PDA

View Full Version : Tom Tancredo No Longer Supports Rand




anaconda
03-22-2013, 06:18 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/tom-tancredo-rand-paul-immigration_n_2935485.html#slide=834436


Tom Tancredo Bashes Rand Paul For Immigration Stance, Sticks To 'Self-Deport' Strategy

The Huffington Post | By Elise Foley Posted: 03/22/2013 5:45 pm EDT | Updated: 03/22/2013 6:09 pm EDT

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who has devoted much of his career to advocating for stricter immigration enforcement, disavowed Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Friday for supporting reform -- and for speaking Spanish when he did so.

"Rand Paul began his speech in Spanish and it went downhill from there," he wrote in an op-ed titled "Why I No Longer Stand with Rand Paul" for The Christian Post. "His speech was filled with virtually every single discredited pro-amnesty cliché you could imagine."

Paul gave a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday outlining his plan for immigration reform, which would include allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, work legally, and eventually become citizens. He also called for increased border enforcement and has rejected the claims that his proposal should be considered "amnesty" or even a "pathway to citizenship."

Tancredo, though, was quick to apply that label and said he no longer supports Paul, despite previously endorsing him. He argued that Paul was wrong to imply that the two options are either legalization or deporting the entire undocumented population.

"The problem is that not one congressman or major commentator has called for deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants," he wrote. "Rather, we argue that strict enforcement of employer sanctions and allowing local police to cooperate in immigration enforcement will encourage most illegals to, in Mitt Romney's words, 'self-deport.'"

Of course, the "self-deport" strategy didn't work well for Romney, the failed 2012 GOP presidential nominee whose rhetoric on immigration is considered part of the reason for his dismal showing among Latino voters. Most Republicans, including the Republican National Committee as a whole, have rejected the "self-deport" language and other statements that they believe alienated Latinos.

Tancredo said it could be people like Paul who are alienating Latinos.

"Rand Paul said that the only reason why the GOP is losing the Hispanic vote is because we have turned them off with 'harsh rhetoric over immigration,'" Tancredo wrote. "Paul doesn't give a single example of what that 'harsh rhetoric' was. Presumably it could have included his pre-flip flop position on immigration."

Latinos are likely to be supportive of the senator's shift: Polling consistently shows that most Latino voters support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Tancredo left Congress in 2009, after failing in his efforts to establish English as the official national language and to put a moratorium on almost all legal immigration until the undocumented population significantly decreased. He made a failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, when he focused largely on the issue of immigration and ran an ad in Iowa graphically depicting a terrorist attack that he said could happen because of the country's immigration policies.

Since then, he has continued to be a harsh critic of immigration enforcement efforts -- including Arizona's contested SB 1070 law -- and has vowed this year to do what he can to advocate against comprehensive reform packages being shaped in Congress.

Tancredo has been similarly disappointed with an immigration reform framework put forward by the so-called "gang of eight" in the Senate. The group proposes that undocumented immigrants be legalized, then allowed to obtain green cards and eventual citizenship once certain border security requirements are met.

"[W]hat they offered represents the worst from both parties," he wrote of the group in a January Townhall op-ed. "The comprehensive immigration reform they offer reflects the tired scheme of amnesty and massive increases to legal immigration in exchange for vague promises of enforcement."

compromise
03-22-2013, 06:24 PM
Original op-Ed:

In 2010, I endorsed Rand Paul for US Senate, and my Political Action Committee that supports anti-amnesty candidates contributed to and raised money for his campaign. Rand Paul's platform stated, "I do not support amnesty. Those who come here should respect our laws." He supported Arizona's SB 1070, opposed birthright citizenship, an "electronic fence" and stated, "our greatest national security threat is our lack of security at the border."
Now, I am regretting my endorsement and contribution to his campaign. Since Obama's reelection, Rand Paul has repeatedly waffled on immigration. In a speech before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, he completely flip-flopped.
Rand Paul began his speech in Spanish and it went downhill from there. His speech was filled with virtually every single discredited pro-amnesty cliché you could imagine. He said our conversation on immigration must begin "by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants." He said he opposed amnesty, but then went on to promote just that arguing "The solution doesn't have to be amnesty or deportation-a middle ground might be called probation where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period."
The problem is that not one congressman or major commentator has called for deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants. Rather, we argue that strict enforcement of employer sanctions and allowing local police to cooperate in immigration enforcement will encourage most illegals to, in Mitt Romney's words, "self-deport."
Rand Paul's speech actually came out against E-Verify, which even John McCain and Barack Obama support. That's not the only way that Paul is softer than Obama on immigration. Both Obama and the Gang of 8 say that the illegal immigrants must pay a penalty for legal status, while Rand Paul told reporters after his speech he is not "not as a big a stickler" on these items, because the illegals would not be able to afford the fines.
Rand Paul said that Hispanics were "natural" Republicans who the GOP should be able to attract through "Defense of the unborn and defense of traditional marriage." In reality, according to exit polls after the 2012 election, whites opposed gay marriage 50-47%, while Hispanics supported gay marriage 59-32%. Moreover, Hispanics are twice as likely as whites to have abortions. This, along with the fact that Hispanics are more likely to support big government and describe themselves as politically liberal than whites is a major factor for why they vote Democratic.
Like us on Facebook
Instead, Rand Paul said that the only reason why the GOP is losing the Hispanic vote is because we have turned them off with "harsh rhetoric over immigration." Paul doesn't give a single example of what that "harsh rhetoric" was. Presumably it could have included his pre-flip flop position on immigration.
Rand Paul concluded his speech by quoting (in Spanish) the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda. Paul did not mention that Neruda served as a Senator for the Chilean Communist Party.
Rand Paul has poised himself as a GOP insurgent, but his stance on immigration is in line with the usual Democratic and RINO establishment. It's not surprising that Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer both praised Rand Paul's speech. I doubt the grassroots conservatives who elected Rand to Senate and whose support he expects if he runs for president in 2016 feel the same.
When I endorsed Rand Paul, I did not expect to agree with him on every issue. I respect people with strongly held beliefs regardless of what they are. Most importantly, I felt that I could trust him to maintain his campaign promises. I was wrong. Oh how I long for a Republican leader who exhibits true courage and integrity. That's the stuff leaders are made of. By endorsing the McCain-Obama immigration policy when it became politically expedient, Rand Paul has shown himself to be just another politician.

Sola_Fide
03-22-2013, 06:25 PM
Am I strange that I don't care about this debate at all?

jkr
03-22-2013, 06:51 PM
it matters because of banking & accounting philosophy that are incompatible

Slutter McGee
03-22-2013, 07:12 PM
Nice to know who the idiots are.

Slutter McGee

anaconda
03-22-2013, 07:18 PM
Am I strange that I don't care about this debate at all?

I hear ya, except I think Tancredo was kind of the Republican poster boy for the most intolerant stance on immigration. He built his whole 2008 primary around it. Sort of like Bachmann & Obamacare in 2012.

FSP-Rebel
03-22-2013, 07:20 PM
Is this Tom speaking on behalf of the Constitution Party?

anaconda
03-22-2013, 07:23 PM
Paul doesn't give a single example of what that "harsh rhetoric" was.

"Deport yourself until further notice" might be an example.

anaconda
03-22-2013, 07:26 PM
He supported Arizona's SB 1070, opposed birthright citizenship, an "electronic fence" and stated, "our greatest national security threat is our lack of security at the border."

Did Tom manage to miss the unique feature of Rand's proposal (border security first approved yearly by Congress)? And how it is completely consistent with his 2010 campaign platform for border security?

anaconda
03-22-2013, 07:35 PM
People like Tancredo, that don't understand liberty, get very confused when a liberty proposal appears "left-wing." Immigrants are good for our country. Welfare for immigrants is not. Immigrant labor helps grow the economy, rather than "steal jobs." Recent attempts to label Rand a "moderate" are because they don't understand what a real conservative actually looks like. Reminds me of when Dick Morris called Ron Paul "the most left-wing radical to run for President in the last 50 years.."

itshappening
03-22-2013, 08:11 PM
Do we have to get out his voting record ? I bet it's horrible, like him.

erowe1
03-22-2013, 08:17 PM
Has Rand ever supported employer sanctions?

If not, then how does his current lack of support for them equal a flip flop?

Christian Liberty
03-22-2013, 09:33 PM
Am I strange that I don't care about this debate at all?

I don't care particularly much but my inclination is toward immigration restrictions not really being justified as long as we aren't giving them welfare and private property owners aren't forbidden from discriminating against them (Well, or anyone else but different topic.)

People like Tancredo, that don't understand liberty, get very confused when a liberty proposal appears "left-wing." Immigrants are good for our country. Welfare for immigrants is not. Immigrant labor helps grow the economy, rather than "steal jobs." Recent attempts to label Rand a "moderate" are because they don't understand what a real conservative actually looks like. Reminds me of when Dick Morris called Ron Paul "the most left-wing radical to run for President in the last 50 years.."

+1.

jmdrake
03-22-2013, 10:04 PM
Let's see. Tancredo consistently polled lower than Ron in 2008. Just sayin.

juleswin
03-22-2013, 10:12 PM
I know it can be frustrating when guests to your house force you to bent their way. But Rand's position is the only one that would allow him to lose the least amount of support without losing himself.

Deporting 12 million people stance is now a losing fight and only an idiot will engage in a losing battle that is not a life or death one.

RonPaulFanInGA
03-22-2013, 10:56 PM
Who were the last three GOP presidential nominees? Bush, McCain and Romney...all soft on immigration.

Who were the big losers? People such as Tancredo.

FrankRep
03-22-2013, 10:59 PM
Is this Tom speaking on behalf of the Constitution Party?
Tom Tancredo speaks for Tom Tancredo.

fr33
03-22-2013, 11:37 PM
Tancredo's ancestors immigrated here illegally.

fr33
03-22-2013, 11:45 PM
Every native nation refused to recognize US citizenship. Of course we know they killed off anybody willing to enforce such laws.

Using rhetoric like Tancredo's: Go back to Italy. That's where you belong you damn invader.

Carson
03-23-2013, 12:04 AM
Yeah Tom Tancredo!


Self deportation seems all we've been left with unfortunately.

Here is my two-step plan.

We may have to kiss the keisters of the illegal invaders, it is still a felony to aid and abet them.

If some honest men and women in law enforcement, would go after the lowlifes in the government, business, and the general population that have been aiding and abetting them, by the time they had enough of a handle on the job to raise their heads and look around, I don’t think many illegal aliens would still be left.

We don't need any new laws to do this either. Just some honest men and women in law enforcement that take their oaths of office seriously!

Finding them is the first step!



Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(B)(ii)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Carson
03-23-2013, 12:12 AM
Do we have to get out his voting record ? I bet it's horrible, like him.


https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/146/reportcard/CAREER/



If you want to look up others;

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/tools/grades/list/0/CAREER/US/A/Grade/Active



Ron Paul's report card.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/787/reportcard/CAREER/

anaconda
03-23-2013, 12:16 AM
Yeah Tom Tancredo!


Self deportation seems all we've been left with unfortunately.

Here is my two-step plan.

We may have to kiss the keisters of the illegal invaders, it is still a felony to aid and abet them.

If some honest men and women in law enforcement, would go after the lowlifes in the government, business, and the general population that have been aiding and abetting them, by the time they had enough of a handle on the job to raise their heads and look around, I don’t think many illegal aliens would still be left.

We don't need any new laws to do this either. Just some honest men and women in law enforcement that take their oaths of office seriously!

Finding them is the first step!



Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(B)(ii)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

So if I let a tired and hungry illegal sleep overnight on my couch and feed him/her a meal I can go to prison for 5 years. No wonder no one respects the law in this country.

fr33
03-23-2013, 12:17 AM
Good people break bad laws.

Carson
03-23-2013, 12:19 AM
"Tom Tancredo No Longer Supports Rand"


Who quit whom first?

spladle
03-23-2013, 12:39 AM
Carson, how do you feel about Mexicans? What about black people? Just wondering.

spladle
03-23-2013, 12:41 AM
Off the top of your head, do you know what the average IQs of the various races are?

Carson
03-23-2013, 12:44 AM
Carson, how do you feel about Mexicans? What about black people? Just wondering.

Pretty much like I feel about everyone else...

except when I'm feeling prejudice...

then it is only half prejudice...

I like their women...


because I know your going to ask.

Everyone's women.

fr33
03-23-2013, 12:59 AM
We don't currently have any illegal immigrants employed but if it were up to me we would. Over 3 years we've hired 5 American citizens for the job and their average time spent employed by us is 3 weeks before they quit. US citizens are overweight and utterly dependent on others to put the food on their table. If I were to choose the hardest workers on the globe, it would NOT be US citizens.

"They took our jobs" doesn't work with me because I don't know of an American citizen willing to do this job. When it comes to labor and production, foreigners are far more superior than Americans.

If you want a job, PM me. I'd love to meet people that actually understand the physical labor market.

Carson
03-23-2013, 01:13 AM
Tom Tancredo brings back memories of other things I wrote and discovered back when he was running for President. I think the following was about that time.


When I started looking into where the money was coming from to buy off the politicians and subvert the immigration laws of the world, I came across what may be the root of many of our problems. Fiat Money.

No matter how much real money people can put together to build their countries the way they want there are those that can print up what ever it takes to get their way.

Maybe this will help make the danger of fiat money clear.

Imagine you and me are setting across from each other. We create enough money to represent all of the world's wealth. Each one of us has one SUPER Dollar in front of him.

You own half of everything and so do I.

I'm the government though. I get bribed into creating a Central Bank.

You're not doing what I want you to be doing so I print up myself eight more SUPER Dollars to manipulate you with.

All of a sudden your SUPER Dollar only represents one tenth of the wealth of the world!

That isn't the only thing though. You need to get busy and get to work because YOU'VE BEEN STIFFED with the bill for the money I PRINTED UP to get YOU TO DO what I WANTED.

That to me represents what has been happening to the economy, and us, and why so many of our occupations just can't keep up with the fake money presses.

fr33
03-23-2013, 01:16 AM
What? Your fatass kids are going to college and are above harvesting crops as a job? Well duh. Your representatives are against individualism and instead want education bonuses presented to their children so they can realize what a tyrant he is.

Carson
03-23-2013, 01:23 AM
I still think some are missing the point that they are playing the illegal aliens into the hands of the criminals in the government and business. If you had any compassion wouldn't you want them coming in legally if they are truly needed?

I saw it working in the sixties and seventies. People came from all over the world for an opportunity to work here. We worked side by side for the same wages and benefits. They came because they were skilled. I was just starting out and learned much from them. Sometimes their visas would run out and they would decide to go home. It was a bummer seeing them go. I often thought they took a little of what we had here back home with them. I knew they had taught and left some with me. Now I would be kind of ashamed to share our way of doing things... and others.

compromise
03-23-2013, 02:54 AM
This is actually quite similar to what Tancredo said when Ron disavowed his early paleoconservative stance on immigration in favor of a more tolerant one:


On Thursday, Ron Paul announced he would form an exploratory committee for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. This is about as unexpected as spring snow melt.

I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend. We didn’t see eye to eye on every issue, but he was generally an ally in the fight against illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it appears that Paul’s views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp.

Last week, Rep. Paul released his latest book, “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.” One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in the book than I have ever seen before.

The result is not pretty. Paul’s book misrepresents the views of immigration-control advocates and then insults their motivations. He insinuates that patriotic Americans who oppose mass immigration are lazy and motivated by race. He says that immigrants “have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.” He also claims, “It’s hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant."

The immigration website VDARE.com refutes both of these assertions. They note that 77 percent of illegal aliens are Hispanic, while less than 5 percent of illegal and 10 percent of legal immigrants are European – so the idea that we are treating Europeans specially is specious. VDARE also points to a Center for Immigration Studies report that shows immigrants are much more likely to be on welfare than native-born American citizens.

In addition to insulting the motives of the critics of uncontrolled immigration, he argues against policies that we don’t support. According to Paul, immigration-control advocates want to “use the U.S. Army, round them up, ship them home.” In my decades fighting this battle, I have not once heard anyone advocate using the military for deportations.

Paul says deporting illegal immigrants will require “splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades.” Of course, there is nothing keeping the children of illegal immigrants from going home for their parents. If we got rid of birthright citizenship, which Paul says he supports, that would not be an issue to begin with.

As for the illegals here for decades, why should we reward them for breaking the law longer than others? Some crimes have a statute of limitation, but unlawful entry into our country does not.

According to Paul, deporting such people would be “incompatible with human rights.” That is an off argument for any true libertarian to make, since the protection of true human rights begins with the U.S. Constitution and our ability to enforce the rule of law.

The truth is that we do not need to deport all illegal aliens to make them go home. If we simply prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens by using E-Verify and step up interior enforcement as Arizona, Oklahoma and other states have done, most illegal aliens will go home on their own.

Paul comes out against both these policies. He not only opposes the E-Verify program, he even comes out against all laws that prohibit employers from hiring illegal aliens. To make his point even more dramatic, he absurdly calls the idea of fining employers for hiring illegal aliens “involuntary servitude.”

Paul comes out against Arizona’s popular SB 1070 law using absurd arguments of the type normally heard only from America-hating leftists: “Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of ‘suspicion’ is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a ‘threat,’ without charges ever being made.”

I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what supposed secret prisons and political assassinations have to do with enforcing our immigration laws. The Arizona law’s definition of 
”reasonable suspicion” is the same standard that applies for federal immigration officials and local law enforcement for non-immigration violations, so the law does not expand police powers.

So if we can’t enforce the law, what does Paul want to do with the 12 million illegal aliens here in this country? While he says he opposes amnesty, he argues, “Maybe a ‘green card’ with an asterisk could be issued.” This “asterisk” would deny them welfare and not grant them immediate “automatic citizenship.” Both these qualifications are meaningless because every amnesty proposal makes illegal aliens jump through some symbolic hoops before they get amnesty.

I have no idea why he has changed his position on illegal immigration, but one thing is clear: Asterisk or not, Ron Paul now supports amnesty.

LibertyEagle
03-23-2013, 03:37 AM
People like Tancredo, that don't understand liberty, get very confused when a liberty proposal appears "left-wing." Immigrants are good for our country. Welfare for immigrants is not. Immigrant labor helps grow the economy, rather than "steal jobs." Recent attempts to label Rand a "moderate" are because they don't understand what a real conservative actually looks like. Reminds me of when Dick Morris called Ron Paul "the most left-wing radical to run for President in the last 50 years.."

Immigrants are not the same thing as Illegal Aliens. We are a nation of laws. The people who broke our laws should not be rewarded for so doing, while those who did not are penalized for following them.

LibertyEagle
03-23-2013, 03:44 AM
This is actually quite similar to what Tancredo said when Ron disavowed his early paleoconservative stance on immigration in favor of a more tolerant one:

Ron was not pro-amnesty and was against open borders. He just did not believe it was too smart to strip our own selves of our liberties in the quest to curtail illegal immigration. Rather, he thought it wiser to remove the incentives. Everything Dr. Paul recommended was for the purpose of defending both our liberty and our national sovereignty and there is not anything about it that runs counter to paleo-conservatism.

Miguel
03-23-2013, 03:49 AM
What's so funny is that self deportation was a spoof done by a Mexican comedian, I can't remember his name though he had parodies running all over the place. He had radio adds running, started a mock foundation group. They would interview him on the radio, local TV stations. Then anti immigrant conservatives would take that position, even Romney did:)

Bastiat's The Law
03-23-2013, 04:17 AM
Make Tancredo pay at the voting booth when he runs for Governor of Colorado. Very soon they will learn not to reckon with the liberty movement, we'll reach out and touch you in more place than you know.

Luciconsort
03-23-2013, 05:08 AM
Am I strange that I don't care about this debate at all?

I was thinking the same thing.... don't care, next topic.

Feeding the Abscess
03-23-2013, 05:44 AM
Freed negroes are not the same thing as Fugitive Slaves. We are a nation of laws. The people who broke our laws should not be rewarded for so doing, while those who did not are penalized for following them.

Simply changing the subject from 'immigrant' to 'negro' reveals your position as an argument from authority. As someone who purports to represent a limited government ideal, you should know better than to commit that fallacy.

compromise
03-23-2013, 06:30 AM
Make Tancredo pay at the voting booth when he runs for Governor of Colorado. Very soon they will learn not to reckon with the liberty movement, we'll reach out and touch you in more place than you know.

While I don't agree with Tancredo on this issue, he'd be far better than his Democratic opponent and probably wouldn't win anyway, he seems too right wing/traditionalist (except on drugs) for Colorado.

Southron
03-23-2013, 07:10 AM
Libertarians will never see any real political power for long. About the time they get enough power to open up immigration and therefore citizenship, their newfound fellow citizens will vote them out. Lol.

erowe1
03-23-2013, 07:48 AM
If you had any compassion wouldn't you want them coming in legally if they are truly needed?

Yes. I want to make what they're doing legal.

Brett85
03-23-2013, 07:53 AM
Ron was not pro-amnesty and was against open borders. He just did not believe it was too smart to strip our own selves of our liberties in the quest to curtail illegal immigration. Rather, he thought it wiser to remove the incentives. Everything Dr. Paul recommended was for the purpose of defending both our liberty and our national sovereignty and there is not anything about it that runs counter to paleo-conservatism.

Rand is a lot stronger on the issue of border security than Ron was. Ron opposed the fence and voted against multiple border security bills while he was in the house, including putting our troops along the border. I don't care nearly as much about what we do with the 11 million illegals who are here as I care about whether we secure the borders right now. Rand is the only one with a plan to fully secure the border right now, which is why I don't have a problem with his plan.

supermario21
03-23-2013, 08:48 AM
Tancredo did a pretty good job in 2010. He lost to Hickenlooper 51-38-11 with a really bad Republican refusing to drop out gaining 11%.

Origanalist
03-23-2013, 09:01 AM
Libertarians will never see any real political power for long. About the time they get enough power to open up immigration and therefore citizenship, their newfound fellow citizens will vote them out. Lol.

Yep.

spladle
03-23-2013, 11:47 AM
Immigrants are not the same thing as Illegal Aliens. We are a nation of laws. The people who broke our laws should not be rewarded for so doing, while those who did not are penalized for following them.

LibertyEagle, could you share your thoughts on Jim Crow laws and those people who broke them, such as Rosa Parks and MLK? Do you think it was unfair to reward these unapologetic lawbreakers while penalizing those less-uppity blacks who knew their place and followed the laws?

spladle
03-23-2013, 11:49 AM
I was thinking the same thing.... don't care, next topic.

"I was fortunate enough to be born in the world's best country, and fuck everyone who wasn't."

#Privilege

brandon
03-23-2013, 11:49 AM
I stopped caring about Tancredo after he welched on his promise to smoke weed if it was legalized.

Brett85
03-23-2013, 11:52 AM
I stopped caring about Tancredo after he welched on his promise to smoke weed if it was legalized.

I stopped caring about him after he voted for TARP and the auto bailouts.

erowe1
03-23-2013, 11:54 AM
Immigrants are not the same thing as Illegal Aliens.

But if the illegal aliens were legalized, then they would be.

juleswin
03-23-2013, 12:01 PM
Libertarians will never see any real political power for long. About the time they get enough power to open up immigration and therefore citizenship, their newfound fellow citizens will vote them out. Lol.

But the waves have been rising for quite a while and not even a libertarian presidency would stop it, its better we quit fighting it and pull out our board and surf the damn thing.

All the voting activism to stop voter ID laws is not enable the 80 yr old black lady in city who for whatever reason never bothered to get an ID to vote, it is to allow the illegals to vote and they are winning.

Origanalist
03-23-2013, 12:29 PM
But the waves have been rising for quite a while and not even a libertarian presidency would stop it, its better we quit fighting it and pull out our board and surf the damn thing.

All the voting activism to stop voter ID laws is not enable the 80 yr old black lady in city who for whatever reason never bothered to get an ID to vote, it is to allow the illegals to vote and they are winning.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=chqwpq9ZxoA

Southron
03-23-2013, 12:34 PM
But the waves have been rising for quite a while and not even a libertarian presidency would stop it, its better we quit fighting it and pull out our board and surf the damn thing.

I think that wave is headed in the wrong direction. You have to consider the government of the countries these people are fleeing, and realize that they aren't fleeing because they disagree with their governments, they just "want to be rich like the Americans". That is not a recipe for freedom.

Brian4Liberty
03-23-2013, 01:01 PM
Ron Paul was the better alternative to Tancredo in '08.

Tancredo was very good at exposing the lies from the Corporatists and the miscellaneous other agendas for increased immigration, but he's a one trick pony. He was very bad at falling for other lies like the warfare State and the Federal Reserve.

Brian4Liberty
03-23-2013, 01:04 PM
Tancredo is a one main issue guy. There are many people like that.

Brian4Liberty
03-23-2013, 01:11 PM
Ron Paul 2006.


Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

by Ron Paul

A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It's the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one's birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.

Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.

I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that's precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It's time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

October 3, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

spladle
03-23-2013, 01:12 PM
Reading this thread is disgusting, so I'm going to stop. I'm just glad all you xenophobic racist pieces of garbage are too poor to matter or hold any sway over the electoral process, and so we're going to shove immigration reform down your throats, then make you swallow and ask for more. Have fun watching the white race go extinct, assholes!

erowe1
03-23-2013, 01:25 PM
Have fun watching the white race go extinct

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there really is a white race. How would immigration have anything to do with it going extinct?

Brian4Liberty
03-23-2013, 01:26 PM
Reading this thread is disgusting, so I'm going to stop. I'm just glad all you xenophobic racist pieces of garbage are too poor to matter or hold any sway over the electoral process, and so we're going to shove immigration reform down your throats, then make you swallow and ask for more. Have fun watching the white race go extinct, assholes!

So you call everyone else racists, but your true desire is to see "the white race go extinct". Nice. :rolleyes:

itshappening
03-23-2013, 01:28 PM
"No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens"

The UK is quite liberal about it and so are other countries in Europe:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/eligibility/children/britishcitizen/borninuk/

Origanalist
03-23-2013, 01:59 PM
Reading this thread is disgusting, so I'm going to stop. I'm just glad all you xenophobic racist pieces of garbage are too poor to matter or hold any sway over the electoral process, and so we're going to shove immigration reform down your throats, then make you swallow and ask for more. Have fun watching the white race go extinct, assholes!

spladle splat.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5026422612363252&pid=15.1

spladle
03-23-2013, 02:14 PM
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there really is a white race. How would immigration have anything to do with it going extinct?

1) There really is a white race.

2) The sort of people who are concerned about "the white race going extinct" tend to be hardcore racists and advocates of immigration restriction.

spladle
03-23-2013, 02:21 PM
So you call everyone else racists, but your true desire is to see "the white race go extinct". Nice. :rolleyes:

No, I do not call "everyone else" racists. I only label "racist" that subset of the population which believes it is desirable to bludgeon, beat, starve, kill, and torture other human beings solely on the basis of who their parents happen to be, where they happened to be born, and what color their skin is. This seems to me like a reasonable definition of "racist."

And I have no desire to see the white race go extinct. I'm white myself. I like white people a lot!

spladle
03-23-2013, 02:22 PM
spladle splat.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5026422612363252&pid=15.1

It's true, my ejaculate is rainbow-colored.

anaconda
03-23-2013, 03:26 PM
Immigrants are not the same thing as Illegal Aliens. We are a nation of laws. The people who broke our laws should not be rewarded for so doing, while those who did not are penalized for following them.

We have had defacto legal immigration by not controlling our borders. To round up 11 million people gestapo style because we couldn't get a grip on our federal bureaucrats seems counterproductive and costly. Let's start controlling the border and let these 11 million continue to provide labor to their employers. #StandWithRand

William R
03-23-2013, 04:12 PM
People like Tancredo, that don't understand liberty, get very confused when a liberty proposal appears "left-wing." Immigrants are good for our country. Welfare for immigrants is not. Immigrant labor helps grow the economy, rather than "steal jobs." Recent attempts to label Rand a "moderate" are because they don't understand what a real conservative actually looks like. Reminds me of when Dick Morris called Ron Paul "the most left-wing radical to run for President in the last 50 years.."

50+ percent of Hispanic families are on welfare. Granting amnesty will allow them to bring their extended families to the USA. We will see a rapid increase in the size of the welfare states. That's why Milton Friedman said you can't have open borders with a welfare state.

Huge strategic blunder by Rand. He will not get the GOP nomination now.

anaconda
03-23-2013, 04:25 PM
Huge strategic blunder by Rand. He will not get the GOP nomination now.

Good luck on the GOP getting a nominee that can win a general election. However, I am confident that much of the "tough-on-immigration" vote will be sufficiently attracted to Rand's other conservative positions to pull the lever for him.

erowe1
03-23-2013, 05:00 PM
50+ percent of Hispanic families are on welfare. Granting amnesty will allow them to bring their extended families to the USA.
How do you propose not letting them bring their extended families?



Huge strategic blunder by Rand. He will not get the GOP nomination now.
Has it been your observation in recent elections that the GOP nomination tends to go to candidates who distinguish themselves by wanting to restrict immigration?

Carson
03-23-2013, 05:09 PM
Perhaps this goes beyond a race or a color. There are borders all around the world.

Also not just around countries. There are borders to many concepts. People who try to build tend to try and hold to a set of rules in a given space.

It is more about respect.

erowe1
03-23-2013, 05:12 PM
Perhaps this goes beyond a race or a color. There are borders all around the world.

Also not just around countries. There are borders to many concepts. People who try to build tend to try and hold to a set of rules in a given space.

But borders shouldn't be imposed on us against our will. If I want to hire, or work for, or rent a room out to, or marry, or assimilate to, people of whatever culture I want, the regime has no business stopping me.

Brett85
03-23-2013, 05:14 PM
Good luck on the GOP getting a nominee that can win a general election. However, I am confident that much of the "tough-on-immigration" vote will be sufficiently attracted to Rand's other conservative positions to pull the lever for him.

And Rand actually is tough on illegal immigration, since he's the only one who's presented a plan that will actually secure the border.

anaconda
03-23-2013, 06:04 PM
And Rand actually is tough on illegal immigration, since he's the only one who's presented a plan that will actually secure the border.

A fact seemingly lost on Tom Tancredo.

Christian Liberty
03-23-2013, 06:25 PM
But borders shouldn't be imposed on us against our will. If I want to hire, or work for, or rent a room out to, or marry, or assimilate to, people of whatever culture I want, the regime has no business stopping me.

Agreed, but the regime also has no right to steal from me in order to pay for anyone, including illegals.

Brett85
03-23-2013, 07:14 PM
It seems as though Rand is right in line with the American people and the Republican Party on this issue. 72% of Americans support a path to citizenship, but 84% of Americans also support border security to stop illegal immigration, and 69% support securing the border first, before we move on to a path to citizenship.

http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

fr33
03-23-2013, 07:26 PM
I found his line about Rand speaking Spanish to be offensive and slightly racist.

anaconda
03-23-2013, 07:48 PM
I found his line about Rand speaking Spanish to be offensive and slightly racist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLVWwE1P5pg

spladle
03-23-2013, 08:03 PM
50+ percent of Hispanic families are on welfare. Granting amnesty will allow them to bring their extended families to the USA. We will see a rapid increase in the size of the welfare states.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this were true. An increase in the size of the welfare state would be unimaginably better than the present state of Apartheid/Jim Crow that exists today. Surely you agree, yes?


That's why Milton Friedman said you can't have open borders with a welfare state.

Nobody is proposing open borders in the sense that MF meant it. "Instant citizenship" is not on the table.


Huge strategic blunder by Rand. He will not get the GOP nomination now.

McCain is well to the left of Rand on this issue, as is Marco Rubio. Ignoring how wrong you are, though, let's pretend this was in fact the case. If only inhuman monsters can win the GOP nomination, then we shouldn't want to win the GOP nomination. We should be working to burn the party to the fucking ground.

Origanalist
03-23-2013, 08:14 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that this were true. An increase in the size of the welfare state would be unimaginably better than the present state of Apartheid/Jim Crow that exists today. Surely you agree, yes?


I'm not for a increase in the warfare-welfare state in any circumstance.

spladle
03-23-2013, 08:32 PM
I'm not for a increase in the warfare-welfare state in any circumstance.

This seems like an absurd statement. You're saying you'd prefer the status quo to a state that spent 1/4 as much on warfare and 1.01x as much on welfare? Or 1/4 as much on welfare and 1.01x as much on warfare?

Origanalist
03-23-2013, 08:38 PM
This seems like an absurd statement. You're saying you'd prefer the status quo to a state that spent 1/4 as much on warfare and 1.01x as much on welfare? Or 1/4 as much on welfare and 1.01x as much on warfare?

Oh for petes sake, are you trolling me because you're bored?

anaconda
03-23-2013, 08:40 PM
the present state of Apartheid/Jim Crow that exists today.


Where do we find Jim Crow today?

fr33
03-23-2013, 08:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLVWwE1P5pg
Enough speeches like that could win a general election.


Where do we find Jim Crow today?Smoking bans in restaurants and bars.

anaconda
03-23-2013, 08:50 PM
Smoking bans in restaurants and bars.

Jim Crow is racist by definition. Therefore I don't believe smoking bans would qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

anaconda
03-23-2013, 08:54 PM
Enough speeches like that could win a general election.


This is the wildcard that the media isn't really talking about that much. Rand is an amazingly effective and communicative speaker. One of the best in generations. He will inspire legions.

Christian Liberty
03-23-2013, 09:00 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that this were true. An increase in the size of the welfare state would be unimaginably better than the present state of Apartheid/Jim Crow that exists today. Surely you agree, yes?

I'm as "Anti-Empire" as anyone, but how is the US Government "Apartheid?"

Murderous? I'll buy that. Evil? Sure. But apartheid?

alucard13mmfmj
03-23-2013, 09:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLVWwE1P5pg

is.. is he using teleprompters?

anaconda
03-23-2013, 09:36 PM
Paul Broun & Laura Ingraham discuss immigration and both mention Rand.

http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp;jsessionid=0902E878975814 23FB02AB7909BBF54D?dispid=302&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanN wP3BpZD0xNDQyMQ==

anaconda
03-23-2013, 09:38 PM
is.. is he using teleprompters?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_AAMa_X2dM

supermario21
03-23-2013, 11:09 PM
I think Broun's situation is worse. He basically wants to let the problem continue because he doesn't want to deport anyone.

anaconda
03-23-2013, 11:17 PM
I think Broun's situation is worse. He basically wants to let the problem continue because he doesn't want to deport anyone.

I didn't fully understand Broun's policy ideas. I think he doesn't want to deport anyone (unless they're "caught") because it's too expensive. But I assume he does not want to give out work visas.

spladle
03-23-2013, 11:59 PM
Oh for petes sake, are you trolling me because you're bored?

"I'm not for _____ in any circumstances" is virtually always going to be a stupid thing to say, regardless of what you fill in the blank with. Now, you're welcome to write dumb stuff all you like, but don't cry "troll" when someone calls you on it.

spladle
03-24-2013, 12:02 AM
Where do we find Jim Crow today?

The United States government forcibly prevents persons born in other countries from making mutually beneficial exchanges with persons born in the United States. Banning voluntary exchange was the hallmark of Jim Crow and it continues to this day by another name - immigration restrictions.

fr33
03-24-2013, 12:04 AM
Jim Crow is racist by definition. Therefore I don't believe smoking bans would qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
Smoking bans aren't racist but are discriminatory and are forced upon businesses against their will. There is a comparison to be made.

anaconda
03-24-2013, 12:08 AM
The United States government forcibly prevents persons born in other countries from making mutually beneficial exchanges with persons born in the United States. Banning voluntary exchange was the hallmark of Jim Crow and it continues to this day by another name - immigration restrictions.

I don't believe this qualifies as racist and cannot, therefore, qualify as Jim Crow. The U.S. forcibly discriminates based upon nationality with respect to immigration, not race.

anaconda
03-24-2013, 12:14 AM
Smoking bans aren't racist but are discriminatory

So smoking bans cannot be correctly characterized as "Jim Crow" since there is no racial component to the discrimination, and since "Jim Crow" is a specific type of discrimination meeting additional specialized criteria. It would be analogous to calling a vegetarian a vegan.

Austrian Econ Disciple
03-24-2013, 12:16 AM
Jim Crow? Lol. The only thing going around today that resembles Jim Crow is Affirmative Action, but what does that have to do with immigration? I could care less what 'Tom Tancredo' thinks, and you should to.

spladle
03-24-2013, 12:19 AM
I don't believe this qualifies as racist and cannot, therefore, qualify as Jim Crow. The U.S. forcibly discriminates based upon nationality only with respect to immigration, not race.

Okay. Nationalism is a good deal worse than racism.

Karsten
03-24-2013, 12:29 AM
Stuff like this makes me support Rand MORE, not less.

anaconda
03-24-2013, 12:32 AM
Okay. Nationalism is a good deal worse than racism.

If a bunch of guys in white robes and hoods were trying to lynch me I might disagree.

spladle
03-24-2013, 12:36 AM
If a bunch of guys in white robes were trying to lynch me I might disagree.

You'd be a fool to. That'd be like having a family member fall victim to gun violence and deciding on that basis to support gun control.

http://www.volokh.com/2009/12/01/against-nationalism/

spladle
03-24-2013, 12:43 AM
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/12/patria_parenti.html

anaconda
03-24-2013, 01:03 AM
You'd be a fool to. That'd be like having a family member fall victim to gun violence and deciding on that basis to support gun control.

http://www.volokh.com/2009/12/01/against-nationalism/

For many, the danger of lynching far exceeded the danger of nationalism. If I am an Eskimo it is logical to fear polar bears more than cheetahs. And has nothing to do with banning weapons across demographics. Fear of racism does not logically imply an endorsement of nationalism, as both are bad and may or may not be related. To say one is "worse" than the other is a normative statement that would be entirely dependent on a set of Ceteris paribus assumptions and relative value judgements.

Carson
03-24-2013, 03:52 AM
http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/thebegining/84604371v3_150x150_Front.JPG

Origanalist
03-24-2013, 05:34 AM
Originally Posted by Origanalist

I'm not for a increase in the warfare-welfare state in any circumstance.



This seems like an absurd statement. You're saying you'd prefer the status quo to a state that spent 1/4 as much on warfare and 1.01x as much on welfare? Or 1/4 as much on welfare and 1.01x as much on warfare?




"I'm not for _____ in any circumstances" is virtually always going to be a stupid thing to say, regardless of what you fill in the blank with. Now, you're welcome to write dumb stuff all you like, but don't cry "troll" when someone calls you on it.

You didn't "call" me on anything, you're just being a dipshit. And the examples you gave are a decrease in the warfare-welfare state, so obviously I would support the reduction and look for more.

AuH20
03-24-2013, 09:37 AM
Tom Tancedo is 100% correct in his assessment. Nevertheless, I stand with Rand Paul despite this error on his part.

AuH20
03-24-2013, 09:45 AM
People like Tancredo, that don't understand liberty, get very confused when a liberty proposal appears "left-wing." Immigrants are good for our country. Welfare for immigrants is not. Immigrant labor helps grow the economy, rather than "steal jobs." Recent attempts to label Rand a "moderate" are because they don't understand what a real conservative actually looks like. Reminds me of when Dick Morris called Ron Paul "the most left-wing radical to run for President in the last 50 years.."

There is nothing conservative about catering to the demands of race based special interest groups and ignoring the law as well as the current immigration system set in place. Nothing whatsoever.

spladle
03-24-2013, 11:05 AM
For many, the danger of lynching far exceeded the danger of nationalism. If I am an Eskimo it is logical to fear polar bears more than cheetahs. And has nothing to do with banning weapons across demographics. Fear of racism does not logically imply an endorsement of nationalism, as both are bad and may or may not be related. To say one is "worse" than the other is a normative statement that would be entirely dependent on a set of Ceteris paribus assumptions and relative value judgements.

Everything in this post is true. The sort of assumptions and value judgments one would need to make in order to think that racism was worse than nationalism, though, are so wildly outside the mainstream that I'm fairly certain no reasonable person could credibly argue for that proposition without being thought a monster or a fool.

spladle
03-24-2013, 11:12 AM
You didn't "call" me on anything, you're just being a dipshit. And the examples you gave are a decrease in the warfare-welfare state, so obviously I would support the reduction and look for more.

Rousing rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, the warfare state and the welfare state are not intrinsically linked and are in fact often engaged in a zero-sum competition for resources - that is, an increase in one requires a decrease in the other and vice versa.

Leaving that aside, though, you appear to have sacralized this issue (shrinking the warfare/welfare state) to an untenable degree. You should recognize that and stop it. Growth in the welfare state, while prima facie undesirable, is (or should be) easily justifiable under certain conditions. If growth in the welfare state is a necessary result of diminished immigration restrictions (a claim that I dispute but will accept for the sake of argument), then we should welcome that growth with open arms. Agreed?

spladle
03-24-2013, 11:17 AM
There is nothing conservative about catering to the demands of race based special interest groups and ignoring the law as well as the current Jim Crow system set in place. Nothing whatsoever.

Yeah, fuck those darkies, amirite? Those lawbreaking n*ggers should go sit at the back of the bus and stay in their shitty schools like the law SAYS they should. Damned uppity race based special interest groups demanding equality before the law . . . it's almost as bad as when that filthy race based special interest group (the Republican Party) made us stop treating blacks like property!

Origanalist
03-24-2013, 11:18 AM
Rousing rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, the warfare state and the welfare state are not intrinsically linked and are in fact often engaged in a zero-sum competition for resources - that is, an increase in one requires a decrease in the other and vice versa.

Leaving that aside, though, you appear to have sacralized this issue (shrinking the warfare/welfare state) to an untenable degree. You should recognize that and stop it. Growth in the welfare state, while prima facie undesirable, is (or should be) easily justifiable under certain conditions. If growth in the welfare state is a necessary result of diminished immigration restrictions (a claim that I dispute but will accept for the sake of argument), then we should welcome that growth with open arms. Agreed?

Lol, no.

acptulsa
03-24-2013, 11:35 AM
Yeah, fuck those darkies, amirite? Those lawbreaking n*ggers should go sit at the back of the bus and stay in their shitty schools like the law SAYS they should. Damned uppity race based special interest groups demanding equality before the law . . . it's almost as bad as when that filthy race based special interest group (the Republican Party) made us stop treating blacks like property!

Amusing bit of trolling you're doing here. But you're full of shit. And it's about time someone said so.

Is nationalism worse than racism? Maybe. Arguably it has resulted in more deaths over history. That said, there have been wars fought over legitimate grievances, and which had nothing to do with race at all. Two wars with Germany had nothing to do with discrimination; the U.S. was chock-a-bloc with people of German descent the whole time. So, we had nationalism that was anything but racist, in response to nationalism that had a huge racist component, and perhaps the most noble thing accomplished by our nationalism was to stop their racist genocide. So, maybe nationalism is not worse than racism. Certainly it has been longer since nationalism was used as an excuse for either slavery or genocide than racism.

Now, am I outside the mainstream with this? Am I a monster or a fool?

As for what your baiting in this post signifies, other than the fact that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have historically been on both the right and the wrong side of the racism issue, I'm sure I don't know. But I'm not impressed by it either way.

Origanalist
03-24-2013, 12:11 PM
Amusing bit of trolling you're doing here. But you're full of shit. And it's about time someone said so.

Is nationalism worse than racism? Maybe. Arguably it has resulted in more deaths over history. That said, there have been wars fought over legitimate grievances, and which had nothing to do with race at all. Two wars with Germany had nothing to do with discrimination; the U.S. was chock-a-bloc with people of German descent the whole time. So, we had nationalism that was anything but racist, in response to nationalism that had a huge racist component, and perhaps the most noble thing accomplished by our nationalism was to stop their racist genocide. So, maybe nationalism is not worse than racism. Certainly it has been longer since nationalism was used as an excuse for either slavery or genocide than racism.

Now, am I outside the mainstream with this? Am I a monster or a fool?

As for what your baiting in this post signifies, other than the fact that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have historically been on both the right and the wrong side of the racism issue, I'm sure I don't know. But I'm not impressed by it either way.

Beat you to it. (in so many words.....)

misean
03-24-2013, 01:15 PM
Here's Barry Goldwater's response to all the "conservative" asshats like Tom Tancredo:

His words of 1978 make absolute sense in 2008:

"Don’t offer amnesty to those already here illegally. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are unfair; it is the government’s responsibility to determine who is here legally.

Start a guest worker program to “channel the flow” of illegal immigrants through a legal mechanism.

And establish a clear immigration policy that is actually enforced."

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/06/05/87274-kimble-immigration-what-would-barry-do/

I wonder who Barry Goldwater sounds like?

acptulsa
03-24-2013, 01:19 PM
His words of 1978 make absolute sense in 2008:

"Don’t offer amnesty to those already here illegally. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are unfair; it is the government’s responsibility to determine who is here legally.

Start a guest worker program to “channel the flow” of illegal immigrants through a legal mechanism.

His words of 1978 would make more sense today if only we weren't trashing our own economy and exporting our own jobs. Awfully effective way for them to set us at each other's throats, isn't it..?

misean
03-24-2013, 01:37 PM
His words of 1978 would make more sense today if only we weren't trashing our own economy and exporting our own jobs. Awfully effective way for them to set us at each other's throats, isn't it..?

What do you mean exporting our own jobs? It's pretty basic comparative advantage. If China makes soccer balls more cheaply than in the US, it is best for them to make soccer balls. We buy their soccer balls with dollars and they in turn buy things like wheat with their dollars that the US has a comparative advantage in. Everyone wins.

There is never a shortage of jobs, only a shortage of productivity brought on by government interference in the market. Immigrants don't trash the economy.

acptulsa
03-24-2013, 01:59 PM
What do you mean exporting our own jobs? It's pretty basic comparative advantage. If China makes soccer balls more cheaply than in the US, it is best for them to make soccer balls. We buy their soccer balls with dollars and they in turn buy things like wheat with their dollars that the US has a comparative advantage in. Everyone wins.

There is never a shortage of jobs, only a shortage of productivity brought on by government interference in the market. Immigrants don't trash the economy.

'There is never a shortage of jobs, only a shortage of productivity brought on by government interference in the market.' If you knew what I meant by 'exporting our own jobs,' why did you ask? If the government didn't make domestic manufacturing all but impossible, we wouldn't have any trouble at all turning a profit making our own soccer balls. Especially since we wouldn't have to ship them halfway around the world to ourselves.

Shane Harris
03-24-2013, 02:27 PM
Am I strange that I don't care about this debate at all?

This is how I feel. Never have. Feels like such a distraction.

misean
03-24-2013, 02:36 PM
'There is never a shortage of jobs, only a shortage of productivity brought on by government interference in the market.' If you knew what I meant by 'exporting our own jobs,' why did you ask? If the government didn't make domestic manufacturing all but impossible, we wouldn't have any trouble at all turning a profit making our own soccer balls. Especially since we wouldn't have to ship them halfway around the world to ourselves.

I'm not sure you are getting the reason for free trade.

If soccer balls are made more cheaply overseas than in the US then why should we make them here. Labor is cheaper there. There is no inherent advantage to making things in the United States.

If a made in China soccer ball costs $10 and a made in the USA soccer ball cost $20, it's better to have it made in China. China will use their dollars to buy US goods that will employ people. As a consumer I can now buy a soccer ball and I can buy something else like a hat. My standard of living is higher. I have a soccer ball and a hat. It's win-win

spladle
03-24-2013, 03:35 PM
Lol, no.

Why not? Because black and brown people don't deserve the same human rights as white people?

spladle
03-24-2013, 03:41 PM
Amusing bit of trolling you're doing here. But you're full of shit. And it's about time someone said so.

Is nationalism worse than racism? Maybe. Arguably it has resulted in more deaths over history. That said, there have been wars fought over legitimate grievances, and which had nothing to do with race at all. Two wars with Germany had nothing to do with discrimination; the U.S. was chock-a-bloc with people of German descent the whole time. So, we had nationalism that was anything but racist, in response to nationalism that had a huge racist component, and perhaps the most noble thing accomplished by our nationalism was to stop their racist genocide. So, maybe nationalism is not worse than racism. Certainly it has been longer since nationalism was used as an excuse for either slavery or genocide than racism.

Now, am I outside the mainstream with this? Am I a monster or a fool?

You do sound a bit foolish, yes. I support "discrimination" btw.


As for what your baiting in this post signifies, other than the fact that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have historically been on both the right and the wrong side of the racism issue, I'm sure I don't know. But I'm not impressed by it either way.

Actually, I can't think of a time when the Republican Party was on the wrong side of a race issue. Can you?

erowe1
03-24-2013, 03:44 PM
You do sound a bit foolish, yes. I support "discrimination" btw.


Guess it depends what you count as a race issue.

The 14th Amendment was from Republicans. And the CRA had more GOP than Dem support in Congress.

spladle
03-24-2013, 03:44 PM
This is how I feel. Never have. Feels like such a distraction.

I contend that you should care more. This is the single most important issue of our time, and it's pretty thrilling to see RP on the right side of it.

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83

spladle
03-24-2013, 03:46 PM
Guess it depends what you count as a race issue.

The 14th Amendment was from Republicans. And the CRA had more GOP than Dem support in Congress.

Yup, and I side with the Republicans on both those issues. I'm also opposed to affirmative action and the minimum wage, two of the most racist and destructive laws in existence.

It's also worth pointing out that Democratic opposition to guest worker programs is the biggest obstacle to immigration reform today. Racist preferences for white union labor is why we can't have a humane and sensible immigration policy like Rand Paul is proposing.

Brian4Liberty
03-24-2013, 04:19 PM
Carson, how do you feel about Mexicans? What about black people? Just wondering.


Off the top of your head, do you know what the average IQs of the various races are?


Reading this thread is disgusting, so I'm going to stop. I'm just glad all you xenophobic racist pieces of garbage are too poor to matter or hold any sway over the electoral process, and so we're going to shove immigration reform down your throats, then make you swallow and ask for more. Have fun watching the white race go extinct, assholes!


Yeah, fuck those darkies, amirite? Those lawbreaking n*ggers should go sit at the back of the bus and stay in their shitty schools like the law SAYS they should. Damned uppity race based special interest groups demanding equality before the law . . . it's almost as bad as when that filthy race based special interest group (the Republican Party) made us stop treating blacks like property!


Why not? Because black and brown people don't deserve the same human rights as white people?


Yup, and I side with the Republicans on both those issues. I'm also opposed to affirmative action and the minimum wage, two of the most racist and destructive laws in existence.

It's also worth pointing out that Democratic opposition to guest worker programs is the biggest obstacle to immigration reform today. Racist preferences for white union labor is why we can't have a humane and sensible immigration policy like Rand Paul is proposing.

Racists are obsessed with race politics. Racist troll is racist.

Origanalist
03-24-2013, 04:21 PM
Why not? Because black and brown people don't deserve the same human rights as white people?

Why must you keep bringing color into the discussion? You seem to be completely hung up on the subject, I dont support any expansion of the welfare, or warfare state. For any reason, read it real slowly.........

acptulsa
03-24-2013, 04:25 PM
I contend that you should care more. This is the single most important issue of our time...

American Indians are laughing at you. Laughing their asses off.

I'm with them.

TaftFan
03-24-2013, 04:29 PM
Immigration debate aside, I'd like to see Tancredo run for Senate in 2014.

spladle
03-24-2013, 04:39 PM
Racists are obsessed with race politics. Racist troll is racist.

Yeah, totally, right? I mean, only a racist would ever object to enslaving people based on their race.

spladle
03-24-2013, 04:40 PM
Why must you keep bringing color into the discussion? You seem to be completely hung up on the subject, I dont support any expansion of the welfare, or warfare state. For any reason, read it real slowly.........

Okay. You're either batshit crazy or retarded then, and we can stop talking to each other now.

spladle
03-24-2013, 04:43 PM
American Indians are laughing at you. Laughing their asses off.

I'm with them.

Be more explicit about what you're trying to say. You view immigration as a form of invasion/war, and you want to repel the invaders with physical force, because peaceful people making peaceful deals with other peaceful people horrifies you if they have the wrong color skin. Agree/disagree?

acptulsa
03-24-2013, 04:52 PM
Be more explicit about what you're trying to say. You view immigration as a form of invasion/war, and you want to repel the invaders with physical force, because peaceful people making peaceful deals with other peaceful people horrifies you if they have the wrong color skin. Agree/disagree?

No string of words you have ever in your life concocted belongs in my mouth. Ever. So just stop trying to shove stuff in there and calm your insane ass down. I live in Oklahoma, a place peopled with tribes who could get along with no one, tribes who got along with people unlike them better than people like them, tribes who got along with everyone, and a whole bunch more tribes too diverse and complex to be pigeonholed. So your attempts to be simplistic and inflammatory impress me not at all. You're simply acting like an asshole. And you have no idea how fast I got over it.

speciallyblend
03-24-2013, 05:12 PM
tancredo is a dinosaur, soon he will be politically extinct!

eating_nachos
03-24-2013, 05:42 PM
Racists are obsessed with race politics. Racist troll is racist.

Hating white people isn't racist. /sarcasm

Brian4Liberty
03-24-2013, 05:48 PM
Yeah, totally, right? I mean, only a racist would ever object to enslaving people based on their race.

Talking to yourself again? Or is it your imaginary racist straw-friend?

Origanalist
03-24-2013, 06:40 PM
Okay. You're either batshit crazy or retarded then, and we can stop talking to each other now.

Whoohooo!!

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4704059572881562&pid=15.1

BuddyRey
03-24-2013, 09:07 PM
Tom Tancredo is a nobody...less relevant even than Fred Thompson. Nothing to see here.

spladle
03-24-2013, 10:45 PM
No string of words you have ever in your life concocted belongs in my mouth. Ever. So just stop trying to shove stuff in there and calm your insane ass down. I live in Oklahoma, a place peopled with tribes who could get along with no one, tribes who got along with people unlike them better than people like them, tribes who got along with everyone, and a whole bunch more tribes too diverse and complex to be pigeonholed. So your attempts to be simplistic and inflammatory impress me not at all. You're simply acting like an asshole. And you have no idea how fast I got over it.

Okay, I have no idea what your "American Indians are laughing at you" comment was intended to convey then, and you don't seem interested in clarifying. The first sentence of the post I'm responding to makes it pretty clear that you're not real bright anyway, so perhaps the mistake was mine for attempting to talk to you like a human being in the first place. Happy trails.

spladle
03-24-2013, 10:49 PM
Hating white people isn't racist. /sarcasm

I actually like white people way more than I do any other race, ftr. I freely cop to the "racist" label in its strictest sense. I just don't think that preferring one group of people to another can justify denying anyone their God-given human right to freely exchange goods and services with other willing human beings of any color, creed, or nationality.

acptulsa
03-24-2013, 10:50 PM
Okay, I have no idea what your "American Indians are laughing at you" comment was intended to convey then, and you don't seem interested in clarifying. The first sentence of the post I'm responding to makes it pretty clear that you're not real bright anyway, so perhaps the mistake was mine for attempting to talk to you like a human being in the first place. Happy trails.

I have no doubt your particular brand of xenophobia is only irritated by the existence of people like me, so by all means ignore me and hope I go away. I would strongly recommend it. In fact, if I were as narrow and hypocritical as you, I'd deny my existence to my dying breath.

You're doing the right thing. And happy trails to you, too.

spladle
03-24-2013, 11:12 PM
I have no doubt your particular brand of xenophobia is only irritated by the existence of people like me, so by all means ignore me and hope I go away. I would strongly recommend it. In fact, if I were as narrow and hypocritical as you, I'd deny my existence to my dying breath.

You're doing the right thing. And happy trails to you, too.

I'm sorry to keep talking at you when you don't want to talk to me, but I'm just so bewildered by your remarks that I can't help asking: What particular brand of xenophobia do you mean? I feel like you must be confusing me with someone else.

AuH20
03-24-2013, 11:27 PM
Yeah, fuck those darkies, amirite? Those lawbreaking n*ggers should go sit at the back of the bus and stay in their shitty schools like the law SAYS they should. Damned uppity race based special interest groups demanding equality before the law . . . it's almost as bad as when that filthy race based special interest group (the Republican Party) made us stop treating blacks like property!

Why do the Haitians who get near Miami Beach get rounded up before they can even step on American soil????? Why do we send them home en masse but we are terrified to even verbally insinuate such with the Hispanic bloc???????? Something is amiss. To the casual observer one would be led to believe that the illegal alien of Hispanic origin is a protected species above the law. Some animals are more equal than others. Too bad for those Haitians who are thrown to the wolves.

spladle
03-24-2013, 11:29 PM
Why do the Haitians who get near Miami Beach get rounded up before they can even step on American soil????? Why do we send them home en masse but we are terrified to even verbally insinuate such with the Hispanic bloc???????? Something is amiss. To the casual observer one would be led to believe that the illegal alien of Hispanic origin is a protected species above the law. Some animals are more equal than others. Too bad for those Haitians who are thrown to the wolves.

I agree with every word of this; the treatment of Haitians in Florida is abominable. A just people and a just society would welcome those poor souls with open arms.

AuH20
03-24-2013, 11:46 PM
I agree with every word of this; the treatment of Haitians in Florida is abominable. A just people and a just society would welcome those poor souls with open arms.

But these poor people are black and don't have a multi-million dollar orgs pitching for them. I'm 100% for Haitians staying and forcing the hanger-ons of the aforementioned protected class to self-deport, by cutting the umbilical cord so to speak.

spladle
03-24-2013, 11:55 PM
But these poor people are black and don't have a multi-million dollar orgs pitching for them. I'm 100% for Haitians staying and forcing the hanger-ons of the aforementioned protected class to self-deport, by cutting the umbilical cord so to speak.

While I do of course advocate the abolition of the welfare state (otherwise why would I have joined RPF, right?), I don't believe ending the welfare state and opening the borders would result in less immigration. I'm pretty confident it would result in far more. I don't view immigrants as leeches or moochers; for the most part, I see immigrants (legal and otherwise) as people flocking to the greatest country on the planet in search of freedom and opportunity.

AuH20
03-25-2013, 12:04 AM
While I do of course advocate the abolition of the welfare state (otherwise why would I have joined RPF, right?), I don't believe ending the welfare state and opening the borders would result in less immigration. I'm pretty confident it would result in far more. I don't view immigrants as leeches or moochers; for the most part, I see immigrants (legal and otherwise) as people flocking to the greatest country on the planet in search of freedom and opportunity.

The ones that truly want to stay and wish to build a better future in the U.S. will persevere without the privileges and perks. The weak parasites will return to their country of origin. No one here is against immigrants, but we would like to see an environment that encourages potential citizens in training to take root here as opposed to foreign guests hanging out in the U.S. for the benefits. That's the major problem. Too many long term guests and not enough citizens in training. An environment based on merit would eliminate many of our immigration problems and this starts and ends with the welfare state.

spladle
03-25-2013, 12:10 AM
The ones that truly want to stay and wish to build a better future in the U.S. will persevere without the privileges and perks. The weak parasites will return to their country of origin. No one here is against immigrants, but we would like to see an environment that encourages potential citizens in training to take root here as opposed to foreign guests hanging out in the U.S. for the benefits. That's the major problem. Too many long term guests and not enough citizens in training.

I suppose we simply have an empirical disagreement about just how prevalent parasitic behavior is amongst immigrants. Most of what I've read has lead me to believe it's not a serious problem that should concern us (and yes, I've done a fair bit of reading at vdare and taki's mag in addition to more mainstream sources). Even if it were, though, my moral senses just kinda get short-circuited with outrage at the thought of what you describe going on in Miami w/ potential Haitian immigrants. I think an increase in the size of the welfare state would be a reasonable price to pay for diminishing the harsh impact of immigration restrictions on the world's poor.

AuH20
03-25-2013, 12:18 AM
I suppose we simply have an empirical disagreement about just how prevalent parasitic behavior is amongst immigrants. Most of what I've read has lead me to believe it's not a serious problem that should concern us (and yes, I've done a fair bit of reading at vdare and taki's mag in addition to more mainstream sources). Even if it were, though, my moral senses just kinda get short-circuited with outrage at the thought of what you describe going on in Miami w/ potential Haitian immigrants. I think an increase in the size of the welfare state would be a reasonable price to pay for diminishing the harsh impact of immigration restrictions on the world's poor.

It's largely a human condition issue that transcends race more than often than not. Where people can get certain perks and feel more comfortable thanks to multi-lingual aids and other crutches, they are going to flock to that particular area. It is my opinion that this misleading magnet needs to be smashed into a million pieces.

RonPaulFanInGA
03-25-2013, 05:13 PM
http://i56.tinypic.com/1zptp1c.jpg