Grover Norquist: 'Tea Party Two Is Going To Dwarf Tea Party One' (threatens tax hikers)

[Agorism]

Grover Norquist: 'Tea Party Two Is Going To Dwarf Tea Party One' (threatens tax hikers)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/02/grover-norquist-tea-party_n_2228610.html?utm_hp_ref=politics


As elected officials from both sides of the partisan aisle embed themselves in fiscal cliff negotiations, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist remains at the center of the conversation.

In a Sunday roundtable discussion on NBC's "Meet The Press," Norquist issued a warning to President Barack Obama.

"Tea party two is going to dwarf tea party one if Obama pushes us off the cliff," Norquist said. "Let's not pretend who's pushing us over the cliff."

Thanks to his anti-tax pledge, Norquist has been a prime target since fiscal cliff discussions picked up steam in November. Democrats have gone so far as to create an online petition against Norquist.

Several Republicans, headed by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have broken away from Norquist's pledge. Despite those movements, Norquist vowed last Monday that "nobody is turning on me."

[FrankRep]

Excellent opportunity to push Rand Paul for 2016!


Rand Paul: I Won't Break the No-Tax-Increase Pledge I Made to the People (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rand-paul-i-wont-break-no-tax-increase-pledge-i-made-people)


CNS News
November 27, 2012

[Agorism]

Rand is too busy trying to sabotage his presidential aspirations by partnering with the dems on immigration.

[Agorism]

I think Grover is correct though in terms of 2014 midterms.

[jmdrake]

Thanks to his anti-tax pledge, Norquist has been a prime target since fiscal cliff discussions picked up steam in November. Democrats have gone so far as to create an online petition against Norquist.

An online petition against Norquist to do what exactly?

[matt0611]

I think Grover is correct though in terms of 2014 midterms.

Yes. 2014 will be a republican wave year, and we ought to take advantage of it.

[Matt Collins]

Rand is too busy trying to sabotage his presidential aspirations by partnering with the dems on immigration.Actually he really isn't, but what he is saying is that the border needs to be secured first before anything else happens. This is opposite to the way Reagan did it where they allowed amnesty first and then tried to secure the border (except that the border was never secured)

[69360]

Rand is too busy trying to sabotage his presidential aspirations by partnering with the dems on immigration.

The GOP is moving in that direction. By the time the primary gets underway Rand won't be a standout for taking the position.


An online petition against Norquist to do what exactly?

Probably assassinate him. Nobody hates like a liberal hates, as the old saying goes.

[Occam's Banana]

Democrats have gone so far as to create an online petition against Norquist.

An online petition against Norquist to do what exactly?

I was wondering the same thing. I mean, WTF? "We, the undersigned, do solemnly hate Grover Noriquist with a burning blue passion" ?


Probably assassinate him. Nobody hates like a liberal hates, as the old saying goes.

In Soviet America, government secedes YOU!

[nobody's_hero]

I hate to say it, but there's gonna be some republicans who vote for tax increases but won't feel any pressure whatsoever from within their party.

If anyone is familiar with Erick Erickson of Redstate, he was giving consideration to running against GA's Senator Saxby Chambliss. I'm not a big fan of Erick, but it was at least nice to see someone who would even dare to challenge our incumbent senator. Yet, that fell through, and man, you should have heard the comments from republicans who verbally beat the snot out of Erick for even daring to question our Senator Chambliss.

The only way to get some of these entrenched GOP failures out of office will be to let a democrat take the seat.

[Occam's Banana]

If anyone is familiar with Erick Erickson of Redstate, he was giving consideration to running against GA's Senator Saxby Chambliss. I'm not a big fan of Erick, but it was at least nice to see someone who would even dare to challenge our incumbent senator. Yet, that fell through, and man, you should have heard the comments from republicans who verbally beat the snot out of Erick for even daring to question our Senator Chambliss.

It will be interesting to see how such folks react when Norquist gears up his grassroots machine against Chambliss & other pledge renouncers.

If Americans for Tax Freedom still has the juice it once had, this could end up being a fault line that cracks the GOP wide open. /popcorn

[Zippyjuan]

Most of the current Republicans are in "safe" districts where their biggest opponents would come from within the party during the primaries. I expect not too many will move from the party line. In the Senate, only one third of the members come up for re-election every two years so some may feel that there is time before they have to fight for their seats again.

[Agorism]

Actually he really isn't, but what he is saying is that the border needs to be secured first before anything else happens. This is opposite to the way Reagan did it where they allowed amnesty first and then tried to secure the border (except that the border was never secured)


Well let's see if the conservative block in the senate supports this amnesty stuff: DeMint, Sessions, etc.

Some will think some of them would make better candidates than Rand

http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/02/house-passes-stem-immigration-reform-racialists-go-crazy/

House GOP just passed an immigration bill.

Why could Rand not propose something like that instead?

[jkr]

http://gothamist.com/attachments/arts_jen/supergrover1.jpg

[jmdrake]

Thanks to his anti-tax pledge, Norquist has been a prime target since fiscal cliff discussions picked up steam in November. Democrats have gone so far as to create an online petition against Norquist.

An online petition against Norquist to do what exactly?

Looks like I found the answer:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/15/white-house-scrubs-petition-to-punch-grover-norquist-in-the-dick/
White House scrubs petition to ‘punch Grover Norquist in the dick’
By David Edwards
Thursday, November 15, 2012 14:04 EST
Print
Share on facebookShare on redditShare on diggShare on twitterShare on farkShare on stumbleupon468

norquist-commonsuserGageSkidmore


The White House has removed a petition from its website calling for anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist to be punched “in the dick.”

The White House created the “We the People” website in 2011 to allow Americans “create and sign petitions that call for action by the federal government on a range of issues facing our nation.” The White House has pledged to respond to most petitions that meet a threshold of 25,000 signatures in 30 days.

Following president Barack Obama’s re-election earlier this month, “We the People” petitions became a popular outlet for disaffected Americans, including many who wanted their state to secede from the Union.

Both The Daily Caller and BuzzFeed noted on Wednesday that one petition submitted on Tuesday asked the White House to “allow everyone to punch Grover Norquist in the dick.”

“Peacefully grant the people of the United States of America to have Grover Norquist be brought forth in chains and put in a public pillory,” the petitioner wrote. “Once Grover Norquist has been secured, anyone who wishes will be allowed to punch him once, and only once, square in the dick.”

But by Thursday, that page had been replaced with an explanation that said the “petition you are trying to access has been removed from the site under our Moderation Policy because it is in violation of our Terms of Participation.”

The website’s Moderation Policy specifically bans “[t]hreats of unlawful violence or harm to any individual or group” and “[o]bscene, vulgar, or lewd material.”

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore recently produced a get-out-the-vote video that included a senior citizen threatening to “cock-punch” Mitt Romney if Republicans stole the election.

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1tCnu)

[Feeding the Abscess]

Actually he really isn't, but what he is saying is that the border needs to be secured first before anything else happens. This is opposite to the way Reagan did it where they allowed amnesty first and then tried to secure the border (except that the border was never secured)

Net immigration from Mexico is 0, and Obama is deporting record numbers of immigrants. The border is secured, and overly so. I can't even go back and forth without a passport now. Any more security or funding is further militarization of the border and theft.

[Origanalist]

Looks like I found the answer:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/15/white-house-scrubs-petition-to-punch-grover-norquist-in-the-dick/
White House scrubs petition to ‘punch Grover Norquist in the dick’
By David Edwards
Thursday, November 15, 2012 14:04 EST
Print
Share on facebookShare on redditShare on diggShare on twitterShare on farkShare on stumbleupon468

norquist-commonsuserGageSkidmore


The White House has removed a petition from its website calling for anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist to be punched “in the dick.”

The White House created the “We the People” website in 2011 to allow Americans “create and sign petitions that call for action by the federal government on a range of issues facing our nation.” The White House has pledged to respond to most petitions that meet a threshold of 25,000 signatures in 30 days.

Following president Barack Obama’s re-election earlier this month, “We the People” petitions became a popular outlet for disaffected Americans, including many who wanted their state to secede from the Union.

Both The Daily Caller and BuzzFeed noted on Wednesday that one petition submitted on Tuesday asked the White House to “allow everyone to punch Grover Norquist in the dick.”

“Peacefully grant the people of the United States of America to have Grover Norquist be brought forth in chains and put in a public pillory,” the petitioner wrote. “Once Grover Norquist has been secured, anyone who wishes will be allowed to punch him once, and only once, square in the dick.”

But by Thursday, that page had been replaced with an explanation that said the “petition you are trying to access has been removed from the site under our Moderation Policy because it is in violation of our Terms of Participation.”

The website’s Moderation Policy specifically bans “[t]hreats of unlawful violence or harm to any individual or group” and “[o]bscene, vulgar, or lewd material.”

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore recently produced a get-out-the-vote video that included a senior citizen threatening to “cock-punch” Mitt Romney if Republicans stole the election.

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1tCnu)


Is this a great country or what? (I'll go with what)

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Looks like I found the answer:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/15/white-house-scrubs-petition-to-punch-grover-norquist-in-the-dick/
[i]White House scrubs petition to ‘punch Grover Norquist in the dick’
By David Edwards
Thursday, November 15, 2012 14:04 EST



lol. I haven't cackled all day like I just did. Might as well leave those meaningless petitions up. Let dummies put their names on that shit. whatever.

[69360]

Net immigration from Mexico is 0, and Obama is deporting record numbers of immigrants. The border is secured, and overly so. I can't even go back and forth without a passport now. Any more security or funding is further militarization of the border and theft.

Zero net immigration doesn't mean secure. You still have drugs, weapons and illegal immigrants passing. Anyone with money to spend can get anyone or anything under/over/around our southern border.

[muzzled dogg]

Re rand: GOP should move towards liberty on immigration anyway

Re statement: probably right. 2014 > 2010

[Feeding the Abscess]

Zero net immigration doesn't mean secure. You still have drugs, weapons and illegal immigrants passing. Anyone with money to spend can get anyone or anything under/over/around our southern border.

End the drug war. Problem solved.

The answer is more freedom, not more government theft, guns, and police power.

[LibertyEagle]

Re rand: GOP should move towards liberty on immigration anyway



Actually, no. You must know that what you desire is exactly what the globalists want. They don't want any borders, either. Just one big 'ol blob with a global currency and a global government.

I would prefer not to have that. Thanks anyway.

[muzzled dogg]

Actually, no. You must know that what you desire is exactly what the globalists want. They don't want any borders, either. Just one big 'ol blob with a global currency and a global government.

I would prefer not to have that. Thanks anyway.

Actually I would prefer you respect property rights

I should be able to hire who ever I want. I shouldn't have to ask permission from the state to host guests in my house

You sound like a liberal trying to regulate the labor supply

[angelatc]

Actually I would prefer you respect property rights

I should be able to hire who ever I want. I shouldn't have to ask permission from the state to host guests in my house

You sound like a liberal trying to regulate the labor supply

Liberals are open borders.

And you can hire anyone you want. If you want to hire Mexicans, open a factory in Mexico. But they won't allow you to hire Americans there, either.

[muzzled dogg]

so you have more guns so you get to decide who i rent out my apartment to? that's not freedom

[AuH20]

so you have more guns so you get to decide who i rent out my apartment to? that's not freedom

Until the public property stranglehold is broken, open borders is probably not a wise strategy. We need to rid ourselves of property taxes and other wealth extraction schemes, before we can even begin to tackle open borders. Hoppe wrote about this in length.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Re rand: GOP should move towards liberty on immigration anyway

"Liberty" = another 12,000,000-20,000,000 poor Mexicans on welfare, crapflooding ERs and schools. :rolleyes:

Don't complain when/if they slowly move from the southwest to your state, and your state needs to raise taxes to pay for all the new costs to schools, emergency rooms, prisons, etc. Oh, and they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too, hope you don't mind.

[FSP-Rebel]

Until the public property stranglehold is broken, open borders is probably not a wise strategy. We need to rid ourselves of property taxes and other wealth extraction schemes, before we can even begin to tackle open borders.
Exactly and we're miles away from that pipe dream.

[AuH20]

"Liberty" = another 12,000,000-20,000,000 poor Mexicans on welfare, crapflooding ERs and schools. :rolleyes:

And voting for whomever the elites tell them to, based largely on short-term needs. If we think we have an sizable educational gap to bridge, right now with just the domestic natives, inject a large dose of racial division and language barrier into the mix. This type of endeavor would have been quite task in the 1940s or 1950s, nevermind today when all the assimilation controls have been blown to bits.

[muzzled dogg]

So because the violation if my rights is for the greater good you guys are fine with it?

[Zippyjuan]

"Liberty" = another 12,000,000-20,000,000 poor Mexicans on welfare, crapflooding ERs and schools. :rolleyes:

Don't complain when/if they slowly move from the southwest to your state, and your state needs to raise taxes to pay for all the new costs to schools, emergency rooms, prisons, etc. Oh, and they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too, hope you don't mind.
In 2007, the estimated number of illegal aliens in the country was 12.6 million. By 2009, it was down to 10.3 million. Mexicans are estimated to be about 60% of that so about 6 million illegal immigrants from Mexico. Net immigration (legal and illegal) from was zero last year. And illegal aliens can't vote. Cities with larger percentages of immigrants (legal and illegal) have lower crime rates than other simliar cities. 40% of those in the country illegally originally entered the country legally- tourist visas, work visas, etc and over-stayed.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

In 2007, the estimated number of illegal aliens in the country was 12.6 million. By 2009, it was down to 10.3 million. Mexicans are estimated to be about 60% of that so about 6 million illegal immigrants from Mexico. Net immigration (legal and illegal) from was zero last year. And illegal aliens can't vote. Cities with larger percentages of immigrants (legal and illegal) have lower crime rates than other simliar cities. 40% of those in the country illegally originally entered the country legally- tourist visas, work visas, etc and over-stayed.


It's probably less than that now, seeing that natives can't even find jobs.

[FreeHampshire]

And illegal aliens can't vote.

They can't vote legally, but that doesn't mean they can't vote.


Cities with larger percentages of immigrants (legal and illegal) have lower crime rates than other simliar cities. 40% of those in the country illegally originally entered the country legally- tourist visas, work visas, etc and over-stayed.


Not true at all. Cite a non-biased source that is backed up by federal statistics that show illegal immigrants of hispanic descent commit less crime than legal immigrants or 'native' American citizens. The Department of Justice studies actually show Hispanics with a disproportionate crime rate. That's as official as you can get.

[Zippyjuan]

Perhaps you can share your source as well.
http://www.livescience.com/4872-immigration-reduces-crime-rates.html

Harvard University sociologist Robert Sampson examined crime and immigration in Chicago and around the United States to find the truth behind the popular perception that increasing immigration leads to crime.

Sampson’s study results, detailed in the winter issue of the American Sociological Association’s Contexts magazine, summarizes patterns from seven years’ worth of violent acts in Chicago committed by whites, blacks and Hispanics from 180 neighborhoods of varying levels of integration. He also analyzed recent data from police records and the U.S. Census for all communities in Chicago.






Based on assumptions that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes and settle in poor, disorganized communities, prevailing wisdom holds that the concentration of immigrants and an influx of foreigners drive up crime rates.

However, Sampson shows that concentrated immigration predicts lower rates of violence across communities in Chicago, with the relationship strongest in poor neighborhoods.

Not only does immigration appear to be "protective" against violence in poverty areas, violence was significantly lower among Mexican-Americans compared to blacks and whites. Sampson refers to this as the "Latino Paradox," whereby Hispanic Americans do better on a range of social indicators — including propensity to violence — than one would expect, given their socioeconomic disadvantages.

Sampson’s analysis also revealed that first-generation immigrants were 45 percent less likely to commit violence than third-generation Americans. Controlling for immigrant generation even narrowed the violence gap between whites and blacks in Chicago by 14 percent.

"The pattern of immigrant generational status and lower crime rates is not restricted to Latinos; it extends to help explain white–black differences as well," Sampson said. "We’re so used to thinking about immigrant assimilation that we’ve failed to fully appreciate how immigrants themselves shape their host society."

Immigration is therefore not just a Hispanic issue; although little noticed, increasing foreign-born diversity among blacks (e.g., from the West Indies and Africa) is associated with lower crime even within segregated black communities.

Sampson’s arguments are supported at the national level as well. Significant immigration growth — including by illegal aliens — occurred in the mid-1990s, peaking at the end of the decade. During this time, the national homicide rate plunged. Crime dropped even in immigration hot spots, such as Los Angeles (where it dropped 45 percent overall), San Jose, Dallas and Phoenix.

Reasons commonly cited for the apparent paradox of first generation immigrants, especially Mexicans, are motivation to work, ambition and a desire not to be deported, characteristics that predispose them to low crime. Sampson also argues that contemporary immigrants tend to come from a multitude of cultures around the world where violence isn’t rewarded as a strategy for establishing reputation or preserving honor, as in American "street culture."

"In today’s society," Sampson said, "immigration and the increasing cultural diversity that accompanies it generate the sort of conflicts of culture that lead not to increased crime but nearly the opposite."


Another- Arizona where the issue was big news the last couple of years:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-29/justice/arizona.immigration.crime_1_sen-russell-pearce-illegal-immigration-immigration-law?_s=PM:CRIME

Yet, a look at statistics from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency and the FBI indicate that both the number of illegal crossers and violent crime in general have actually decreased in the past several years.

According to FBI statistics, violent crimes reported in Arizona dropped by nearly 1,500 reported incidents between 2005 and 2008. Reported property crimes also fell, from about 287,000 reported incidents to 279,000 in the same period. These decreases are accentuated by the fact that Arizona's population grew by 600,000 between 2005 and 2008.

According to the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Institute, proponents of the bill "overlook two salient points: Crime rates have already been falling in Arizona for years despite the presence of unauthorized immigrants, and a century's worth of research has demonstrated that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born."

[FreeHampshire]

Decreasing crime in Arizona could be attributed to the strict laws in place and fear of being deported. That's exactly what the article says as well. But this doesn't have anything to do with their children committing crimes and it really just masks the problems. There's also a major problem with the wording the Sociologist uses in that piece. He bombastically jumps from 'legal' immigration and starts making conclusions about illegal immigration. With no mention as to the demographics of the legal immigrants of Chicago compared to the illegals of southwest America. Were they elderly? What religion? Where did they come from?


"Most Americans equate illegal aliens with a higher incidence of crime... in fact, data show that the American public understands the facts better than the academics. Adult illegal aliens represented 3.1 percent of the total adult population of the country in 2003. By comparison, the illegal alien prison population represented a bit more than 4.54 percent of the overall prison population. Therefore, deportable criminal aliens were more than half again as likely to be incarcerated as their share of the population.

Their presence in the United States is based on their either illegally entering the country or entering under false pretenses. Those who sneak into the country undergo no form of screening for criminality or any other grounds for exclusion... illegal aliens... end up being co-opted into criminal activity..."

The Federation for American Immigration Reform


Actual government data on illegal immigration:

Roughly one in six illegal immigrants is re-arrested on criminal charges within three years of release, according to new government data being released Tuesday.

{snip}

The findings, obtained by Fox News, are contained in reports by the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee and nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. They are the result of the committee’s subpoena request for Department of Homeland Security records from October 2008 to July 2011.

The information was analyzed by the CRS, which also broke down the information for criminal immigrants—legal immigrants who committed crimes and were arrested again over the three-year period. Together, the two groups also had a roughly one-in-six recidivism rate.

The records show 276,412 reported charges against illegal and criminal immigrants over that three-year period as identified by Secure Communities, a federal program that essentially attempts to make best use of resources by identifying and prioritizing which illegal immigrants pose the biggest threat to public safety and should be arrested or deported.

Of the 160,000 people in the database, more than 26,000 were re-arrested—accounting for nearly 58,000 crimes and violations.

They allegedly committed nearly 8,500 drunken-driving offenses and more than 6,000 drug-related violations. The records also show major criminal offenses, which included murder, battery, rape, kidnapping and nearly 3,000 thefts. Roughly 2 percent of the crimes included carjacking, child molestation, lynching and torture, according to the 13-page Congressional Research Service report.

“The Obama administration could have prevented these senseless crimes by enforcing our immigration laws,” the committee chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said. “But President Obama continues to further his anti-enforcement agenda while innocent Americans suffer the consequences.”

The report showed that more than 7,000 of those re-arrested were illegal immigrants. Among their charges were 19 murders, three attempted murders and 142 sex crimes.

{snip}

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/31/recidivism-rate-for-illegal-immigrants-nearly-20-percent-dhs-records-show-as/#ixzz22AqKtvdg


Crime spree in Washington, half on the most wanted list are illegal aliens. Government data:


One woman is dead and two others were raped recently and police say each crime was committed by a different illegal immigrant. One of the sexual assaults happened just hours before the Seattle city council passed an ordinance boycotting Arizona over its new immigration law.
Gregorio Luna Luna had a history of beating up his live-in girlfriend Griselda Ocampo Meza. He was also in the U.S. illegally. On May 1, Luna Luna was deported to Mexico. Three weeks later Meza was murdered in her apartment in a violent knife attack.
Franklin County prosecutors say Luna Luna slipped past the border again and killed Meza in front of their five year old son. He’s in the county jail awaiting trial.
A suspected rapist in Edmonds, Washington has been deported at least 4 times according to Snohomish County prosecutors. Jose Lopez Madrigal has been charged with raping a woman next to a dumpster behind a Safeway store. A witness to the attack alerted police and Madrigal was taken into custody.
An illegal immigrant just convicted of his possible 3rd strike in Whatcom county- a rape of a homeless woman- has been deported to Mexico five times.

Washington State ranks 11th in the nation in the number of illegal immigrants with an estimated 150,000. They make up 2% of the state’s population, but account for 4.5% of those in Washington prisons. In Franklin county, 14% of the jail bookings are illegal immigrants.
Currently, over half of the individuals on the Washington State Patrol’s Most Wanted List are suspected illegal immigrants. 18 of the 26 on the list are Hispanic with no place of birth identified. Most are wanted for vehicular homicide and they have languished on the Most Wanted list for several years.
There are about 50,000 felony warrants currently issued in Washington State and according to a source in the U.S. Marshal’s office between 30-40 percent are believed to be illegal immigrants.
We asked the State Patrol about the immigration status of the most wanted suspects and they told us they didn’t know. Officials say that information is not important in trying to locate the individuals.
The U.S. Marshall’s Service disagrees. Leaders of the region’s fugitive task force say knowing immigration status can be very important to an investigation. In fact, the Marshall’s have an office in Mexico to help with cross-border cases.
Last week, the city of Tacoma joined Seattle in admonishing Arizona for its immigration law. While the council did not go so far as passing a boycott, the ordinance does criticize Arizona for its stand against illegal immigration.


Read more: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/01/illegal-immigrants-crime-spree-in-wa/#ixzz2EECnzDf8[/quote]


http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/01/illegal-immigrants-crime-spree-in-wa/



Department of Justice data on crimes and demographics:

Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.


http://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2005-Color-of-Crime-Report.pdf




It should also be noted that most Americans are "White" and Hispanics, Middle Easterners, North Africans can be classified as "Whites" in government studies. So when you have a surge in "White Hispanic" crime in Texas, and the illegal immigration crime in slightly below that, it doesn't mean illegals are "safer" than 'native' Americans.

[FreeHampshire]

Some relatively new studies


The former Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that as of January 2000 the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States was 7 million. This total includes those who entered the United States illegally and those who entered legally but overstayed their authorized period of stay.

A more recent study estimated that there were about 10 million illegal aliens living in the United States as of March 2005. The study estimated that nearly 700,000 aliens entered the United States illegally or overstayed their authorized period of stay each year between 2000 and 2004. Some experts believe this is a overly conservative figure and that illegal immigrants number close to 20 million.

At the same time, after a steady annual reduction in crime, the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report reveals a slow but sure yearly increase in crime, especially violent crime. Some criminologists attribute the rise in crime to illegal aliens who come into the United States with a criminal background.

Many illegal aliens in the United States have been arrested and incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails, adding to already overcrowded prisons and jails. The US Justice Department issued a report on criminal aliens who are incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails.

{snip}

In the population study of a sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990.

They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses.

About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes.

{snip}

Eighty percent of all arrests occurred in three states–California, Texas, and Arizona. Specifically, about 58 percent of all arrests occurred in California, 14 percent in Texas, and 8 percent in Arizona.


http://www.sierratimes.com/?fof=Y



So now we have zero economic, sociological, cultural, linguistic, or environmental benefits for illegal immigration. What is the next excuse?

[FreeHampshire]

It's probably less than that now, seeing that natives can't even find jobs.


That is true, a study just a month ago concerning job increases in America have shown that most have gone to immigrants.

A new analysis of government data shows that two-thirds of the net increase in employment since President Obama took office has gone to immigrant workers, primarily legal immigrants. Although the level of new immigration overall has fallen, legal immigration remains very high. While economists debate the extent to which immigrants displace natives, the new data make clear that there is no general labor shortage in the United States. This analysis calls into question the wisdom of bringing in more than a million new legal immigrants each year at a time when the employment situation remains bleak.

Among the findings of this analysis:

Since President Obama took office, 67 percent of employment growth has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal).
There were 1.94 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) working in the third quarter of 2012 than at the start of 2009, when the president took office. This compares to a 938,000 increase for natives over the same time period.
Most of the immigrant growth in employment was the result of new immigration, rather than immigrants already in the country taking jobs. Some 1.6 million new immigrant workers arrived from abroad since the start of 2009—we estimate 70 to 90 percent entered legally.
Immigrants made employment gains across the labor market. In occupations where immigrant gains were the largest, there were 2.2 million unemployed natives.
A large share of employment growth was going to immigrants well before President Obama took office. However, he has taken steps to increase the level of job competition from foreign-born workers:
He offered work authorization to an estimated two million illegal immigrants who arrived in the country before age 16—nearly 200,000 of whom have applied so far.
When auditing employers who hire illegal workers, the administration has not detained the illegal workers as a matter of policy, allowing them to take new jobs.
The administration called on the Supreme Court in 2010 to strike down Arizona’s law requiring employers to verify the legal status of new workers.
Natives have done better in the labor market recently. From the third quarter of 2011 to the third quarter of 2012, two-thirds of employment growth went to native-born workers.
Despite recent improvements, in the third quarter of 2012, there were a huge number of working-age (18 to 65) native-born Americans not employed:
7.6 million with less than a high school education (18 to 65);
18.1 million with only a high school education (18 to 65);
15.8 million with some college (18 to 65); and
9.2 million college graduates (18 to 65).
Some people who are not working do not wish to work. However, the broad measure of unemployment, which includes those who have given up looking for a job, shows a dismal picture for adult natives (18+) in the third quarter of 2012:
30.8 percent for high school dropouts;
18.1 percent for those only a high school education;
13.8 percent for those with some college; and
8 percent for all college graduates and 13 percent for college graduates under age 30.
While significantly more immigrants are presently working, their unemployment rate remains high and the share of working-age adults (18-65) holding a job has only slightly improved since President Obama took office.


http://cis.org/who-got-jobs-during-obama-presidency



So when biased organizations such as the CATO institute claim that illegal immigrants & immigration altogether "helps" the economy, they are really just reporting that these immigrants get jobs while natives don't. Presumably because they work under the table. Progressives wish for illegal immigration so we can get more people that vote (D). Whereas, Republicans & Vulgar Libertarians desire more illegals for wage slavery to help prop up their artificial, archaic hierarchical companies.

[angelatc]

So because the violation if my rights is for the greater good you guys are fine with it?

Yes.

[Zippyjuan]

None of the articles posted indicate that crime is higher among illegal aliens than those here legally. Did you find those Department of Justice figures you said you had?

From the first article:

We asked the State Patrol about the immigration status of the most wanted suspects and they told us they didn’t know. Officials say that information is not important in trying to locate the individuals.

From the second:


Crime spree in Washington, half on the most wanted list are illegal aliens.

Really? Doesn't look at all like that- but it hard to say, they don't list immigration status but few look like they could be illegal Mexicans. The current list: http://www.doc.wa.gov/mostwanted/offenders.aspx



At the same time, after a steady annual reduction in crime, the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report reveals a slow but sure yearly increase in crime, especially violent crime. Some criminologists attribute the rise in crime to illegal aliens who come into the United States with a criminal background.

It notes an FBI claim of an increase in crime but does not say anything about who is committing the crimes. It tries to imply that they are from illegal aliens by the next part saying some think it may be due to those coming in with "criminal backgrounds". How many illegal aliens are coming in with criminal backgrounds? Also to note is that in the last three years, as crime has barely started to edge up, the number of illegal immigrants has been going down. Crime rates had been declining for the previous decade- a time when the number of illegal aliens had been going up- the exact opposite of what one would expect if the aliens were to blame.

From the next one about jobs:

A new analysis of government data shows that two-thirds of the net increase in employment since President Obama took office has gone to immigrant workers, primarily legal immigrants.

Another source:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00706.x/abstract

Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000†



Objectives. The idea that immigration increases crime rates has historically occupied an important role in criminological theory and has been central to the public and political discourses and debates on immigration policy. In contrast to the common sentiment, some scholars have recently questioned whether the increase in immigration between 1990 and 2000 may have actually been responsible for part of the national decrease in crime during the 1990s. The current work evaluates the influence of immigration on crime in urban areas across the United States between 1990 and 2000.


Methods. Drawing on U.S. Census and Uniform Crime Report data, I first use ordinary least squares regression models to assess the cross-sectional relationship between immigration patterns and rates of homicide and robbery among U.S. cities with populations of at least 50,000. Second, I employ pooled cross-sectional time-series models to determine how changes in immigration influenced changes in homicide and robbery rates between 1990 and 2000.


Results. In the ordinary least squares models, immigration is associated with higher levels of homicide and robbery. However, the pooled cross-sectional time-series models suggest that cities with the largest increases in immigration between 1990 and 2000 experienced the largest decreases in homicide and robbery during the same time period.


Conclusion. The findings offer insights into the complex relationship between immigration and crime and suggest that growth in immigration may have been responsible for part of the precipitous crime drop of the 1990s.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

And illegal aliens can't vote.

Talking about if they were legalized.

[FreeHampshire]

It notes an FBI claim of an increase in crime but does not say anything about who is committing the crimes. It tries to imply that they are from illegal aliens by the next part saying some think it may be due to those coming in with "criminal backgrounds". How many illegal aliens are coming in with criminal backgrounds?


From the same article:

In the population study of a sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990.

They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses.


None of the articles posted indicate that crime is higher among illegal aliens than those here legally.


Judging by the studies you showed, showing positive behavior from legal immigrants in Chicago and the studies I have linked, showing horrendous behavior from the illegal immigrants, I think it's pretty conclusive.



Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000†



Objectives. The idea that immigration increases crime rates has historically occupied an important role in criminological theory and has been central to the public and political discourses and debates on immigration policy. In contrast to the common sentiment, some scholars have recently questioned whether the increase in immigration between 1990 and 2000 may have actually been responsible for part of the national decrease in crime during the 1990s. The current work evaluates the influence of immigration on crime in urban areas across the United States between 1990 and 2000.


Methods. Drawing on U.S. Census and Uniform Crime Report data, I first use ordinary least squares regression models to assess the cross-sectional relationship between immigration patterns and rates of homicide and robbery among U.S. cities with populations of at least 50,000. Second, I employ pooled cross-sectional time-series models to determine how changes in immigration influenced changes in homicide and robbery rates between 1990 and 2000.


Results. In the ordinary least squares models, immigration is associated with higher levels of homicide and robbery. However, the pooled cross-sectional time-series models suggest that cities with the largest increases in immigration between 1990 and 2000 experienced the largest decreases in homicide and robbery during the same time period.


Conclusion. The findings offer insights into the complex relationship between immigration and crime and suggest that growth in immigration may have been responsible for part of the precipitous crime drop of the 1990s.

That says nothing about country of origin or illegal immigration so it's irrelevant. You're grasping at straws trying to justify something that obviously isn't working out for the country.





From the next one about jobs:

With some illegals. Point being, the economic prosperity that immigration supposedly brings is inflated.

[FreeHampshire]

"Liberty" = another 12,000,000-20,000,000 poor Mexicans on welfare, crapflooding ERs and schools. :rolleyes:

Don't complain when/if they slowly move from the southwest to your state, and your state needs to raise taxes to pay for all the new costs to schools, emergency rooms, prisons, etc. Oh, and they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too, hope you don't mind.

That is true for the most part. California suffers from the largest amount of illegal immigration and we find...


The Golden State has reached a poverty rate that is now twice as bad as West Virginia’s and substantially worse than the rates of poverty in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Texas, according to a new measure of poverty developed by the federal Census Bureau.

Democrat-run California earned its last-place rank under the federal government’s new measure of poverty, which incorporates more detailed analyses of welfare payments and the local costs of food, gasoline and housing. (View the new census data report)

The state’s costs are boosted by its environmental and workplace regulations, and by 38 million residents’ competition for housing close to the sea.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/golden-state-turns-to-lead-now-leads-poverty-rankings/


And concerning welfare..

57% of Mexican immigrants on welfare

A report by the Center for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org) reveals some startling figures about welfare use by families headed by immigrants.

“In 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program (primarily food assistance and Medicaid) compared to 23 percent of native households,” summarizes the document which was published by the Center for Immigration Studies and examines a wide variety of topics relating to immigration. Click HERE to read the full report.

The document breaks down the immigrant families by country of origin and gives specific types of welfare and percentages of the families that used it in 2010. An average fewer than 23 percent of native households use some type of “welfare” which is specifically defined in the study. 36 percent of households headed by immigrants use some type of welfare. Families headed by immigrants from specific countries or areas of the world range from just over 6 percent for those immigrants from Great Britain to more than 57 percent of those from Mexico using some type of welfare.

This comprehensive study suggests there are approximately 40 million immigrants in the United States of which more than a 25 percent of that number, and the largest overall group, originate from Mexico. The study estimates that approximately 28 percent of immigrants, or just over 11 million, are within the United States illegally. The study also suggests that nearly 50 percent of those immigrants originating from Mexico and Central America are here illegally.

http://topconservativenews.com/2012/12/57-of-mexican-immigrants-on-welfare/


Conclusion: Illegal & legal immigration brings gentrification, globalism, poor economics, wage slavery, one-party domination. There is not a single benefit worth mentioning from any standpoint really.

[parocks]

Actually I would prefer you respect property rights

I should be able to hire who ever I want. I shouldn't have to ask permission from the state to host guests in my house

You sound like a liberal trying to regulate the labor supply

Open Borders is an issue where Ron Paul Supporters do not agree. Liberty Eagle is not a "libertarian", more a "true conservative". Liberty Eagle probably likes Pat Buchanan more than Shemdogg does. I'm not fond of open borders. Libertarians have been trotted out to support open borders for quite a number of years. 20? The media also enjoys putting libertarians on tv to talk about how much they'd like to end the minimum wage. There are areas of agreement between the globalists and the libertarians, and it seems that often the libertarians are all to happy to serve as the globalists mouthpieces on those issues.

[FreeHampshire]

Open Borders is an issue where Ron Paul Supporters do not agree. Liberty Eagle is not a "libertarian", more a "true conservative". Liberty Eagle probably likes Pat Buchanan more than Shemdogg does. I'm not fond of open borders. Libertarians have been trotted out to support open borders for quite a number of years. 20? The media also enjoys putting libertarians on tv to talk about how much they'd like to end the minimum wage. There are areas of agreement between the globalists and the libertarians, and it seems that often the libertarians are all to happy to serve as the globalists mouthpieces on those issues.


I'm an Anarchist of the Mutualist variety and I don't support open borders. Vulgar Libertarians tend to support open borders because they believe wage slavery and cheap labor is good for the economy and somehow benefits them. Progressives on this board will support it so that we can get a permanent (D) majority. Neither are applicable or desirable outcomes for the country and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. Open border advocates really just support gentrification, globalism, and failed State Socialist (which is really Corporatism with a mask on in most cases nowadays) nonsense.

Immigration from anywhere in the world really doesn't do us any good from a political perspective. No one outside of America really values liberty that much, and the few that do aren't going to move here. We are going to end up getting a permanent Democratic majority and a Republican Party so Progressive that it puts Teddy Roosevelt to shame. I would rather just cut off all immigration and works towards liberty.

[parocks]

I'm an Anarchist of the Mutualist variety and I don't support open borders. Vulgar Libertarians tend to support open borders because they believe wage slavery and cheap labor is good for the economy and somehow benefits them. Progressives on this board will support it so that we can get a permanent (D) majority. Neither are applicable or desirable outcomes for the country and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. Open border advocates really just support gentrification, globalism, and failed State Socialist (which is really Corporatism with a mask on in most cases nowadays) nonsense.

Immigration from anywhere in the world really doesn't do us any good from a political perspective. No one outside of America really values liberty that much, and the few that do aren't going to move here. We are going to end up getting a permanent Democratic majority and a Republican Party so Progressive that it puts Teddy Roosevelt to shame. I would rather just cut off all immigration and works towards liberty.

I don't know about that "Anarchist" and "Mutualist" stuff.

I think I pretty much agree with you on the particular issue.

The Libertarians always seem to like to put themselves in very specific neat cateories of thought, none of which are at all relevant, unless it's to communicate to others that you strongly adhere to a detailed set of principles explicitly shared by hundreds across the country.

The ability that Libertarians have to describe in great detail the different types of anarchist does reassure voters.

What kind of Libertarian is the one that has read a few conspiracy theories and wants NOT THAT, and tries to avoid that. Most conspiracy theories are pretty much the same, and you don't have to even believe that they're actually happening in order to want to prevent them from happening. I don't one world government, one currency, at all. I'd rather see 50 different sets of standards in 50 states, even if it's economically inefficient. Different people have different tastes in laws. The people of Maine don't want the same laws as the people in Mississippi, why force them to. More choices, more people get exactly what they want. If some country does or doesn't want women to wear masks, I don't care, but we shouldn't have some global vote about whether women can wear masks or not.

[Feeding the Abscess]

In this thread:

Conservatives accusing hardcore libertarians and anarchists of supporting the most totalitarian government imaginable by advocating for no government. While wanting to hand the State manpower, firepower, massive central databases, and authority to fine businesses for engaging in voluntary contract and arguing that that's the limited government position.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQB3JlZhWPepkJ7BA4ejiHt4dkCH_u7I sPF4W0xGD0sibiQc4Xu

[Zippyjuan]

That is true for the most part. California suffers from the largest amount of illegal immigration and we find...


The Golden State has reached a poverty rate that is now twice as bad as West Virginia’s and substantially worse than the rates of poverty in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Texas, according to a new measure of poverty developed by the federal Census Bureau.

Democrat-run California earned its last-place rank under the federal government’s new measure of poverty, which incorporates more detailed analyses of welfare payments and the local costs of food, gasoline and housing. (View the new census data report)

The state’s costs are boosted by its environmental and workplace regulations, and by 38 million residents’ competition for housing close to the sea.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/golden-state-turns-to-lead-now-leads-poverty-rankings/


And concerning welfare..

57% of Mexican immigrants on welfare

A report by the Center for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org) reveals some startling figures about welfare use by families headed by immigrants.

“In 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program (primarily food assistance and Medicaid) compared to 23 percent of native households,” summarizes the document which was published by the Center for Immigration Studies and examines a wide variety of topics relating to immigration. Click HERE to read the full report.

The document breaks down the immigrant families by country of origin and gives specific types of welfare and percentages of the families that used it in 2010. An average fewer than 23 percent of native households use some type of “welfare” which is specifically defined in the study. 36 percent of households headed by immigrants use some type of welfare. Families headed by immigrants from specific countries or areas of the world range from just over 6 percent for those immigrants from Great Britain to more than 57 percent of those from Mexico using some type of welfare.

This comprehensive study suggests there are approximately 40 million immigrants in the United States of which more than a 25 percent of that number, and the largest overall group, originate from Mexico. The study estimates that approximately 28 percent of immigrants, or just over 11 million, are within the United States illegally. The study also suggests that nearly 50 percent of those immigrants originating from Mexico and Central America are here illegally.

http://topconservativenews.com/2012/12/57-of-mexican-immigrants-on-welfare/


Conclusion: Illegal & legal immigration brings gentrification, globalism, poor economics, wage slavery, one-party domination. There is not a single benefit worth mentioning from any standpoint really.

The 57% is not a percent of all illegal aliens. It is a percentage of households where there is at least one illegal immigrant and at least one person receiving some benefit. If a kid in the house is getting a free meal at school, the whole house is counted as "receiving welfare".

The crime most illegal immigrants gets charged with? Their immigration status.

[Zippyjuan]

Another interesting figure. Most have been in the country for ten years or more.



More than 60% of adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have lived here for at least 10 years and nearly half have minor children, according to a report published Thursday by the Pew Hispanic Center.

The analysis based on data from the March 2010 Current Population Survey and the Pew Hispanic Center’s 2010 National Survey of Latinos shows a marked increase in the long-term duration of illegal immigrants in the U.S. compared with a decade ago.

Currently, about 35% of illegal immigrants adults have been in the U.S. for 15 years or more; in 2000 only about 16% had been in the country for that long, says the report, titled “Unauthorized Immigrants: Length of Residency, Patterns of Parenthood.”

An additional 28% have been in the country for 10 to 14 years, a percentage has not changed since 2000. Meanwhile, the percentage of illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for fewer than five years dropped from 32% in 2000 to 15% in 2010.
According to the report, the increased duration of unauthorized immigrants in the country reflects a surge in illegal immigration in the late 1990s and early 2000s but has since slowed due to the sputtering U.S. economy and increased border enforcement.

In addition, relatively few of those who have been in the United States for a long time are now returning to their home countries. There are about 10.2 million unauthorized adults living in the country and an additional 1 million children under the age of 18, according to the report.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Actually he really isn't, but what he is saying is that the border needs to be secured first before anything else happens. This is opposite to the way Reagan did it where they allowed amnesty first and then tried to secure the border (except that the border was never secured)The proplem I have with this now, is exactly what Jesse Ventura stated... you build the the wall and fences... it could keep Americans in from leaving.

[Zippyjuan]

We have fences. Hundreds of miles long between California and Mexico. They put up ramps and drive over the top. They dig tunnels under them. They take boats around them. And about half of those in the country illegally entered legally- they just stayed longer than they were supposed to. I read one report which suggested that increasing border security encouraged MORE illegal imigrants- many come and work a time and go back home and perhaps come back again later. Tougher border crossings encouraged them to come and stay instead of going back home since it would be more difficult if they wanted to come back again.

http://www.businessinsider.com/somebody-tried-to-drive-over-the-us-mexico-border-fence-2012-11
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/5092c06beab8eaae7f000017-400-/mexico-border-fence-car-stuck.jpeg

Demographics in Mexico suggest that the "great wave" of immigration from there may be ebbing or even halting- there are fewer young people in Mexico and with their economy doing better the allure of a better job in the US is not as great.

[american.swan]

Actually, no. You must know that what you desire is exactly what the globalists want. They don't want any borders, either. Just one big 'ol blob with a global currency and a global government.I would prefer not to have that. Thanks anyway. I'm not so sure about that in the short term. Long term yes. Short term open borders would be great.

[FreeHampshire]

The 57% is not a percent of all illegal aliens. It is a percentage of households where there is at least one illegal immigrant and at least one person receiving some benefit. If a kid in the house is getting a free meal at school, the whole house is counted as "receiving welfare".

And the disproportional amount of welfare is rather disturbing. And no, I never said it was illegal immmigrants. However, the article also points out 50 percent of Mexicans are here illegally. Which would mean many could be illegals.

Anyone who advocates a greater increase in immigrants from the third world better have more to go on than fringe studies by biased institutions. So far nothing has been given.

Also, the crimes I've mentioned were violent.


We have fences. Hundreds of miles long between California and Mexico. They put up ramps and drive over the top. They dig tunnels under them. They take boats around them. And about half of those in the country illegally entered legally- they just stayed longer than they were supposed to. I read one report which suggested that increasing border security encouraged MORE illegal imigrants- many come and work a time and go back home and perhaps come back again later. Tougher border crossings encouraged them to come and stay instead of going back home since it would be more difficult if they wanted to come back again.


All you have to do is enact some sort of racial profiling that was seen in Arizona. And discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity. It's a rather easy task and other nations have set examples of how such strict border controls are viable. One of these nations is actually Mexico, which has a pretty good way of dealing with their illegals.

[FreeHampshire]

I'm not so sure about that in the short term. Long term yes. Short term open borders would be great.


The problem is there is literally no benefit in having open borders. You would have 1 billion people coming to this nation and voting for a Statist party. Ethnic, cultural, & racial conflicts would appear, as that happens in every State that encounters diversity. As UN crime statistics confirm, the most homogeneous Western nations are the safest. And the only thing that is making them less safe is the hoards of immigrants from Somalia & The Middle East that are usually of the Islamic religion.

The economic arguments for open borders are laughable at best. I know actual economists who have totally debunked that myth. It seems the only people that seriously support it are organizations biased towards Progressives and wish for more (D) votes. Or vulgar Libertardian organizations like CATO who have a known bias.


I would also like to ask all the proponents of illegal immigration on this thread to cite me one reference from the Founding Fathers that wished for open borders, unchecked legal immigration, or illegal immigration. Because the last time I checked, Ben Franklin had a huge problem with even Germans and Swedes migrating to this nation. So any proponent of immigration is ahistorical and un-Constitutional.

[FreeHampshire]

Still waiting for my challenge to have been answered. But anyways, to recap. We haven't seen one sociological, cultural, religious, or economic argument for mass immigration, legal immigration, or illegal immigration. The proponents of such an absurd policy usually strive to find tenuous connections that don't seem to exist in the real world, as statistics and facts confirm. A world where America has open borders would be a world where we gain roughly 1 billion new Americans. The vast majority will vote Democrat (as polls have confirmed, the Democratic Party is viewed in a positive light save for Israel & Pakistan) and the ethno-cultural & religious identity of America will be lost. Something the Founding Fathers, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Grover Cleveland, etc.. would never have subscribed to. Even if there were a solid economic argument in favor of open borders (which I haven't seen. All the ones I've read were thoroughly debunked by real economists I know) that's under the false belief that a society should be operated solely on economics and totally ignore other sciences such as Sociology. Something no nation, or person, believes in or has ever believed.

[cbrons]

Grover Norquist: 'Tea Party Two Is Going To Dwarf Tea Party One' (threatens tax hikers)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/02/grover-norquist-tea-party_n_2228610.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Perhaps, but we need to purge the neo-cons from the liberty movement first, and if the Tea Party continues its neo-con rhetoric about rampaging through all of these 3rd world sandboxes spreading democracy, we need to drop them like a bad habit.

[Keith and stuff]

Rand is too busy trying to sabotage his presidential aspirations by partnering with the dems on immigration.

I thought agorist didn't beleive in any immigration laws at all?

[Keith and stuff]

The proplem I have with this now, is exactly what Jesse Ventura stated... you build the the wall and fences... it could keep Americans in from leaving.

Are you an old man from Texas? That's what Ron Paul says, also :)