wages, native unemployment rates, and native poverty rates and immigration levels...as you'll see in that article, American wages GREW during our greatest periods of immigration because of the competition in the free labor market). Much of economics (and libertarianism in general) is is counter intuitive, but deductively logical.

Thank you, I will give it a read when I get back home tonight.

[realtonygoodwin]

The border issue is a matter of national security. The Federal Government does have a responsibility for national security, to protect against attacks from outside forces. That isn't possible without knowing and controlling who is crossing the border.

Make legal immigration cheaper, faster, and more efficient.
Secure border.
Remove the welfare state incentives.
End the Drug War.
Deport illegal immigrants.

Problem greatly alleviated.

[KingNothing]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/232923-obama-makes-election-year-change-in-immigration-policy

Just so I'm clear --- is the jist of this that people who have been in America for many years, are employed and do not have criminal records, can be allowed to stay and work in America now?


If that is the true scope of this, I have absolutely no problem with it.

[KingNothing]

But those are jobs that would go to Americans with better pay otherwise

Ask some farmers in the south about that. They've had entire crops lost because they couldn't find non-immigrants to work their fields.

[Ender]

The border issue is a matter of national security. The Federal Government does have a responsibility for national security, to protect against attacks from outside forces. That isn't possible without knowing and controlling who is crossing the border.

Make legal immigration cheaper, faster, and more efficient.
Secure border.
Remove the welfare state incentives.
End the Drug War.
Deport illegal immigrants.

Problem greatly alleviated.

When 911 happened, someone asked me what I would do as president.

My reply was:

Bring our troops home and protect America, stop all funding of any other country, close the borders.

I was 14 years old.

When the borders were not closed I realized that the WoT was a fake and was a set up to push Americans into things like the Patriot Act and also an excuse to invade and take over other countries.

"Illegals" are not the problem; WE are the problem.

"We have found the enemy and he is us."

BTW- I agree on all other points.

[DerailingDaTrain]

What? That doesn't even make sense. WTH does language have to do with anything?

Did you even read my post?

The three people who liked my post understood it fine. You were complaining about all the illegals working as maids, construction workers, etc.

If you can't compete in the workforce with someone who doesn't even speak our language and isn't even a legal citizen then there is something wrong with you.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Ask some farmers in the south about that. They've had entire crops lost because they couldn't find non-immigrants to work their fields.

Yep. Read an article about this when Alabama and Georgia cracked down on people hiring illegals (especially as farm laborers) and the result was most of their crops dying on the vine. Sure, they had a few legal citizens show up to apply, but they left halfway through the day and demanded they be paid for a full day. Not to mention all the complaining they did about the heat, the dirt, the bugs, the bending, the stretching, the lack of breaks, etc.

So what did they do? They ended up allowing farmers to use prisoners as a form of forced labor. One farmer commented on this and said that the convicts were bruising the fruit, dropping and then leaving produce on the ground to rot, etc.

[Lord Xar]

The three people who liked my post understood it fine. You were complaining about all the illegals working as maids, construction workers, etc.

If you can't compete in the workforce with someone who doesn't even speak our language and isn't even a legal citizen then there is something wrong with you.

Stop being an idiot. What is your work experience? My guess, you have very little if any at all.

I also wouldn't count 3likes from other open border advocates as a resounding support of your statements.

[asurfaholic]

My response to this is always: If you can't compete in the workforce with someone who doesn't even speak our language then there is something wrong with you.

This is an incredibly naive response and I wonder if you are being deliberately insulting. The company that employs the illegals may very well speak perfect english, and the fact of the matter is the illegals are working for much less than white people would work for, and they are also much more efficient. They will work all day long without breaks if you require that of them. These simple and easy to grasp facts, coupled with the undeniable truth that americans are lazy and want to be paid very handsomly makes it impossible to compete with company's that use illegals.

Why not open your mind and let some common sense in before you open your mouth and let pure bullshit come spilling out.

[realtonygoodwin]

Also, it will be necessary to either get rid of the minimum wage, or get used to much higher food prices. I vote for the former.

[ProIndividual]

The border issue is a matter of national security. The Federal Government does have a responsibility for national security, to protect against attacks from outside forces. That isn't possible without knowing and controlling who is crossing the border.

Make legal immigration cheaper, faster, and more efficient.
Secure border.
Remove the welfare state incentives.
End the Drug War.
Deport illegal immigrants.

Problem greatly alleviated.

Please go to the article I'm linking to..it addresses this issue. (It's not logical to think incentivizing illegal entry without background checks and medical checks is safer than allowing legal entry at market levels with background checks and medical checks. Then you are facing a much smaller group of people sneaking in, in order to weed out the problem folks).


Let Them In
Philippe Legrain, 06.10.10, 09:40 AM EDT
Forbes Magazine dated June 28, 2010
Opening America's borders is morally right, economically beneficial--and would even make America safer.

It's in the subtitle to the article!

[erowe1]

This is an incredibly naive response and I wonder if you are being deliberately insulting. The company that employs the illegals may very well speak perfect english, and the fact of the matter is the illegals are working for much less than white people would work for, and they are also much more efficient. They will work all day long without breaks if you require that of them. These simple and easy to grasp facts, coupled with the undeniable truth that americans are lazy and want to be paid very handsomly makes it impossible to compete with company's that use illegals.

Why not open your mind and let some common sense in before you open your mouth and let pure bullshit come spilling out.

This post is confusing. Everything you say supports the idea that we need more illegal immigrant labor. But your tone, and the way you contrast "illegals" with "white people," suggests that that's not where you're coming from.

[DerailingDaTrain]

@everyone who is mad

You mad bro? Back up your anger with an argument instead of insulting me.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Stop being an idiot. What is your work experience? My guess, you have very little if any at all.

I also wouldn't count 3likes from other open border advocates as a resounding support of your statements.

Since when does "they understood it fine" mean "a resounding support of my statements"?

[DerailingDaTrain]

This is an incredibly naive response and I wonder if you are being deliberately insulting. The company that employs the illegals may very well speak perfect english, and the fact of the matter is the illegals are working for much less than white people would work for, and they are also much more efficient. They will work all day long without breaks if you require that of them. These simple and easy to grasp facts, coupled with the undeniable truth that americans are lazy and want to be paid very handsomly makes it impossible to compete with company's that use illegals.

Why not open your mind and let some common sense in before you open your mouth and let pure bullshit come spilling out.

You should really take your own advice.

I stand by my original statement.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW20EMJr6o4

[Lord Xar]

@everyone who is mad

You mad bro? Back up your anger with an argument instead of insulting me.

Why don't you just do your due diligence and research displacement of legal american workers with illegal immigrants. Language, you will find, does not play much of a role. It is also rather insulting to insinuate that to loose a job to some illegal who can't speak english, then the person must be some kind of imbecile is an idiotic assumption. You didn't explicitly say that, but I know your type and you meant it as an insult to further drive home your want for open borders.

There have been various studies of the effects of illegal immigration on low-skilled american workers, most notably, black americans. In addition, one just has to look at the meat packing industry just a few years ago. Thousands of americans were displaced. The businesses were raided, illegals gone and guess what? The businesses created a better work environment and hired out-of-work americans. Language played no role here. Or rather, a smattering of knowledge of english.

Also, a libertarian view of open borders in our current climate is a recipe for a complete disaster. A state that promotes a welfare and nanny environment see a panacea of even more dependency with such a philosophy, not less. You want bigger government, less freedom, more taxes then by all means, support open borders. You will NEVER end the welfare state when you import dependents and/or people with little knowledge or history in a country who cherishes independence. You will see a complete turnaround in a short time. Why do you think dems/liberals LOVE open borders? Not hard to put it together. Now, "IF" the welfare/nanny state didn't exist - then sure, your points are valid to some extend. But now.

[erowe1]

Why don't you just do your due diligence and research displacement of legal american workers with illegal immigrants. Language, you will find, does not play much of a role. It is also rather insulting to insinuate that to loose a job to some illegal who can't speak english, then the person must be some kind of imbecile is an idiotic assumption. You didn't explicitly say that, but I know your type and you meant it as an insult to further drive home your want for open borders.

There have been various studies of the effects of illegal immigration on low-skilled american workers, most notably, black americans. In addition, one just has to look at the meat packing industry just a few years ago. Thousands of americans were displaced. The businesses were raided, illegals gone and guess what? The businesses created a better work environment and hired out-of-work americans. Language played no role here. Or rather, a smattering of knowledge of english.


This is another confusing post. Most of what you say is proof that illegal immigration is good for the economy. But your tone suggests that you think otherwise.

[Athena]

Ask some farmers in the south about that. They've had entire crops lost because they couldn't find non-immigrants to work their fields.

It sounds like they were not offering market wages.

Why didn't they attempt to offer better pay? isn't that would a free market would suggest?

[Athena]

This is another confusing post. Most of what you say is proof that illegal immigration is good for the economy. But your tone suggests that you think otherwise.

I think it depends if you're viewing "the economy" from the perspective of a worker or a company owner.

[erowe1]

It sounds like they were not offering market wages.

Why didn't they attempt to offer better pay? isn't that would a free market would suggest?

A free market would suggest that you don't have a government interfere with the labor supply, so that farmers could pay as little as they can.

If they lost crops, it suggests that the wages the remaining workers were demanding after the government interfered were too high for them to be able to make money. It's cheaper to lose crops than to lose money paying people more than what you can get back by selling the crops they pick.

[erowe1]

I think it depends if you're viewing "the economy" from the perspective of a worker or a company owner.

From the perspective of the entire population, as evidenced by the way all of the trillions of decisions they as individuals make about where to work, whom to hire, what to buy, and so on, cause a given situation to obtain in the economy when the government isn't involved.

[PaulConventionWV]

So your answer is we all start our own business? Yes let's all just start companies and hire illegals, what could go wrong?

Sure he or she hired them for a reason, they were willing to work for less than the market supported.

Where did I say hire illegals?

[Athena]

From the perspective of the entire population, as evidenced by the way all of the trillions of decisions they as individuals make about where to work, whom to hire, what to buy, and so on, cause a given situation to obtain in the economy when the government isn't involved.

It's quite possible for unlimited immigration of starving, desperate people to be good for Big Ag owners but bad for legal citizen workers.

[erowe1]

It's quite possible for unlimited immigration of starving, desperate people to be good for Big Ag owners but bad for legal citizen workers.

In every change within the economy someone comes out at a loss (tailors lamented the invention of the sewing machine that made all the rest of us so much better off). But there's an overall gain for the whole population, not just big ag owners. Consumers (i.e. everyone) and illegal immigrants also obviously benefit. So do all of the other employers in the economy who have a larger labor pool from which to hire on account of those American workers who aren't doing the jobs the illegal immigrants are. The way to see if it's better or worse overall is to get the government out of the way and see what happens. What happens in that situation is necessarily overall better.

[asurfaholic]

This post is confusing. Everything you say supports the idea that we need more illegal immigrant labor. But your tone, and the way you contrast "illegals" with "white people," suggests that that's not where you're coming from.

Sorry I wasn't able to spend a lot of time on the post, I was on a short lunch break (I supervise a crew of workers) and was trying to cram it into a short few minutes.

My post was intended to show that that the assumption that since the workers (illegals usually) can't speak english, then it is easy to compete with them for jobs.

Which is the stupidest thing I've seen on here in a long time.

The tone you referenced is probably my disgust with the open hate that some people have towards the immigrants who come here. It is disgusting and goes against everything I believe in. If some people were to take a good honest look at the big picture, the problems most people associate with illegal immigration are in fact the product of our over reaching and inefficient government. The drug war empowers those who live under the radar. The welfare state the provides my tax dollars to enable millions of capable americans to take it easy, all the while there are low wage labor intensive jobs just begging for someone to take it.

The solution is to make it easy for workers to come in and get work visas. And it should be super easy to get it renewed if an employer "sponsors" a worker. The economy would benefit from this, because of basic free market forces. If I can hire a fence company to build me a fence for$500 less than it would have cost, then that's 500 more I can spend on another product.

[idiom]

I'm for U.S. citizens. Citizens of other countries are free to live in peace in their countries of citizenship.

Well... sometimes...

[Athena]

In every change within the economy someone comes out at a loss (tailors lamented the invention of the sewing machine that made all the rest of us so much better off). But there's an overall gain for the whole population, not just big ag owners. Consumers (i.e. everyone) and illegal immigrants also obviously benefit. So do all of the other employers in the economy who have a larger labor pool from which to hire on account of those American workers who aren't doing the jobs the illegal immigrants are. The way to see if it's better or worse overall is to get the government out of the way and see what happens. What happens in that situation is necessarily overall better.

I'm familiar with the mass production gains of things like the sewing machines (and the people who advocated breaking the machines) during the industrial revolution, but really don't see that as the same things as unlimited immigration for people working for Big Ag, etc, at the expense of legal citizens. Apples and oranges.

"Better overall" is also subjective, like "the economy." There's no way I've ever heard of to do the math and get a net gain for an average American by allowing an unlimited influx of immigration. This is a very very different situation compared to things like technological advances.

[asurfaholic]

You should really take your own advice.

I stand by my original statement.

Now I am convinced you are just determined to make a fool of yourself. Did you even read my post, other than what you bolded out?

Here a simple question for your simple mind.

You want to have a fence erected on your property. Since your mind is so simple, and your fingers too busy being an idiot on the internet - you decide to hire a company to do it for you.


There are 2 companies who offered their services.

Company A - Man speaking perfect english quotes you $2500 to build the fence.

Company B - Man speaking perfect english quotes you $1750 to build the fence.

Who do you choose?

You noticed that both spokesmen for the companies spoke english. That's because no company is going to remain in business if nobody can talk the language of the area. And how do you know what the workers are going to be like? This is reality we are talking about here. While the hotshot is going around quoting jobs, the workers are out there working on another job. And you don't know if they are talking in english, espanol, or sign language.

Now. Tell me, in simple words, based on the very realistic scenario I laid out for your simple mind, do you hire Company A, or Company B.

[erowe1]

"Better overall" is also subjective

No it's not subjective. It's whatever obtains in a free market.


There's no way I've ever heard of to do the math and get a net gain for an average American by allowing an unlimited influx of immigration. This is a very very different situation compared to things like technological advances.

That's the beauty of free markets. Unlike central planning, nobody needs to do any math to figure out how to allocate resources throughout the population.

[Athena]

Sorry I wasn't able to spend a lot of time on the post, I was on a short lunch break (I supervise a crew of workers) and was trying to cram it into a short few minutes.

My post was intended to show that that the assumption that since the workers (illegals usually) can't speak english, then it is easy to compete with them for jobs.

Which is the stupidest thing I've seen on here in a long time.

The tone you referenced is probably my disgust with the open hate that some people have towards the immigrants who come here. It is disgusting and goes against everything I believe in. If some people were to take a good honest look at the big picture, the problems most people associate with illegal immigration are in fact the product of our over reaching and inefficient government. The drug war empowers those who live under the radar. The welfare state the provides my tax dollars to enable millions of capable americans to take it easy, all the while there are low wage labor intensive jobs just begging for someone to take it.

The solution is to make it easy for workers to come in and get work visas. And it should be super easy to get it renewed if an employer "sponsors" a worker. The economy would benefit from this, because of basic free market forces. If I can hire a fence company to build me a fence for$500 less than it would have cost, then that's 500 more I can spend on another product.

FWIW, I'm against UNLIMITED immigration, but really, really don't hate immigrants, legal or illegal. I'm against punishing the ones that make it over, especially via scary roundups into for-profit prisons, etc. I'm for probably significantly more work visas, etc. But I don't think immigration should be completely unlimited. I really don't think companies already getting gov subsidies should be getting off scott free hiring undocumented workers so they can remain gov-privileged oligarchs!

[Athena]

No it's not subjective. It's whatever obtains in a free market.

That's a bit of a tautology, no? It's better because there's less/no government, and the fact that there's less/no gov makes it better?

[erowe1]

I really don't think companies already getting gov subsidies should be getting off scott free hiring undocumented workers so they can remain gov-privileged oligarchs!

Companies getting subsidies is a government-based problem. But the way to fix that problem is to undo it, not to add another government-based problem on top of it.

[erowe1]

That's a bit of a tautology, no? It's better because there's less/no government, and the fact that there's less/no gov makes it better?

It's not a tautology, but it does presuppose a certain starting point, including the belief in property rights. But as long as you have that basic ethical starting point, then it necessarily follows that the economic situation that obtains when you let all of the individuals in the population make their own decisions about how to use their property and trade it among one another is overall better than what would obtain if a central planner intervened and forced a different allocation of resources on the population by preventing people from doing with their own property what they would otherwise choose to do.

[Athena]

Companies getting subsidies is a government-based problem. But the way to fix that problem is to undo it, not to add another government-based problem on top of it.

I half agree, but still reject the notion that using government to limit immigration (within some reasonable limits) is a problem. If unlimited immigration were like technological advances I would agree, but still don't/can't see in my head how they are really remotely on the same scale or applicable comparisons.

[Brian4Liberty]

What is sad is that people on here easily see the inhumanity and barbarity of deporting illegals when done by another country, and rightfully denounce it then (see:http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?380511-Israel-Rounds-Up-Africans-Who-Threaten-the-%93Character%94-of-the-Jewish-State) - but then those same people cheer on deportation of illegals when we do it.

Well, that's a double edged hypocrisy sword, now isn't it? How many politicians and pundits want more immigration into the US, yet are fine with any policy that Israel comes up with, even if it's race-based deportation?

Since those are both threads on this forum, it would be interesting if you could give an example of a person who has posted on both sides of the issue.

[Athena]

It's not a tautology, but it does presuppose a certain starting point, including the belief in property rights. But as long as you have that basic ethical starting point, then it necessarily follows that the economic situation that obtains when you let all of the individuals in the population make their own decisions about how to use their property and trade it among one another is overall better than what would obtain if a central planner intervened and forced a different allocation of resources on the population by preventing people from doing with their own property what they would otherwise choose to do.

I'm against central economic planning, too. And I guess limiting immigration is, like, a distant second cousin thrice removed from central economic planning as it's traditionally been understood, all soviet-style.


But I really really don't see limiting immigration as "violating property rights"? Like, you think limiting immigration is property THEFT from would-be employers? If so (and I admit this is countering a weak argument with a weak argument, and my apologies if I'm pulling a strawman) I'd argue that allowing unlimited immigration is WAGE theft from would-be workers, too?

[Athena]

Well, that's a double edged hypocrisy sword, now isn't it? How many politicians and pundits want more immigration into the US, yet are fine with any policy that Israel comes up with, even if it's race-based deportation?

Since those are both threads on this forum, it would be interesting if you could give an example of a person who has posted on both sides of the issue.

See, I technically agree with the MORAL arguments for unlimited immigration when it comes to the light of desperate immigrants. And I also think Israel is atrocious in how it treats Palestinians. So, I might be a hypocrite here. But I also suspect if our foreign policy weren't so warped, we wouldn't be having our borders flooded by people from south of the border to NEARLY the same extent we do now?

[erowe1]

But I really really don't see limiting immigration as "violating property rights"?

If the method of limiting immigration is to prohibit employers from hiring illegal immigrants, then that's a violation of their property rights.

[Brian4Liberty]

I have been working at an immigration law firm for about a year, and while I am certainly not an expert on immigration law (which can be pretty convoluted), I do have some experience. I cannot help but think that this is just a blend of "It's for the children" legislation and a money-making scheme. The law is not currently in effect, but the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services has been advised to begin working out how to implement this. I quickly scanned the criteria yesterday, and there were about five or six requirements. Of what I remember off hand:

1. Alien must have entered the U.S. before the age of 14 years.
2. Alien must not be over the age of 30 years.
3. Alien must have resided in the U.S. for at least 5 years.
4. Alien must not have committed serious offenses.

Of course, there will be the accompanying filing fees (and attorney fees if they use legal representation). I would imagine there will be plenty of people that can qualify, and I would speculate that the filing fee would be somewhere around $500 to $1,500 per applicant.

Meanwhile, U.S. citizens have to pay $1,490 (plus attorney fees potentially) in order to gain Permanent Residence for an alien spouse and wait 3 years for naturalization (Non-spouse immigrants can generally naturalize in 5 years after gaining Permanent Residence. And they have to sign and Affidavit of Support, which is essentially an enforceable contract in which the U.S. citizen petitioner agrees to pay the spouse if they separate (The idea is to ensure that the immigrant does not end up using means-tested federal benefits).

There are already ways for illegal children to become Permanent Residents. Any child under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court, due to neglect, abuse, or abandonment, can easily gain permanent residence and naturalize in 5 years. Even illegal aliens that marry U.S. citizens get forgiven, and can naturalize in three years. What bothers me, as a U.S. citizen by birthright (for what that's worth), is that if I wanted to marry a woman that resides in a foreign nation, I would have to pay plenty of filing fees and wait several months until the consulate issues her a visa before she could live with me. Meanwhile, people who simply enter illegally get no such hassle if the U.S. citizen spouse files for them.

+Rep for addressing the OP and pointing out that it's nothing more than an "it's for the children" election year stunt by Obama.

[Athena]

If the method of limiting immigration is to prohibit employers from hiring illegal immigrants, then that's a violation of their property rights.

Do you think property rights are absolute? Like, they transcend all other rights?

Unlimited immigration will/can/does literally cost the lives of legal immigrants and citizens via unemployment. Is that ok, as the wage-labor-property rights of would-be employers reign supreme in your view?

[erowe1]

Do you think property rights are absolute? Like, they transcend all other rights?

No.


Unlimited immigration will/can/does literally cost the lives of legal immigrants and citizens via unemployment. Is that ok, as the wage-labor-property rights of would-be employers reign supreme in your view?
I don't accept that premise, since, like I've already said, the overall benefits to the entire population of unlimited immigration exceed the costs. But even if what you imagine is true, where in that do you see the violation of anyone's rights of any kind? Do you think the people that the regime labels as "legal immigrants and citizens" have some kind of a right to have their jobs protected from competition by the regime?

[Brian4Liberty]

Now I am convinced you are just determined to make a fool of yourself. Did you even read my post, other than what you bolded out?

Here a simple question for your simple mind.

You want to have a fence erected on your property. Since your mind is so simple, and your fingers too busy being an idiot on the internet - you decide to hire a company to do it for you.


There are 2 companies who offered their services.

Company A - Man speaking perfect english quotes you $2500 to build the fence.

Company B - Man speaking perfect english quotes you $1750 to build the fence.

Who do you choose?

You noticed that both spokesmen for the companies spoke english. That's because no company is going to remain in business if nobody can talk the language of the area. And how do you know what the workers are going to be like? This is reality we are talking about here. While the hotshot is going around quoting jobs, the workers are out there working on another job. And you don't know if they are talking in english, espanol, or sign language.

Now. Tell me, in simple words, based on the very realistic scenario I laid out for your simple mind, do you hire Company A, or Company B.

Good stuff.

I speak from experience, and I will pay the $2500 if it means I get a well built fence. Some research is necessary. Cheap Mexican fences are a joke, and I have seen plenty of them. There is tendency for people to ignore quality issues when this subject comes up.

To emphasize your take on the language issue: I have seen very large projects where not a single person onsite speaks English (and yes, the sales person, the CEO, etc are all local, English speaking Anglos). The only one who is bi-lingual is the Project Manager who shows up for a couple of hours from time to time. I can't see how a person who only speaks English would function on that job site.

[Athena]

No.


I don't accept that premise, since, like I've already said, the overall benefits to the entire population of unlimited immigration exceed the costs. But even if what you imagine is true, where in that do you see the violation of anyone's rights of any kind? Do you think the people that the regime labels as "legal immigrants and citizens" have some kind of a right to have their jobs protected from competition by the regime?

Do you have any evidence that unlimited immigration will improve the lot of the average American?

[erowe1]

Do you have any evidence that unlimited immigration will improve the lot of the average American?

It's logically impossible for it not to. The best people to decide what constitutes an improvement of their lot are the individuals themselves, each and every one of them making their own decisions individually, freely and not under compulsion.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's logically impossible for it not to.

Dr. McCoy: Well, Mr. Spock, they didn't stay frightened very long, did they?
Spock: Most illogical reaction. We demonstrated our superior weapons. They should have fled.
Dr. McCoy: You mean they should have respected us?
Spock: Of course.
Dr. McCoy: Mr. Spock, respect is a rational process. Did it ever occur to you they might react emotionally, with anger?
Spock: Doctor, I'm not responsible for their unpredictability.
Dr. McCoy: Mr. Spock, remind me to tell you that I'm sick and tired of your logic.
Spock: That is a most illogical attitude.

"Mr. Spock, you're a stubborn man."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMPib-WB4Ek

[NoOneButPaul]

+Rep for addressing the OP and pointing out that it's nothing more than an "it's for the children" election year stunt by Obama.

Of course it is but what no one has effectively been able to argue is why it's morally wrong...

Why should children that have been here over 5 years and never committed a crime be rounded up and sent back home? And why would we support our government doing such a thing when they could easily turn around such a plan on domestic minorities (like us) later on?

[Brian4Liberty]

Of course it is but what no one has effectively been able to argue is why it's morally wrong...

Why should children that have been here over 5 years and never committed a crime be rounded up and sent back home? And why would we support our government doing such a thing when they could easily turn around such a plan on domestic minorities (like us) later on?

Minor children would be deported if their parents are deported. Seems pretty simple.

Should non-citizen people who grew up here be given priority in the legal process? It would make sense to do that.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Of course it is but what no one has effectively been able to argue is why it's morally wrong...

Why should children that have been here over 5 years and never committed a crime be rounded up and sent back home? And why would we support our government doing such a thing when they could easily turn around such a plan on domestic minorities (like us) later on?

Is Obama making himself ‘legal’ in removing 800,000 illegal immigrants from deportation?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47411?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=3c25585e0c-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email


Knowing now that nothing ever happens by chance with Barack Hussein Obama; that everything is, and has been scripted for him by Marxist progressives, shouldn’t folk be looking beyond the obvious on his Executive Order on Amnesty? Is Barack Obama’s Amnesty bombshell removing 800,000 illegal immigrants from the deportation process the X That Marks the Spot to the real reason why his birth certificate remains missing?






Is the more valid number taken off the deportation process 800,000 illegal immigrants—and one? Is Obama granting amnesty to himself?
Have the elusive documents of the 44th President of the United States been waiting for birth in the Amnesty bombshell?
Being famously undocumented himself, Obama has made it de rigueur for others to be comfortable in the now accepted state of “undocumented”. After all, if the Commander and Chief can get away with running a country as someone completely undocumented, then it’s got to be kosher for most anyone else.







Bypassing Congress, the high-handed Obama administration announced Friday it will stop deporting illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. at a young age, something their parents and relatives would certainly cheer.

“Young people who were brought to the United States through no fault of their own as children, who meet several key criteria, will no longer be removed from the country or entered into removal proceedings,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a conference call with reporters on Friday morning.
Like everything the Democrats do, they did it for the children.
Here’s the white wash: “This grant of deferred action is not immunity, it is not amnesty, it is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system” Napolitano said. “It will help us continue to streamline immigration enforcement, ensure that resources are not spent pursuing the removal of low priority cases involving productive young people.”

What “immigration enforcement” we might ask?

How do one-thousand-times-removed-from-reality government officials decide which young people are “productive”? When did bureaucracy ever sort through paperwork with any intelligence or commonsense?

“Children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants will no longer have to face the threat of deportation and will be granted the right to work in the United States if they have no criminal history.”

Aside from juvenile delinquency, how many children chalk up “criminal history” or life on the wrong side of the law in their tender growing up years?

Does “criminal history” even exist under the ruling mob of Marxists now running the American government?

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived in the U.S. for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.
Undocumented people have been serving the U.S. military?

The new policy change will apply to individuals who are already in deportation proceedings, the memo said.
If these ‘children’ did nothing wrong, why were they in deportation proceedings in the first place?
Is legislated Amnesty what Obama had in mind all along? The President Who Never Was, disappears America’s borders and makes it legal to be illegal with an Executive Order?
Finding work for illegal immigrants when millions of Americas are out of work is a slap in the face to average American citizens.
Incredibly, Sen. Marco Rubio praised the policy, even while criticizing Obama for end running Congress.
Politicians are infamous for making strong constituencies out of minorities.
But what if Obama is doing more than just pandering to the significant Latino/Hispanic vote and creating pools of campaign volunteers months ahead of November’s presidential election?

On his way to the Fundamental Transformation of America, has Barack Hussein Obama been working an agenda that makes it all but de rigeur to be undocumented?
Did his progressive creators design Barack Hussein Obama as an undocumented USA president to open the floodgates for undocumented immigrants, guaranteeing progressives in office for the foreseeable future?
What if Obama went out of his way to deliberately present himself to the American public as America’s first undocumented president in order to portray himself as the classic Underdog of Underdogs?
In his book Dreams from my Father, Obama went into great deal about a composite girlfriend. Is Obama Without a Birth Certificate the composite he painstakingly created for himself?
From the get-go Obama has always pretended to be what others wanted him to be, throwing an image of himself on the screen as all things for all people, but not Americans.
Meanwhile, patriots on the hunt for Obama’s elusive birth certificate should be looking for his DNA, the only irrefutable proof of who and what Barry Soetoro, posing as Obama , really is.

[alucard13mmfmj]

yeah. deporting kids make us look bad.. lets just deport the adults and they will follow.

[HOLLYWOOD]

It's election year, need that Hispanic vote... these 2 pandering parties are dispictable. Very Racist once again by government offering provledge to specific groups that have broke American Laws.

[GARNET]

the better to immunize them

[Athena]

It's logically impossible for it not to. The best people to decide what constitutes an improvement of their lot are the individuals themselves, each and every one of them making their own decisions individually, freely and not under compulsion.

Err, most sovereign citizens, under their own compulsion, want to have reasonable limits on immigration.

And I asked you a specific question you could not answer.

It was: "Do you have any evidence that unlimited immigration will improve the lot of the average American?"

Your answer is apparently "no".

[erowe1]

Err, most sovereign citizens, under their own compulsion, want to have reasonable limits on immigration.

How do these people think they can impose limits on immigration without putting sovereign individuals under any kind of outside compulsion?


And I asked you a specific question you could not answer.

It was: "Do you have any evidence that unlimited immigration will improve the lot of the average American?"

Your answer is apparently "no".

That wasn't my answer. My answer what that it's logically impossible not to be the case. In my world, syllogisms that follow the laws of logic count as evidence. In fact, they're the surest method we have of knowing any hard and fast laws of economics, since it isn't a science that allows for controlled empirical studies.

Let me try to express what I've been saying with a little bit more specificity.

Central planners divvying up jobs among a population will have their methods of deciding who does what. But they will never be able to match the free market in divvying those jobs up in a way that accounts for all of the countless preferences and values that all of the individuals in the population have, because in a free market all of these individuals will manifest their values and preferences with actions they take. If two people compete for a job, in a free market that job will go to the person who offers to give the most productivity in exchange for the least cost to the employer. A laborer who is willing to work long hours for little pay under poor conditions, as long as he's willing to make his demands low enough, will get the job over one who demands higher pay and more expensive conditions, even if the latter might be slightly more productive. The job will go to the worker who wants it the most, or at least the one who's willing to put that want into action the most.

You might say that you want other criteria to influence who gets what jobs. You might say that the people you consider "Americans," should get preference over people you don't consider "Americans." But this too is a preference that you would be able to manifest by your actions in a free market. If you are willing to pay more for produce that was picked by people you consider Americans than produce picked by people you don't consider Americans, then you could choose only to buy produce picked at farms that exclusively hire Americans, paying whatever premium the free market imposes on that choice. If you really see some moral value to this preference, you could try to convince others to go along with you, sharing that preference for American labor, and backing that preference up with their spending. If that preference really has very much support among the total population, and if people are serious enough about it to pay the free market's premium for exclusively American labor, then in a free market that exclusively-American-picked produce would be in higher demand than other produce, and it would command higher prices, so much so that it would be profitable for some farmers to meet that demand by paying however much more they have to pay for exclusively American laborers.

If, on the other hand, the free market doesn't do that, then that would be proof that limiting who can work where based on who was born where would not be overall better for the society, with "better" being defined by the only people truly qualified to define it, all of the individuals themselves.

[Athena]

How do these people think they can impose limits on immigration without putting sovereign individuals under any kind of outside compulsion?



That wasn't my answer. My answer what that it's logically impossible not to be the case. In my world, syllogisms that follow the laws of logic count as evidence. In fact, they're the surest method we have of knowing any hard and fast laws of economics, since it isn't a science that allows for controlled empirical studies.

Let me try to express what I've been saying with a little bit more specificity.

Central planners divvying up jobs among a population will have their methods of deciding who does what. But they will never be able to match the free market in divvying those jobs up in a way that accounts for all of the countless preferences and values that all of the individuals in the population have, because in a free market all of these individuals will manifest their values and preferences with actions they take. If two people compete for a job, in a free market that job will go to the person who offers to give the most productivity in exchange for the least cost to the employer. A laborer who is willing to work long hours for little pay under poor conditions, as long as he's willing to make his demands low enough, will get the job over one who demands higher pay and more expensive conditions, even if the latter might be slightly more productive. The job will go to the worker who wants it the most, or at least the one who's willing to put that want into action the most.

You might say that you want other criteria to influence who gets what jobs. You might say that the people you consider "Americans," should get preference over people you don't consider "Americans." But this too is a preference that you would be able to manifest by your actions in a free market. If you are willing to pay more for produce that was picked by people you consider Americans than produce picked by people you don't consider Americans, then you could choose only to buy produce picked at farms that exclusively hire Americans, paying whatever premium the free market imposes on that choice. If you really see some moral value to this preference, you could try to convince others to go along with you, sharing that preference for American labor, and backing that preference up with their spending. If that preference really has very much support among the total population, and if people are serious enough about it to pay the free market's premium for exclusively American labor, then in a free market that exclusively-American-picked produce would be in higher demand than other produce, and it would command higher prices, so much so that it would be profitable for some farmers to meet that demand by paying however much more they have to pay for exclusively American laborers.

If, on the other hand, the free market doesn't do that, then that would be proof that limiting who can work where based on who was born where would not be overall better for the society, with "better" being defined by the only people truly qualified to define it, all of the individuals themselves.

1) you're completely ignoring the concept of a "nation state" in your analysis of "a society"
2) why keep arguing the strawman about central planning?

[erowe1]

1) you're completely ignoring the concept of a "nation state" in your analysis of "a society"
So?



2) why keep arguing the strawman about central planning?
That's what this is all about. Should we let the free market decide who works where? Or should we let government (i.e. central planners) do that?

[Origanalist]

The three people who liked my post understood it fine. You were complaining about all the illegals working as maids, construction workers, etc.

If you can't compete in the workforce with someone who doesn't even speak our language and isn't even a legal citizen then there is something wrong with you.

There is nothing wrong with me, I always have and always will be able to compete. I now own my own company and am continuing to add to my equipment and prepare for more business. But why do I have to compete against people who do not have to follow the same rules as I do?

I think there is something wrong with THAT.


The three people who liked my post understood it fine

What is this, a grade school popularity contest? You're a silly man.

[smartguy911]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-immigration-shift-hit-voters-poll/story?id=16602880


Sixty-four percent of them — and 66% of independents, the frequently up-for-grabs voters thought to decide elections — support the president's decision. The White House has forcefully (and rather implausibly) denied that Obama sought political gain from his announcement. But as recently as March 2011, he had said publicly that he lacked the power to halt such deportations.

The Bloomberg survey found that just 30 percent of likely voters disagreed with the president's plan. Fifty-six percent of likely Republican voters opposed it, while 86% of Democrats supported it. Just 26% of independents sided with the Republican majority in the poll.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-immigration-shift-hit-voters-poll/story?id=16602880


Sixty-four percent of them — and 66% of independents, the frequently up-for-grabs voters thought to decide elections — support the president's decision.

If that statistic is true, it's just a matter of the fact that they have framed it as an "it's for the children" issue.

And what would Americans think if the question was turned in the opposite direction. Say that an American gets a job in Switzerland or Japan. They take their ten year old child with them. Five years later, they get transferred back to the US. Does that child now have the right to become a citizen of that country where they lived for five years?

My guess is that a much smaller percentage would say that their child deserves citizenship in that other country.

[Origanalist]

It's 2 pages...Forbes magazine:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/special-report-immigration-opening-borders-mexico-let-them-in.html

The videos at Reason and articles (and books) at CATO will give you access to an abundance of studies. Even the border hawk economists agree "illegals" add more to the economy than they take away via government programs and tax evasion...they find other reasons to oppose immigration (usually cutlure war stuff, because most of them admit immigration is condusive to economic growth and there is no negative correlation, let alone causation, between native wages, native unemployment rates, and native poverty rates and immigration levels...as you'll see in that article, American wages GREW during our greatest periods of immigration because of the competition in the free labor market). Much of economics (and libertarianism in general) is is counter intuitive, but deductively logical.

I finally found the time to get to your link.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mexican construction workers, for instance, , as well as spencreate jobs for Americans selling building materialsding their wages at Wal-Mart ( WMT - news - people )."

Um.....Why wouldn't American construction workers " as well as spencreate jobs for Americans selling building materialsding their wages at Wal-Mart "?

"Nor do immigrants depress wages, since they rarely compete directly with native-born Americans for jobs."

Absolute horseshit.

"When in 2004 Poles were given the option of moving to Sweden--which has the most generous welfare state on earth--or to Britain and Ireland, which denied Poles access to any benefits until they had worked for a year, less than 1% opted for Sweden."

What were their job prospects is Sweden?

"America, too, could deny immigrants access to welfare initially."

Aint gonna happen, wishfull thinking.

"Opening up to eastern Europeans gave Britain a big boost. Growth soared. Unemployment fell. Wages continued to rise. Newcomers paid much more in taxes than they took out in benefits and public services."

Proof?

"Allowing people to move freely is not just a matter of economic self-interest. It is also a moral imperative: Freedom of movement is a basic human right that should not be denied to people less fortunate than ourselves. Since migration is inevitable, far better that it be safe and legal. A pipe dream? That's what people once said about abolishing slavery."

That's a fine sentiment, as soon as the government quits giving them my property, I'm on board.

By the way PI, I much appreciate your civil responses.

[ProIndividual]

I finally found the time to get to your link.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mexican construction workers, for instance, , as well as spencreate jobs for Americans selling building materialsding their wages at Wal-Mart ( WMT - news - people )."

Um.....Why wouldn't American construction workers " as well as spencreate jobs for Americans selling building materialsding their wages at Wal-Mart "?

"Nor do immigrants depress wages, since they rarely compete directly with native-born Americans for jobs."

Absolute horseshit.

"When in 2004 Poles were given the option of moving to Sweden--which has the most generous welfare state on earth--or to Britain and Ireland, which denied Poles access to any benefits until they had worked for a year, less than 1% opted for Sweden."

What were their job prospects is Sweden?

"America, too, could deny immigrants access to welfare initially."

Aint gonna happen, wishfull thinking.

"Opening up to eastern Europeans gave Britain a big boost. Growth soared. Unemployment fell. Wages continued to rise. Newcomers paid much more in taxes than they took out in benefits and public services."

Proof?

"Allowing people to move freely is not just a matter of economic self-interest. It is also a moral imperative: Freedom of movement is a basic human right that should not be denied to people less fortunate than ourselves. Since migration is inevitable, far better that it be safe and legal. A pipe dream? That's what people once said about abolishing slavery."

That's a fine sentiment, as soon as the government quits giving them my property, I'm on board.

By the way PI, I much appreciate your civil responses.

The point is those immigrants create more jobs than they take, net....not that Americans couldn't also hold those jobs for more money and cause a slightly lower employment rate for the economy.

All studies show they do not compete directly with natives for jobs. The jobs they fill are often jobs we refuse to do, or are jobs that would not exist if we did them (because the cost of labor added to the product/service at the point of sale would price the product/service out of the consumer preference range, thereby making the very business employing us impossible to operate at a profit - bankruptcy occurs as oppose to employment). Immigrants simply rarely compete with Americans directly for jobs...they compete indirectly, because their labor is so unskilled. How many "illegal" immigrant engineers do you see? Soctors? Lawyers? How about CEOs? Skilled manufacturers? Most end up in rural farm work or construction...jobs that require very few skills or have a short learning curve with a great many skills involved (like carpentry only takes a few years to "learn" - although that's different from being a master carpenter, admittedly - and yet it is a highly skilled type of labor). So no, the studies show that isn't horseshit. It's common misconception that they compete directly in most cases with natives for jobs.

It's interesting you ask what their job prospects were in Sweden...since that very question proves the point. See, they move to GET JOBS, not get welfare in 99% of cases. This number (90+%) jumps out at nearly every study done on the subject. Welfare is not a major draw for immigration, or they'd have gone to Sweden, was the point. To move you have to save up money to travel and relocate (or to leave your family with living expenses until you can send some back), which shows an already keen work ethic. This is why most people who immigrate to other countries are not "welfare Queens". No one directly subsidized their move either, so they have shown an ability to manage money. So, as to your question, employment in Europe was relatively close in all the countries of destination...but the pay was better or employment rates were slightly higher in nations they chose to go to. Again, this shows they come to work, and in doing so add to the economy in NET. Also this shows something else...when you look at that study closer (I have), they never follow the immigrants in the 1% who went to Sweden...which means we don't know the entire 1% that did go there even went there for welfare at all! Many could have had job opportunities there, and judging by the stats, it's at least a safe logical assumption that some did in fact go to Sweden and didn't get on welfare. You asking the very question you did is smart...but think about why you even asking that helps my side of the free market debate going on between us.

The nations that deny them welfare have done so effectively...we could do it. If you think that is wishful thinking, then why isn't more drastic change like return to the Constitution not just wishful thinking and useless to do? Of course passing one simple law on preventing immigrants from receiving social services is easily possible, enforcable, and takes away that incentive so many immigration hawks think draw so many immigrants (which isn't actually true anyways, but to ease your minds). Hence the poll I keep linking people to in the thread I started...we can deny them benefits easily enough with one simple law, for X years after they enter. I leave the value of "X" up to you.

Proof is in studies they should link to in the article...but you can look up the proof yourself on google or bing images. Just use search words pertaining to each nations name and the category (like France unemployment rates 2004" for example). Do the same for wages, etc. Do you really think the article is lying? Or do you really not know how to research online? I'll assume the latter for the sake of this debate, and to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm really suprised it wasn't linked to, or referenced at least, in the article...I could of sworn it was originally...but maybe not...it's been a while since I first read that article...a couple a years maybe? You can easily enough look up the data yourself, either way, if you think they're lying to you over at Forbes Magazine.

And if you want them to stop getting your property (I assume you mean tax dollars via social programs), then pass the law that stops that. It's one very simple law that is easily enforced, as demonsrated in other countries. It's easier to track illegals when not so many of them exist. And I notice you didn't deny the ethics in that quote, which is good...but notice the SAFE part. The migrants come anyways...we clearly can't stop them without East/West German style wall with men with machine guns willing to kill human beings posted at all times...and who wants to support that tyranny? Murder? No one I hope...so then, how can we better secure the borders from terrorism, violent criminals, and people with bad diseases? Via simply letting them in legally with no quotas after passing that very simple law I suggest on social services. Then, we can easily find and deport the few that here illegally with violent pasts, diseases, or are linked to terrorism. They'll be the only ones sneaking in! Everyone law abiding will just simply stand in line, get their background check and medical exam and then come in legally. Wouldn't you? It's illgocal to risk your life crossing the desert when you don't have to....so almost no one would do it except those not allowed in for good reasons. Not allowing them in now creates an unsafe and broken border where no one can keep track of which immigrants pose a threat, and which are here to work. This creates easy cover for the problem people.

All in all, it's economically better for us all, smarter security-wise, and better morally to let these people in legally. If you hope to stop them from coming in without a wall, guns, and murder by soldiers, I'd say that's a dream. If that is what you want, I say that's tyranny. As Ron says, the wall built to keep others out will be used eventually to keep you in. The only way to effectively police the problem is to allow them in legally. And if you want to stop them from getting welfare, even though the studies show they receive in far less than native rates, and don't come here for it, but come to work...then just pass a simple law already proven effective in countries that hate immigrants far more than we'll ever think about hating them (some of the countries with that law actually have some very shallow gene pools from inbreeding for generations...seriously, look it up).

[Origanalist]

All studies show they do not compete directly with natives for jobs

I'm sorry, but that is just so far from reality it's not even worth debating. PI, I love your passion, and believe it or not we're not that far apart.

Maybe I'm just older and jaded, but I do not believe that if you knock down the barriers to immigration somehow the government will magically stop giving them benefits

[liberdom]

I'm sorry, but that is just so far from reality it's not even worth debating. PI, I love your passion, and believe it or not we're not that far apart.

Maybe I'm just older and jaded, but I do not believe that if you knock down the barriers to immigration somehow the government will magically stop giving them benefits

Not magically, they may inevitably stop due to overwhelming debt and burden.

as for what he said

All studies show they do not compete directly with natives for jobs. The jobs they fill are often jobs we refuse to do, or are jobs that would not exist if we did them (because the cost of labor added to the product/service at the point of sale would price the product/service out of the consumer preference range, thereby making the very business employing us impossible to operate at a profit - bankruptcy occurs as oppose to employment). Immigrants simply rarely compete with Americans directly for jobs...they compete indirectly, because their labor is so unskilled.

It's ok to generalize immigrants when it favors your argument, isn't it? If conservatives started out saying that, everybody would cry RACIST, COLLECTIVIST, BIGOT.

"The jobs they fill are often jobs we refuse to do" That is true to an extent, because Americans have benefits which keep them from being forced to work low wage, low skilled jobs, that includes social security, food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance and minimum wage. All these make it harder for an American to have to work for minimum wage or lower. Immigrants did not cause this, they are definitely taking advantage of it no less.

[Origanalist]

Immigrants did not cause this

No, they didn't. It's just part of what we have allowed to destroy what we had.

[liberdom]

No, they didn't. It's just part of what we have allowed to destroy what we had.

Agreed.

And adding immigrants definitely won't solve it. Unless destroying something so you can buy a new one is the plan. I just wanted to point out that while immigrants are far from harmless and innocent, they do indeed deserve not to be completely scapegoated for everything.

[ProIndividual]

I'm sorry, but that is just so far from reality it's not even worth debating. PI, I love your passion, and believe it or not we're not that far apart.

Maybe I'm just older and jaded, but I do not believe that if you knock down the barriers to immigration somehow the government will magically stop giving them benefits

No it's actually not...because the studies study reality. You have your experience, which is called anecdotal evidence. So do others...the combined sum of all these experiences is what is relative in an economy. You'll find a very low percenatge of native jobs are taken by illegal aliens or immigrants in general. Economics is NOT a zero sum game.

[ProIndividual]

Not magically, they may inevitably stop due to overwhelming debt and burden.

as for what he said


It's ok to generalize immigrants when it favors your argument, isn't it? If conservatives started out saying that, everybody would cry RACIST, COLLECTIVIST, BIGOT.

"The jobs they fill are often jobs we refuse to do" That is true to an extent, because Americans have benefits which keep them from being forced to work low wage, low skilled jobs, that includes social security, food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance and minimum wage. All these make it harder for an American to have to work for minimum wage or lower. Immigrants did not cause this, they are definitely taking advantage of it no less.

Again its not genralizing to go by the actual factual numbers. Most (the vast majority) of immigrants are from countries with lower rates of education, literacy, and skilled labor. Skilledl abor comes from developing or develpoed economies, not out of thin air. You have to have massive carpentry to create a class of people who do this job as skilled labor enough to be skilled workers in that craft. Countries where people live in shambles don't havbe that. Most immigrants come from poorer countries and worse economies. They are more likely illiterate or functionally so, and morel ikely to be unskilled in most cases.

I love how people call anything "collectivist" they disagree with despite reality.

Hey, most Americans speak English. Now I'm a language collectivist!

If it's true, and can be proven, it is not collectivist to say MOST of anything is under a category. Collectivism is lumping ALL into one category, or saying MOST when the studies do not show it to be true.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that...you told me in PM that free markets are a religion (not based on facts)....

[liberdom]

Again its not genralizing to go by the actual factual numbers. Most (the vast majority) of immigrants are from countries with lower rates of education, literacy, and skilled labor. Skilledl abor comes from developing or develpoed economies, not out of thin air. You have to have massive carpentry to create a class of people who do this job as skilled labor enough to be skilled workers in that craft. Countries where people live in shambles don't havbe that. Most immigrants come from poorer countries and worse economies. They are more likely illiterate or functionally so, and morel ikely to be unskilled in most cases.

I love how people call anything "collectivist" they disagree with despite reality.

Hey, most Americans speak English. Now I'm a language collectivist!

If it's true, and can be proven, it is not collectivist to say MOST of anything is under a category. Collectivism is lumping ALL into one category, or saying MOST when the studies do not show it to be true.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that...you told me in PM that free markets are a religion (not based on facts)....

Whose definition did you use when you say "collectivism says ALL, if I say most, it's not collectivist"?