The Shocking Truth Behind Amnesty

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2KSIAwtors

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

bump

[Michelangelo]

This is hogwash.

Today's immigrants are assimilating faster than their predecessors. Hispanics are adopting English at a faster rate than Germans (the largest ancestry group in the US) and it isn't difficult to realize it is because the United States has become increasingly more efficient at assimilating newcomers. The reason why a large portion of today's migrants come illegally is because they do not have a viable method to do so legally. Prior immigrants were no more noble or law abiding than present immigrants, immigration laws were simply so lax that there was no need to come illegally.

Consider drug laws. In its early history the United States had lax or non-existent drug laws. Should we consider the large numbers of Americans in jails today a sign that we are less law abiding than our ancestors? No. It is simply that new laws have arisen that have criminalized behavior that was previously considered acceptable.

The Senate immigration reform bill would not grant instant citizenship to anyone. It would put illegal aliens on a possible pathway to permanent residency, if several triggers are met. These triggers include ensuring that the border is certified as protected and includes the input of regional governments who directly border Mexico. Mind you, it is a myth that the US-Mexican border isn't secure.

Furthermore, why are libertarians of all people buying into this myth that somehow either party is better than the other? This is what is implicitly conceded when the case is made that migrants vote for Democrats and therefore statists. Both Republicans and Democrats are statist parties and things would be little better if migrants voted over whelming for the Republican Party. Migrants could be easy pickings for converting over to libertarianism; many of these are individuals who have spent their lives under statist regimes much worse than the United States and who migrate partially out of a desire for greater liberty for themselves and their children. Why aren't more migrants libertarian? Gee, it might have to do with all the hostility they get with videos like these. You cannot expect to persuade migrants of our cause if you simultaneously trying to kick them out.

There is one truth to this video, the 'cabal' is trying to divide us. It isn't trying to do so with multiculturalism. Nay, it is achieving its means by promoting the very concept that we are intrinsically different from one another by sheer virtue of place of birth. If we truly wish to defeat the 'cabal' we should do so by fighting alongside our brethren and welcoming them regardless of their ethnic background or birthplace.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Sources for your statements?

[Ender]

This is hogwash.

Today's immigrants are assimilating faster than their predecessors. Hispanics are adopting English at a faster rate than Germans (the largest ancestry group in the US) and it isn't difficult to realize it is because the United States has become increasingly more efficient at assimilating newcomers. The reason why a large portion of today's migrants come illegally is because they do not have a viable method to do so legally. Prior immigrants were no more noble or law abiding than present immigrants, immigration laws were simply so lax that there was no need to come illegally.

Consider drug laws. In its early history the United States had lax or non-existent drug laws. Should we consider the large numbers of Americans in jails today a sign that we are less law abiding than our ancestors? No. It is simply that new laws have arisen that have criminalized behavior that was previously considered acceptable.

The Senate immigration reform bill would not grant instant citizenship to anyone. It would put illegal aliens on a possible pathway to permanent residency, if several triggers are met. These triggers include ensuring that the border is certified as protected and includes the input of regional governments who directly border Mexico. Mind you, it is a myth that the US-Mexican border isn't secure.

Furthermore, why are libertarians of all people buying into this myth that somehow either party is better than the other? This is what is implicitly conceded when the case is made that migrants vote for Democrats and therefore statists. Both Republicans and Democrats are statist parties and things would be little better if migrants voted over whelming for the Republican Party. Migrants could be easy pickings for converting over to libertarianism; many of these are individuals who have spent their lives under statist regimes much worse than the United States and who migrate partially out of a desire for greater liberty for themselves and their children. Why aren't more migrants libertarian? Gee, it might have to do with all the hostility they get with videos like these. You cannot expect to persuade migrants of our cause if you simultaneously trying to kick them out.

There is one truth to this video, the 'cabal' is trying to divide us. It isn't trying to do so with multiculturalism. Nay, it is achieving its means by promoting the very concept that we are intrinsically different from one another by sheer virtue of place of birth. If we truly wish to defeat the 'cabal' we should do so by fighting alongside our brethren and welcoming them regardless of their ethnic background or birthplace.

I agree.

Suddenly immigrants are "illegals" when in the past they were simply immigrants.

The multi-cultural stuff really bugs me; America has ALWAYS been multi-cultural; every major city had a "Germantown"; French/Spanish/etc District.

The Irish were hated in the 1800's and considered Catholic scum; all the "real" Americans didn't want them here (you know, all those Americans that migrated earlier?).

As a Cherokee, I find this all rather amusing: WHAT! Different colored "immigrants" taking over our land? Not speaking our language? Breaking our laws?

The answer is simple:
- Open borders
- NO entitlements
- Get rid of minimum wage

The economy has always boomed with an influx of immigrants- but we can't have that now, can we?

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

How many indians wrote and signed the constitution? ZERO

[Ender]

How many indians wrote and signed the constitution? ZERO

How many were asked?

The Constitution was derived from the Iroquois Nation Confederacy, which was a unity of 5 separate Indian nations that had learned to live peacefully together. Benjamin Franklin had visited with them and felt that if "savage Indians" could have a document to unite and live in peace, so could the separate states.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

How many were asked?

The Constitution was derived from the Iroquois Nation Confederacy, which was a unity of 5 separate Indian nations that had learned to live peacefully together. Benjamin Franklin had visited with them and felt that if "savage Indians" could have a document to unite and live in peace, so could the separate states.

LOL thats almost like saying that the asians wrote the bible. Good one. Keep reading that indian kool aid.

[Michelangelo]

LOL thats almost like saying that the asians wrote the bible. Good one. Keep reading that indian kool aid.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/hconres331.pdf

(1) Asians did write significant portions of the Old Testament. Israel-Palestine is located on the Asian continent and the Abrahamic religions were all born in the near east. Most of the early Christian Kingdoms were in the Caucus (Armenia, Georgia, etc.) and Ethiopia. Most of the new testament was written in the Greek world. It is only recently that the Bible was officially translated into the vernacular languages of Europe such as English.

(2) Congress has conceded the Iroquois nations had influence over the US constitution. Other polities, including the Dutch Republic, had an influence on the thinking of the American founders but it is hard to deny the Iroquois did as well.


Sources for your statements?

Which specific claims do you want sources for.

The claim that Hispanic migrants are assimilating faster than their earlier German counterparts is hardly controversial if you mean that. Pockets of the United States still speak a germanic dialect, i.e. Pennsylvania dutch among the Amish. Texas in particular had a large German community that did not assimilate linguistically until the post-WW2 years. None of this should be taken to mean that Hispanics are more intelligent than their German counterparts. The United States has simply become better capable of assimilating from experience with previous migrant groups.

Coincidentally you can see this by looking at the assimilation rates of migrants in the US vs. Europe. Europe has been an emigrant region for much of modern history and has little experience assimilating migrants. Therefore Europe takes longer to assimilate newcomers relative to the US.

http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5vn092kk
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_64.htm

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Europeans were brought to this country and allowed to come here because they had something to offer, the current state of illegals do not. They are just here to mooch off the country that the anglo-saxons created.

Most of the concepts from the constitution came from Europe and Rome.

[Michelangelo]

Europeans were brought to this country and allowed to come here because they had something to offer, the current state of illegals do not. They are just here to mooch off the country that the anglo-saxons created.

Most of the concepts from the constitution came from Europe and Rome.

Today's migrants, illegal and legal, do have something to offer. Chiefly they provide complementary labor services that allow American labor to specialize in those areas it is best suited to. This is basic comparative advantage theory. If they had nothing to offer they wouldn't find employment, would they?

Certainly the American Constitutions owes quite a bit to Europe. However this doesn't reduce the influence the Iroquois had.

Tell me, do you identify yourself as a libertarian? I have to admit this a deeply personal issue for me and it insults me whenever someone self-identifying themselves as libertarians attacks migrants. If you are however a nationalist, a socialist, or some other breed of statist I have no reason to be as angry. Your facts may be ground, but at least you are being internally consistent. A libertarian however should never oppose migration on account of whether it 'benefits the country'. Libertarians should promote greater liberty for all irregardless of nationalist concerns.

We must defend the liberty of speech unhindered by government of all. We must defend the liberty to bear arms for all. We must defend the liberty of migration. And so forth and so forth.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Europeans were brought to this country and allowed to come here because they had something to offer, the current state of illegals do not. They are just here to mooch off the country that the anglo-saxons created.

Most of the concepts from the constitution came from Europe and Rome.

Go back to Stormfront.

[Carson]

In the sixties the government came into the schools to tell us we would no longer be able to have children like our ancestors of the past because it was getting to crowded and there wouldn't be enough room on the roads and stuff. They unleashed birth control and abortions on us and brought our expansion to a halt.

With their other hand they subverted our immigration laws and increased legal immigration.

Also in the sixties if someone truly needed help they brought them in legally and those workers worked along side for the same wages and benefits. (Benefits for you to young to remember were things like health insurance and retirement funds so you could take care of yourself. They weren't something evil like they teach you today. Today they tell you its the wages and benefits that are hurting business all the while their stealth back door socialism is sucking the strength out of the capital, capitalism needs to operate.) Anyway the legal workers worked along side while some came in illegally and got screwed. They had to hide in the shadows and take whatever was offered.

Now we've come full circle. The criminals in the government and in business have everyone by the balls.

I remember another amnesty they said was for about a million turn into an amnesty for three. If there is another it may be for about twenty seven million. That's twenty seven million that will soon be discarded for their next influx of illegal labor.

Many of you seemed to be sucked into thinking your doing illegal aliens a favor by playing them into the hands of the criminals. It may not seem such a great thing when your sucked into the same way of life as your forced out of your own country and have to search for illegal work yourself in some foreign land.

Can't you see the central banking system is looting your countries of their natural resources and bringing in the cheapest labor they can find to profit by them. That leaves these leaches with their host countries defended by refugees.


New immigration laws make as little sense as it does to call a Constitution Convention. They aren't following the rules we have now. What makes anyone so foolish as to think they will abide by the new ones.

If they don't uphold them, they're not laws. They are lies.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Today's migrants, illegal and legal, do have something to offer.

20 million out of work and we need a labor force? I have been unemployed in Los Angeles for 14 months now and I have a top 50 colleges degree.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Go back to Stormfront.

racist

[Feeding the Abscess]

20 million out of work and we need a labor force? I have been unemployed in Los Angeles for 14 months now and I have a top 50 colleges degree.

You can have 20 million unemployed and still have a need for labor. Welcome to Austrian economics. It makes for far better understanding of economic matters than Keynesian/macro outlooks.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

A libertarian however should never oppose migration on account of whether it 'benefits the country'. Libertarians should promote greater liberty for all irregardless of nationalist concerns.



I disagree with this - this is collectivism.

[thoughtomator]

Today's migrants, illegal and legal, do have something to offer. Chiefly they provide complementary labor services that allow American labor to specialize in those areas it is best suited to. This is basic comparative advantage theory. If they had nothing to offer they wouldn't find employment, would they?

What planet are you living on?

[GunnyFreedom]

LOL thats almost like saying that the asians wrote the bible. Good one. Keep reading that indian kool aid.

LMAO - it's better to keep your mouth shut and everyone think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it to them. :D

Israel in an a little place called "Southwest Asia" and since the vast majority of biblical authors arose out of Southwest Asia, then the Bible was, indeed, written by Asians.

http://img2u.info/img/g4ee38c6b.jpg

http://img2u.info/img/g6a4e6282.jpg

http://glenbradley.net/share/mapofabrahamsjourney.gif

http://glenbradley.net/share/asiansaliens.jpg


Also, it's a well-documented and public fact (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/hconres331.pdf) that much of the US Constitution was inspired by the Iroquois Nation Confederacy

[Michelangelo]

20 million out of work and we need a labor force? I have been unemployed in Los Angeles for 14 months now and I have a top 50 colleges degree.

And you believe reducing migration will increase jobs? Reducing our population would decrease both supply and demand. This means that the ability of American labor to specialize would be hindered and increase the real costs of goods and services. Decreased demand obviously means that less goods and services would be demanded to begin with.

Read the literature of the economics of immigration before you go any further. I recommend David Card. He is one of the leading authorities on this issue. Obviously do a proper literature review if you have the time and resources.

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers.html

I do repeat my question though, are you a libertarian? Because you've just lost a few more brownie points by implying you have a right to a job. If you can't find work go back to school and learn new skills. You don't need to get a new BA degree or anything like that. There are plenty of skill shortages in LA that could be met by taking a few courses as a technical school. Attacking others, especially those who don't have the ability to defend themselves such as migrants, won't help though. Channel your energy into improving yourself instead.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Europeans were brought to this country and allowed to come here because they had something to offer, the current state of illegals do not. They are just here to mooch off the country that the anglo-saxons created.

Most of the concepts from the constitution came from Europe and Rome.

It all started when they let my people, the Celts and Germans in, and we contaminated the pure Anglo-Saxon blood of America. It all went downhill after that.

[kcchiefs6465]

It all started when they let my people, the Celts and Germans in, and we contaminated the pure Anglo-Saxon blood of America. It all went downhill after that.
"Liberty Cabbage"

[John F Kennedy III]

It all started when they let my people, the Celts and Germans in, and we contaminated the pure Anglo-Saxon blood of America. It all went downhill after that.

You mean Anglo-Celtic.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I think I watched about two minutes of that amateurish crap. The woman is talking a mile a minute. She does not pause between thoughts. I'm actually a really fast reader, but I did not even care to read any of the graphics and text whizzing by.

Lousy editing and a poorly delivered message are not really shocking in today's Youtube and cable TV world, so no, I did not find it shocking.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

LMAO - it's better to keep your mouth shut and everyone think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it to them. :D

Israel in an a little place called "Southwest Asia" and since the vast majority of biblical authors arose out of Southwest Asia, then the Bible was, indeed, written by Asians.

http://img2u.info/img/g4ee38c6b.jpg

http://img2u.info/img/g6a4e6282.jpg

http://glenbradley.net/share/mapofabrahamsjourney.gif

http://glenbradley.net/share/asiansaliens.jpg


Also, it's a well-documented and public fact (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/hconres331.pdf) that much of the US Constitution was inspired by the Iroquois Nation Confederacy

I was referring to modern day asians - you know the people that live in china etc. Yes, jews wrote about half of the bible if you want to consider them to be asian but the other half were romans and they are not from asia.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

And you believe reducing migration will increase jobs? Reducing our population would decrease both supply and demand. This means that the ability of American labor to specialize would be hindered and increase the real costs of goods and services. Decreased demand obviously means that less goods and services would be demanded to begin with.

Read the literature of the economics of immigration before you go any further. I recommend David Card. He is one of the leading authorities on this issue. Obviously do a proper literature review if you have the time and resources.

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers.html

I do repeat my question though, are you a libertarian? Because you've just lost a few more brownie points by implying you have a right to a job. If you can't find work go back to school and learn new skills. You don't need to get a new BA degree or anything like that. There are plenty of skill shortages in LA that could be met by taking a few courses as a technical school. Attacking others, especially those who don't have the ability to defend themselves such as migrants, won't help though. Channel your energy into improving yourself instead.

you can sit there and make arguments from your flyover state pulpit, but I live here in LA and seeing your country turn into a POS tijuana wannabe 3rd world country might open up your country boy eyes a little bit.

And yeah I went to college, so I do expect to get a jobby job you asshole. Thats what college is for.

[Michelangelo]

you can sit there and make arguments from your flyover state pulpit, but I live here in LA and seeing your country turn into a POS tijuana wannabe 3rd world country might open up your country boy eyes a little bit.

And yeah I went to college, so I do expect to get a jobby job you asshole. Thats what college is for.

I'm an Angeleno.

USC has been doing some interesting work on the demographics of Los Angeles. You should read it maybe? (https://www.usc.edu/schools/price/research/popdynamics/futures/2013_Myers-Pitkin_LA-Projections.pdf)

But yeah, migration isn't Los Angeles' problem.

[Cabal]

How many indians wrote and signed the constitution? ZERO

What a profoundly absurd argument, on all fronts.

[MRK]

Go back to Stormfront.

I posted on Stormfront once.

There was a thread where all were chiming in on their unanimous agreement that whites were the clearly superior race in all forms of measurement - intellectually, sexually, and culturally. Then throughout the thread, several people continued to blame the jews for keeping the white man down across the world.

I asked the logical question - if the white men are on all accounts superior, then why are they dominated by jews?

The post was never approved.

[MRK]

I was referring to modern day asians - you know the people that live in china etc.

I just realized that I live in china etc.

I might have to put that as my profile location now.

[MRK]

Europeans were brought to this country and allowed to come here because they had something to offer, the current state of illegals do not. They are just here to mooch off the country that the anglo-saxons created.

Most of the concepts from the constitution came from Europe and Rome.

I'm pretty sure that you also were not alive to create the country at the time of its cultural founding, nor did you create the hundreds of years of culture of Europe or Rome.

Stop mooching, sanctimonious parasite!

[AuH20]

I agree.

Suddenly immigrants are "illegals" when in the past they were simply immigrants.

The multi-cultural stuff really bugs me; America has ALWAYS been multi-cultural; every major city had a "Germantown"; French/Spanish/etc District.

The Irish were hated in the 1800's and considered Catholic scum; all the "real" Americans didn't want them here (you know, all those Americans that migrated earlier?).

As a Cherokee, I find this all rather amusing: WHAT! Different colored "immigrants" taking over our land? Not speaking our language? Breaking our laws?

The answer is simple:
- Open borders
- NO entitlements
- Get rid of minimum wage

The economy has always boomed with an influx of immigrants- but we can't have that now, can we?

That's not necessarily true. At the turn of the 19th century you'd be correct, when examining the significant infrastructure needs of the Western territories. At a certain saturation point, a surplus of unskilled labor is a detriment, especially in this day and age when the auxiliary costs for habitation are offset largely by the taxpayer.

[Michelangelo]

It is possible that a certain region becomes 'overpopulated' however market forces encourage the excess population to migrate somewhere that is 'underpopulated'. You are certainly right that this is a possibility. I'd argue that Detroit is one such example of a place in the United States that was overpopulated and its depopulation in recent years has been for the better. Mexico and India are both overpopulated today. In the past most of Europe was overpopulated. Increasing technology has made it so that Europe is now underpopulated and capable of supporting a larger population. Mexico is starting to stabilize economically and I would not be surprised if it went from an net emigrant country to a net immigrant country within our lifetimes.

Most of the United States has not reached this point though. The United States as a whole has historically demanded more labor than it had. This is what allowed its colonial population to grow so rapidly and gave it a comparative advantage when it came towards inviting migrants over. By all measures the United States as a whole still retains the ability to house a larger population. Improving technology, and therefore better ability to make better use of resources available, will increase the ability of the United States to house even more people. Arguably the western states could house infinitely more people if so much of their land wasn't federally owned or if zoning laws were relaxed to allow them to construct more housing.

Is there a limit to how large a population the United States can house without living standards decreasing? Yes. Have we reached said limit? No. Even if we had reached such a limit, would we need the government to deal with it? No.

If the United States ever becomes overpopulated market forces will act in such a manner to deal with it by encouraging voluntary migration to locations that can better accommodate the growing population. I suspect that by the time the United States does reach this limit we will have the technology to colonize space. Indeed, it will make economic sense to begin colonizing space when Earth reaches that limit. That limit hasn't been met though.

Note: I should make it clear here that the limit to population isn't a 'hard' cap. It is a 'soft' cap that changes according to our technology and knowledge of how to use our resources better. This is why Europe has a larger population today than it did a few centuries back, but is now underpopulated. With its past technology/knowledge Europeans were incapable of using their resources to properly house their population. Advances in technology/knowledge however have allowed it to house many more.

[Intoxiklown]

Too many people here are not acknowledging the current state of America, regarding the welfare government. Until this is changed, illegal immigration is DEVASTATING the US economy. And before someone writes dissertation trying to explain Austrian economics, save your time. I already know and agree, but I am also looking at the now and real, and not what I wish. And if you need proof, a great example is the Dominican Republic. With it's smaller population, 10 million illegal immigrants from Haiti have destroyed their nation.

[erowe1]

I was referring to modern day asians - you know the people that live in china etc. Yes, jews wrote about half of the bible if you want to consider them to be asian but the other half were romans and they are not from asia.

Tucked inside that "etc." in your quote is the entire Arabian peninsula.

And even when much of the Middle East was part of the Roman Empire, it was still part of Asia. Which biblical authors were not Asians? As far as I know, all of the ones we know about were. Quite possibly all of them were. And at most very few were not.

I don't think "Jew" is the right word for these biblical authors. Judean and Israelite would be better terms.

[erowe1]

What planet are you living on?

The economic laws of comparative advantage don't apply on this planet?

[AuH20]

Too many people here are not acknowledging the current state of America, regarding the welfare government. Until this is changed, illegal immigration is DEVASTATING the US economy. And before someone writes dissertation trying to explain Austrian economics, save your time. I already know and agree, but I am also looking at the now and real, and not what I wish. And if you need proof, a great example is the Dominican Republic. With it's smaller population, 10 million illegal immigrants from Haiti have destroyed their nation.

If you do not have large infrastructure projects waiting in the wings, where mass manual labor is critical, then a surplus of unskilled labor is counterproductive. How many lawncutters can you have? Crop pickers? Housecleaners? There is a diminishing return on these occupations, especially with increasing habitation costs associated with their stay.

[erowe1]

At a certain saturation point, a surplus of unskilled labor is a detriment

There are no such things as saturation points and surpluses of unskilled labor. The amount of work out there to be done (i.e. the distance between the world we live in and a perfect one) is infinite.

[AuH20]

There are no such things as saturation points and surpluses of unskilled labor. The amount of work out there to be done (i.e. the distance between the world we live in and a perfect one) is infinite.

There are finite homes to be cleaned. Finite lawns to be tended to.

[erowe1]

If you do not have large infrastructure projects waiting in the wings, where mass manual labor is critical, then a surplus of unskilled labor is counterproductive. How many lawncutters can you have? Crop pickers? Housecleaners? There is a diminishing return on these occupations, especially with increasing habitation costs associated with their stay.

Once we have all the lawn cutters and house cleaners we all want (of which I still don't have any yet, and neither do most Americans), then we can move onto door openers, shoe tiers, and umbrella carriers. The diminishing return will be reflected in the lower and lower wages offered to each new employee, which will continue up until the incentive to come work for those wages is gone.

[erowe1]

There are finite homes to be cleaned. Finite lawns to be tended to.

And we're nowhere close to having cheap labor to cut and clean them all. And then after that's done, there's still an infinite amount of other stuff.

[thequietkid10]

Europeans were brought to this country and allowed to come here because they had something to offer, the current state of illegals do not. They are just here to mooch off the country that the anglo-saxons created.

Most of the concepts from the constitution came from Europe and Rome.

...and the truth comes out. The only thing I hate more then statist stereotypes of the Ron Paul movement, is when people are living examples of that stereotype

[Michelangelo]

There are no such things as saturation points and surpluses of unskilled labor. The amount of work out there to be done (i.e. the distance between the world we live in and a perfect one) is infinite.

I'm open borders and such, but I'd be very careful about saying that we can never have a surplus of labor.

If the government gave subsidies to have children you could theoretically reach a point where the population increase outpaces the amount of capital available and living standards decrease. I am extremely doubtful that this will occur in real life and I can only think of three occasions where governments have tried this: (1) modern Russia, (2) modern Singapore, and (3) NAZI Germany. In all three cases the subsidies were all too low to significantly change birth rates.

Could we have a general surplus of labor? Theoretically yes. It is extremely unlikely that this will ever occur and the subsidies involved would be astronomical even relative to today's welfare state.

What is more likely, and does exist, is overpopulation in specific regions. Mind you, this is 'overpopulation' in the same sense that California's central valley is 'overpopulated' with more fruit and foodstuff than the locals can eat. The obvious solution to this problem of regional overpopulation is to allow labor to freely move towards where it is more it is more productive.


Too many people here are not acknowledging the current state of America, regarding the welfare government. Until this is changed, illegal immigration is DEVASTATING the US economy. And before someone writes dissertation trying to explain Austrian economics, save your time. I already know and agree, but I am also looking at the now and real, and not what I wish. And if you need proof, a great example is the Dominican Republic. With it's smaller population, 10 million illegal immigrants from Haiti have destroyed their nation.

There is a net negative fiscal cost that can be attributed to young immigrants (both legal and illegal) and natives newcomers (i.e. babies). I am speaking about the welfare given to kids in the form of free or reduce healthcare, schooling, free meals at said schools etc etc. We definitely need to reform the system on this end to make it more efficient.

Adult migrants (legal or illegal) however don't have a negative fiscal cost. Most of them are in their working prime and don't demand government services themselves.

Deporting the latter wouldn't do much to help us fiscally. Deporting migrants in their prime age would actually harm us fiscally since they are net taxpayers. Deporting young migrants (legal or illegal) and aborting every baby-to-be in the United States would be more effective if your goal is to preserve the fiscal integrity of the United States government. This is of course lunacy and not something I could support. I should hope no one here could such things either.

Let's reform our welfare system instead, okay? Are we still going to incur losses? Yes. Even if we introduce a nationwide voucher system or reform welfare to be needs based we will still need wealth distribution and all the negative aspects associated. I'm okay with this. As far as taxes go, I'm okay when it comes to supporting schools and welfare for the young though. In a stateless world I would not mind voluntarily donating to these causes.

[erowe1]

And yeah I went to college, so I do expect to get a jobby job you asshole. Thats what college is for.

You can't polish a turd.

[Intoxiklown]

I'm open borders and such, but I'd be very careful about saying that we can never have a surplus of labor.

If the government gave subsidies to have children you could theoretically reach a point where the population increase outpaces the amount of capital available and living standards decrease. I am extremely doubtful that this will occur in real life and I can only think of three occasions where governments have tried this: (1) modern Russia, (2) modern Singapore, and (3) NAZI Germany. In all three cases the subsidies were all too low to significantly change birth rates.

Could we have a general surplus of labor? Theoretically yes. It is extremely unlikely that this will ever occur and the subsidies involved would be astronomical even relative to today's welfare state.

What is more likely, and does exist, is overpopulation in specific regions. Mind you, this is 'overpopulation' in the same sense that California's central valley is 'overpopulated' with more fruit and foodstuff than the locals can eat. The obvious solution to this problem of regional overpopulation is to allow labor to freely move towards where it is more it is more productive.



There is a net negative fiscal cost that can be attributed to young immigrants (both legal and illegal) and natives newcomers (i.e. babies). I am speaking about the welfare given to kids in the form of free or reduce healthcare, schooling, free meals at said schools etc etc. We definitely need to reform the system on this end to make it more efficient.

Adult migrants (legal or illegal) however don't have a negative fiscal cost. Most of them are in their working prime and don't demand government services themselves.

Deporting the latter wouldn't do much to help us fiscally. Deporting migrants in their prime age would actually harm us fiscally since they are net taxpayers. Deporting young migrants (legal or illegal) and aborting every baby-to-be in the United States would be more effective if your goal is to preserve the fiscal integrity of the United States government. This is of course lunacy and not something I could support. I should hope no one here could such things either.

Let's reform our welfare system instead, okay? Are we still going to incur losses? Yes. Even if we introduce a nationwide voucher system or reform welfare to be needs based we will still need wealth distribution and all the negative aspects associated. I'm okay with this. As far as taxes go, I'm okay when it comes to supporting schools and welfare for the young though. In a stateless world I would not mind voluntarily donating to these causes.


I am not in favor of deportation, as that is a logistical and financial nightmare. And adult immigrants very much hurt an economy. Again, please look at the Dominican Republic for an example. You keep thinking along the lines of a perfect nation based on a free economy. America is nowhere near that, and until we are at least on the path to achieve it, to not stop illegal immigration is an incredibly foolish thing.

[thequietkid10]

It is possible that a certain region becomes 'overpopulated' however market forces encourage the excess population to migrate somewhere that is 'underpopulated'. You are certainly right that this is a possibility. I'd argue that Detroit is one such example of a place in the United States that was overpopulated and its depopulation in recent years has been for the better. Mexico and India are both overpopulated today. In the past most of Europe was overpopulated. Increasing technology has made it so that Europe is now underpopulated and capable of supporting a larger population. Mexico is starting to stabilize economically and I would not be surprised if it went from an net emigrant country to a net immigrant country within our lifetimes.

Most of the United States has not reached this point though. The United States as a whole has historically demanded more labor than it had. This is what allowed its colonial population to grow so rapidly and gave it a comparative advantage when it came towards inviting migrants over. By all measures the United States as a whole still retains the ability to house a larger population. Improving technology, and therefore better ability to make better use of resources available, will increase the ability of the United States to house even more people. Arguably the western states could house infinitely more people if so much of their land wasn't federally owned or if zoning laws were relaxed to allow them to construct more housing.

Is there a limit to how large a population the United States can house without living standards decreasing? Yes. Have we reached said limit? No. Even if we had reached such a limit, would we need the government to deal with it? No.

If the United States ever becomes overpopulated market forces will act in such a manner to deal with it by encouraging voluntary migration to locations that can better accommodate the growing population. I suspect that by the time the United States does reach this limit we will have the technology to colonize space. Indeed, it will make economic sense to begin colonizing space when Earth reaches that limit. That limit hasn't been met though.

Note: I should make it clear here that the limit to population isn't a 'hard' cap. It is a 'soft' cap that changes according to our technology and knowledge of how to use our resources better. This is why Europe has a larger population today than it did a few centuries back, but is now underpopulated. With its past technology/knowledge Europeans were incapable of using their resources to properly house their population. Advances in technology/knowledge however have allowed it to house many more.

Let me add,
Over population is a myth. Without immigration, we would have a shortage of labor, higher food prices, higher construction costs, and higher home maintenance costs (or more chores, or more stay at home parents).

You, wanna see what a nation without immigration looks like, watch Japan over the next 3 decades. The biggest problem will be their pension system. and the increasing distortion of retired to working age employees.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Its funny that all of you think that we need more immigration because they are here to work, but here is a newsflash: The US does not produce anything anymore.

There are no jobs here anymore.

I hope all of you get you jobs taken by cheap laboring illegals.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

It is possible that a certain region becomes 'overpopulated' however market forces encourage the excess population to migrate somewhere that is 'underpopulated'. You are certainly right that this is a possibility. I'd argue that Detroit is one such example of a place in the United States that was overpopulated and its depopulation in recent years has been for the better. Mexico and India are both overpopulated today. In the past most of Europe was overpopulated. Increasing technology has made it so that Europe is now underpopulated and capable of supporting a larger population. Mexico is starting to stabilize economically and I would not be surprised if it went from an net emigrant country to a net immigrant country within our lifetimes.

Most of the United States has not reached this point though. The United States as a whole has historically demanded more labor than it had. This is what allowed its colonial population to grow so rapidly and gave it a comparative advantage when it came towards inviting migrants over. By all measures the United States as a whole still retains the ability to house a larger population. Improving technology, and therefore better ability to make better use of resources available, will increase the ability of the United States to house even more people. Arguably the western states could house infinitely more people if so much of their land wasn't federally owned or if zoning laws were relaxed to allow them to construct more housing.

Is there a limit to how large a population the United States can house without living standards decreasing? Yes. Have we reached said limit? No. Even if we had reached such a limit, would we need the government to deal with it? No.

If the United States ever becomes overpopulated market forces will act in such a manner to deal with it by encouraging voluntary migration to locations that can better accommodate the growing population. I suspect that by the time the United States does reach this limit we will have the technology to colonize space. Indeed, it will make economic sense to begin colonizing space when Earth reaches that limit. That limit hasn't been met though.

Note: I should make it clear here that the limit to population isn't a 'hard' cap. It is a 'soft' cap that changes according to our technology and knowledge of how to use our resources better. This is why Europe has a larger population today than it did a few centuries back, but is now underpopulated. With its past technology/knowledge Europeans were incapable of using their resources to properly house their population. Advances in technology/knowledge however have allowed it to house many more.

your ideology is garbage. Go for a surf in CA or just try to drive from SD to LA on any day. See if you can catch a wave or get to work on time. If illegals were not here this might be a decent place to live but they have all but destroyed this great state.

[AuH20]

There is a net negative fiscal cost that can be attributed to young immigrants (both legal and illegal) and natives newcomers (i.e. babies). I am speaking about the welfare given to kids in the form of free or reduce healthcare, schooling, free meals at said schools etc etc. We definitely need to reform the system on this end to make it more efficient.Adult migrants (legal or illegal) however don't have a negative fiscal cost. Most of them are in their working prime and don't demand government services themselves.

Deporting the latter wouldn't do much to help us fiscally. Deporting migrants in their prime age would actually harm us fiscally since they are net taxpayers. Deporting young migrants (legal or illegal) and aborting every baby-to-be in the United States would be more effective if your goal is to preserve the fiscal integrity of the United States government. This is of course lunacy and not something I could support. I should hope no one here could such things either.

Let's reform our welfare system instead, okay? Are we still going to incur losses? Yes. Even if we introduce a nationwide voucher system or reform welfare to be needs based we will still need wealth distribution and all the negative aspects associated. I'm okay with this. As far as taxes go, I'm okay when it comes to supporting schools and welfare for the young though. In a stateless world I would not mind voluntarily donating to these causes.

Tacked onto your property taxes as well. People need to break free from this myth that the labor that they are contracting is cheap. It's appears cheap because they don't have the entire complex tabulation listed on that particular invoice.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Let me give you an example of why illegal immigration and a welfare state does not work.

CA pours billions into welfare programs for illegals and the result is more and more higher taxes to take care of the programs.

Higher taxes hurt businesses such as movie studios. Right now in all of LA, there is just one major motion picture being produced.

All of the business has gone elsewhere to states and countries where they can afford to produce a movie. Louisiana, Georgia and Canada are the new hollywood.

[erowe1]

Let me give you an example of why illegal immigration and a welfare state does not work.


Who do you see here defending the welfare state?

[AuH20]

Let me give you an example of why illegal immigration and a welfare state does not work.

CA pours billions into welfare programs for illegals and the result is more and more higher taxes to take care of the programs.

Higher taxes hurt businesses such as movie studios. Right now in all of LA, there is just one major motion picture being produced.

All of the business has gone elsewhere to states and countries where they can afford to produce a movie. Louisiana, Georgia and Canada are the new hollywood.

Illegal immigration could work without the welfare state. But we know that's far from the case in this particular country.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Who do you see here defending the welfare state?

Welfare states and illegal immigration go hand in hand.

[PierzStyx]

20 million out of work and we need a labor force? I have been unemployed in Los Angeles for 14 months now and I have a top 50 colleges degree.

The reason we are having problems with unemployment isn't immigration. Its because we have regulated and taxed people in to poverty while destroying the currency that is the carrier of our wealth. In a free market economy cheap labor is a boon not a burden.

I'm also curious about your degree. What is it in? If you majored in some niche you shouldn't be surprised its hard to find a job.

And finally move. If you want a job go somewhere that isn't flooded with labor and regulated to death like LA (and CA in general) is today.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

The reason we are having problems with unemployment isn't immigration. Its because we have regulated and taxed people in to poverty while destroying the currency that is the carrier of our wealth. In a free market economy cheap labor is a boon not a burden.

I'm also curious about your degree. What is it in? If you majored in some niche you shouldn't be surprised its hard to find a job.

And finally move. If you want a job go somewhere that isn't flooded with labor and regulated to death like LA (and CA in general) is today.


Nah, they can move not me. I am not a bootlicker.

Sounds like all of you are very well versed in Rockefeller Liberal Arts.

Nothing but liberals in here.

[Philhelm]

As a Cherokee, I find this all rather amusing: WHAT! Different colored "immigrants" taking over our land? Not speaking our language? Breaking our laws?

As a buffalo, I couldn't care less.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

As a Cherokee, I find this all rather amusing: WHAT! Different colored "immigrants" taking over our land? Not speaking our language? Breaking our laws?

Whitey didn't come over and "steal" the land from the indians. We came over here and kicked your ass!!!!!

[Ender]

Nah, they can move not me. I am not a bootlicker.

Sounds like all of you are very well versed in Rockefeller Liberal Arts.

Nothing but liberals in here.

The "liberals" here are liberal in the original meaning of the word.

The only genre that would call us "liberals" in the current definition are NEOCONS.

[erowe1]

Whitey didn't come over and "steal" the land from the indians. We came over here and kicked your ass!!!!!

That's what makes it stealing.

[AuH20]

Nah, they can move not me. I am not a bootlicker.

Sounds like all of you are very well versed in Rockefeller Liberal Arts.

Nothing but liberals in here.

The American people and their children have been fooled into believing that they are above menial labor, when in fact, they were roped into a long running scheme of easy credit and housing bubbles. Inflation adjusted wages have been declining for roughly 3 decades. That's really the prime issue at hand and why many cannot cope with this tragic reality & have fallen back on the welfare state for their basic needs. Our real unemployment rate, not counting those who have conveniently been omitted from the workforce total, is somewhere between 15 and 17% last I checked.

[erowe1]

Welfare states and illegal immigration go hand in hand.

Exactly. Solution: Get rid of welfare, and legalize all immigration.

[Ender]

Whitey didn't come over and "steal" the land from the indians. We came over here and kicked your ass!!!!!

First "whitey" spread the plague and killed of 9/10s of the Indian population. Then "whitey" lied and did not hold true to peace agreements.

BTW- the only Europeans the Indians came to trust were the Scots. They didn't lie and they wore skirts.

[Ender]

Exactly. Solution: Get rid of welfare, and legalize all immigration.

Yep.

[AuH20]

Whitey didn't come over and "steal" the land from the indians. We came over here and kicked your ass!!!!!

And the globalists are utlizing the same tactics on us, that the TPTB perfected on the Native Americans. Agenda 21 will lead to modern day reservations. Mark my words.

[Michelangelo]

I am not in favor of deportation, as that is a logistical and financial nightmare. And adult immigrants very much hurt an economy. Again, please look at the Dominican Republic for an example. You keep thinking along the lines of a perfect nation based on a free economy. America is nowhere near that, and until we are at least on the path to achieve it, to not stop illegal immigration is an incredibly foolish thing.

As I have noted before, regional overpopulation is possible when a region does not have the capital, knowledge, of technology to make full use of its resources. Several Carribean countries are certainly overpopulated and their population would be better off if some of them migrated elsewhere. The Haiti-Dominican Republic issue is a bit more complex than that admittedly and I would be willing to continue that discussion in another thread if you want to dwell deeper into it.

Adult migrants, legal and illegal, do not harm the economy or the fiscal situation of the government. They are net tax payers.

Young migrants and babies are the net tax recipients. The welfare state is concentrated on the latter group and it is the latter group that does not pay any taxes. There isn't much we can do about restricting welfare to the young though. Constitutionally citizens are entitled to certain services including access to state education. The best we can do for now is reform the welfare state to be more efficient.

And no, getting rid of birthright citizenship would not solve the problem. Babies whose parents are natives or legal migrants are as much a problem to the fiscal stability of the government as the children of illegal aliens are.


Let me add,
Over population is a myth. Without immigration, we would have a shortage of labor, higher food prices, higher construction costs, and higher home maintenance costs (or more chores, or more stay at home parents).

You, wanna see what a nation without immigration looks like, watch Japan over the next 3 decades. The biggest problem will be their pension system. and the increasing distortion of retired to working age employees.

I agree that overpopulation is largely a myth. You are also quite correct that Japan, Korea, and a few other Asian countries are facing a demographic bomb unless they encourage immigration. Los Angeles and the rest of California may face this same problem in the future. (https://www.usc.edu/schools/price/research/popdynamics/futures/2013_Myers-Pitkin_LA-Projections.pdf)

Theoretically overpopulation could happen and regional overpopulation does occur. Both the dangers of general overpopulation and regional overpopulation are overstated, but from a theoretical standpoint they could happen.


Welfare states and illegal immigration go hand in hand.


your ideology is garbage. Go for a surf in CA or just try to drive from SD to LA on any day. See if you can catch a wave or get to work on time. If illegals were not here this might be a decent place to live but they have all but destroyed this great state.


Transportation economics is actually one of my fields, so you'll have to forgive me when I say that your implication that migrants are the cause for southern California's congestion is simply hogwash. The reason that congestion occurs is because the roads are unpriced and this encourages people to travel on them more than they should. It has also encouraged the city to sprawl more than it would otherwise. Which is not to say that Los Angeles' infamous sprawl development wouldn't have occurred if roads were priced. Land is so plentiful in California that I am sure we would still have sprawled development, but not to the same extent as we have today.

Migrants actually help reduce congestion since they reduce the per capita cost of new infrastructure. They aren't a panacea and we really do need to begin pricing the roads, but they aren't the cause of the region's congestion problems.

Also, the welfare state and illegal immigration do not go hand in hand. The Cato Institute is doing some marvelous work (http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/political-externalities-immigration-evidence-united-states) on the political influence immigrants exert and the answer that they don't influence things much. Natives are largely responsible for how politics are shaped. If you are seriously concerned about migrants abusing the welfare state, why not focus our efforts on reducing the welfare state instead (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/building-wall-around-welfare-state-instead-country)? The Clinton administration was able to restrict most welfare benefits to citizens during his era, so we know that is politically feasible to opt for this route.

[Dr.3D]

Just allow those who would vote democrat to have amnesty and voting rights and see what happens.

[PierzStyx]

Nah, they can move not me. I am not a bootlicker.

Sounds like all of you are very well versed in Rockefeller Liberal Arts.

Nothing but liberals in here.

What the Hades does this even mean? If you're somehow implying free market economics is somehow left wing liberal then you're either extremely ignorant or an idiot.

And if you refuse to do something about living in one of the states with the greatest poor and worse unemployment stop blaming others. Also, considering Hispanics have been immigrating to the Southwest for well over 200 years now, I somehow doubt you "were here first."

[jbauer]

you can sit there and make arguments from your flyover state pulpit, but I live here in LA and seeing your country turn into a POS tijuana wannabe 3rd world country might open up your country boy eyes a little bit.

And yeah I went to college, so I do expect to get a jobby job you asshole. Thats what college is for.

Well how about that you holier than thou piece of work. Going to college doesn't give you a job, it gives you a hunting license for a job. Its not anyone but your own that you don't have one. A further point, how many "illegals" are competing for your top 50 college job that you can't find?

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

The national revolutions of socialism were part of Mexico's own history. Look it up. The NWO will combine North America just as they did the European Union. They don't want 'Merica to be exclusive so they must dilute it from within. If they can't do it outright, then they will blend the countries so we effectively loose any say in the matter. Who cares what they say, it's what they are doing. They're are building their socialist oligarchy. It gives them the most complete control. Just look at China.

[jbauer]

The national revolutions of socialism were part of Mexico's own history. Look it up. The NWO will combine North America just as they did the European Union. They don't want 'Merica to be exclusive so they must dilute it from within. If they can't do it outright, then they will blend the countries so we effectively loose any say in the matter. Who cares what they say, it's what they are doing. They're are building their socialist oligarchy. It gives them the most complete control. Just look at China.

So you dislike socialism, but want to be given a job in a field you deserve. Don't want to move to where jobs are and want the government to dictate who can and cannot drive on "your" crowded freeways? Gotcha

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

First "whitey" spread the plague and killed of 9/10s of the Indian population. Then "whitey" lied and did not hold true to peace agreements.

BTW- the only Europeans the Indians came to trust were the Scots. They didn't lie and they wore skirts.

Im a scot !!!

[AuH20]

The national revolutions of socialism were part of Mexico's own history. Look it up. The NWO will combine North America just as they did the European Union. They don't want 'Merica to be exclusive so they must dilute it from within. If they can't do it outright, then they will blend the countries so we effectively loose any say in the matter. Who cares what they say, it's what they are doing. They're are building their socialist oligarchy. It gives them the most complete control. Just look at China.

The national rot started far before the mass migration of the illlegals, but the central planners do intend to finish us off with amnesty from a 'representative' perspective. In order to maintain this illusion of the "consent of the governed" they need to introduce a more desperate class of dependents that they can manipulate very easily with ethnic themed ploys. Americans are gradually falling into the same trap that has beset the African Americans, but this willful self-destruction is not happening quickly enough for the ivory tower elites.

[Michelangelo]

The national revolutions of socialism were part of Mexico's own history. Look it up. The NWO will combine North America just as they did the European Union. They don't want 'Merica to be exclusive so they must dilute it from within. If they can't do it outright, then they will blend the countries so we effectively loose any say in the matter. Who cares what they say, it's what they are doing. They're are building their socialist oligarchy. It gives them the most complete control. Just look at China.

The United States already is the North American Union. It would not harm us if the Canadian provinces or Mexican states joined us. To the contrary it would be an increase in the market and therefore good.

Sigh, and yes Mexico has had its fair share of socialists but so has the US and every other country in the world. Mexico has also had its fair share of classical liberals. Liberty Fund recently published a book with classical liberal writings from Mexico. (https://catalog.libertyfund.org/modern-political-philosophy/liberty-in-mexico-cloth-detail.html) They also released one for Argentina for those interested.

P.S. Mexico also has a libertarian movement (http://www.libertarios.info/site/), believe it or not. I've met a few of them and they're as radical as anyone else in the movement.


Just allow those who would vote democrat to have amnesty and voting rights and see what happens.

And if they voted Republican things would be better?

If your concern is about the voting patterns of future migrants simply deny them the vote.

[Intoxiklown]

Whitey didn't come over and "steal" the land from the indians. We came over here and kicked your ass!!!!!


My problem with illegal immigration is logistics, and it should be addressed AFTER economic problems are dealt with, otherwise we are letting our heart make decions over our brains. I find this quote to show a rather racist undertone.

My last name is Blount (please look it up). My family literally helped settle this nation, and fought for it's independence. My family is Nordic, and we know the Vikings were the first Euros to step foot in America, and my family is also part Creek indian. In other words, I can use your logic and make a good case of why you should go, but I don't. Because the worst thing we ever did was hyphenate the word American. I am not Nordic-American. I am not Native American. I am an American.

Do you truly understand the divisiveness you are promoting? I have traveled all over the world, and it has lead me to recognize certain problems, as well as understand other histories and cultures. I fully embrace letting people come here, and wanting to better themselves. Instead of screaming about that though, I try to explain to people we have to put a hold on anyone coming in illegally until we get a hold on our out of control government and it's entitlement SOP. Which ironically, you seem to have the mindset you are entitled to jobs over someone else because they are from another nation?

[Intoxiklown]

The United States already is the North American Union. It would not harm us if the Canadian provinces or Mexican states joined us. To the contrary it would be an increase in the market and therefore good.


What??? Do you support GATT and WTO as well?

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

So you dislike socialism, but want to be given a job in a field you deserve. Don't want to move to where jobs are and want the government to dictate who can and cannot drive on "your" crowded freeways? Gotcha

Where is a good place to move with waves, nice weather and tv/film jobs? Please tell me.

[jbauer]

Where is a good place to move with waves, nice weather and tv/film jobs? Please tell me.

So your socialist arse not only wants a job provided to you but you also condition that with optimal weather and waves? You're not the surfer dude from youtube are you? Life sometimes sucks deal with it.

[jllundqu]

Go back to Stormfront.

Beat me to it

[Ender]

Im a scot !!!

So start acting like one.

BTW- I'm a Scot/Cherokee/Lumbee

[Dr.3D]

The United States already is the North American Union. It would not harm us if the Canadian provinces or Mexican states joined us. To the contrary it would be an increase in the market and therefore good.

Sigh, and yes Mexico has had its fair share of socialists but so has the US and every other country in the world. Mexico has also had its fair share of classical liberals. Liberty Fund recently published a book with classical liberal writings from Mexico. (https://catalog.libertyfund.org/modern-political-philosophy/liberty-in-mexico-cloth-detail.html) They also released one for Argentina for those interested.

P.S. Mexico also has a libertarian movement (http://www.libertarios.info/site/), believe it or not. I've met a few of them and they're as radical as anyone else in the movement.



And if they voted Republican things would be better?

If your concern is about the voting patterns of future migrants simply deny them the vote.

Yeah, really! What's the difference between perhaps Rand Paul vs. Hillery Clinton? Guess we shouldn't be so concerned if Hillery gets eight years in the White House.

[jllundqu]

Whitey didn't come over and "steal" the land from the indians. We came over here and kicked your ass!!!!!

Waaaaaaay over the line.

[Michelangelo]

What??? Do you support GATT and WTO as well?

I support the WTO. I am also a big fan of the TPP, NAFTA, and the Pacific Alliance.

They aren't perfect. They include plenty of restrictions on trade. They aren't free trade. But they are a step in the right direction. I would prefer if we could have fully open borders for all goods and services. That isn't on the table for the near future so for the time being I am willing to support reductions in those barriers.

There isn't anything unlibertarian about supporting a gradual approach to achieving our ends so long as we never support increasing trade barriers ourselves.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

So your socialist arse not only wants a job provided to you but you also condition that with optimal weather and waves? You're not the surfer dude from youtube are you? Life sometimes sucks deal with it.

I don't want a job provided for me, what I dislike is the loads of ethnic races pumped into the studios all part of liberals socialist racist quotas.

They are bringing in programmers from india by the busloads and its not because they are better at anything, hell they can barely speak engrish.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Beat me to it

So pointing out mexican racists is a form of racism? You are sick in the head.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I don't want a job provided for me, what I dislike is the loads of ethnic races pumped into the studios all part of liberals socialist racist quotas.

They are bringing in programmers from india by the busloads and its not because they are better at anything, hell they can barely speak engrish.

Have you ever considered that maybe minorities prefer the left because the left doesn't try to alienate them?

By the way, since neither of us are native Americans, why are you and I not a part of the problem?

[Michelangelo]

I don't want a job provided for me, what I dislike is the loads of ethnic races pumped into the studios all part of liberals socialist racist quotas.

They are bringing in programmers from india by the busloads and its not because they are better at anything, hell they can barely speak engrish.

If you genuinely believe this get into programming industry and hire only Americans. If Indians aren't any better then surely your company will out compete them.

[jllundqu]

So pointing out mexican racists is a form of racism? You are sick in the head.

No. I worked for immigration for years in Arizona so I know more about it than you and your 'top 50 college degree'

You're just another closed-minded collectivist with a chip on his shoulder. You think 'whitey' is better than hispanics, etc etc. Your arguments are uninformed and, quite frankly, boring.

That is all. I'm all out of troll food for today.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

No. I worked for immigration for years in Arizona so I know more about it than you and your 'top 50 college degree'

You're just another closed-minded collectivist with a chip on his shoulder. You think 'whitey' is better than hispanics, etc etc. Your arguments are uninformed and, quite frankly, boring.

That is all. I'm all out of troll food for today.

You lost me when you said "Arizona."

[angelatc]

Once we have all the lawn cutters and house cleaners we all want (of which I still don't have any yet, and neither do most Americans), then we can move onto door openers, shoe tiers, and umbrella carriers. The diminishing return will be reflected in the lower and lower wages offered to each new employee, which will continue up until the incentive to come work for those wages is gone.

That's why we need food stamps and welfare, silly! The immigrants of yesterday came here in pursuit of the American dream - owning property and businesses...getting prosperous. Half of them went back home when they couldn't make it here.

The immigrants that arrive today don't actually expect to make it into the class, much less the upper class. They're just primarily attracted to the benefits offered by the welfare system.

[jllundqu]

You lost me when you said "Arizona."

More drugs and people are smuggled thru Arizona than Cali... Or did your 'top 50 college' not include courses on 'facts'?

[James Madison]

More drugs and people are smuggled thru Arizona than Cali... Or did your 'top 50 college' not include courses on 'facts'?

Maybe the Cali smugglers are better at smuggling.

Arizona's border with Mexico is also twice as long.

[AuH20]

Have you ever considered that maybe minorities prefer the left because the left doesn't try to alienate them?

By the way, since neither of us are native Americans, why are you and I not a part of the problem?

A change of language would do very little to curb 8 out of 10 pulling levers for democrats. Their culture, especially after our country's meddling in Latin America, is inclined to favor the socialist model. If you're hungry and not overly educated, obviously you're going to gravitate towards whatever scraps you can receive. And what's worse is that generational speaking, there isn't much in terms of economic mobility in comparison to earlier immigrant groups.

[AuH20]

That's why we need food stamps and welfare, silly! The immigrants of yesterday came here in pursuit of the American dream - owning property and businesses...getting prosperous. Half of them went back home when they couldn't make it here.

The immigrants that arrive today don't actually expect to make it into the class, much less the upper class. They're just primarily attracted to the benefits offered by the welfare system.

Correct. The natural filters that no longer exist.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

More drugs and people are smuggled thru Arizona than Cali... Or did your 'top 50 college' not include courses on 'facts'?

Are you trying to make yourself and state look bad?

You said you worked in immigration but you obviously [mod delete]. You should just put a welcome mat at the border.

And speaking of boring, you just look like an average joe smith with no good traits. I bet your taste in music, arts and life in general [mod delete].

[GunnyFreedom]

Are you trying to make yourself and state look bad?

You said you worked in immigration but you obviously [mod delete]. You should just put a welcome mat at the border.

And speaking of boring, you just look like an average joe smith with no good traits. I bet your taste in music, arts and life in general [mod delete].

[mod delete] you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Tywysog Cymru]

A change of language would do very little to curb 8 out of 10 pulling levers for democrats. Their culture, especially after our country's meddling in Latin America, is inclined to favor the socialist model. If you're hungry and not overly educated, obviously you're going to gravitate towards whatever scraps you can receive. And what's worse is that generational speaking, there isn't much in terms of economic mobility in comparison to earlier immigrant groups.

It doesn't help that many on the right in the '60s sadly courted racist support, and alienated minority voters. I think Rand Paul knows what he's doing, we don't need a majority of the minority votes, just more than what Romney got.

[DamianTV]

Many are arguing over the consequences of immigration without addressing the real problem of immigration itself. All things in balance, and immigration is very out of balance. That I think we can mostly agree with.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

[mod delete] you should be ashamed of yourself.

coming from a [mod delete] that is a compliment. Keep fighting phony wars [mod delete].

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, bless your little heart. :)


coming from a [mod delete] that is a compliment. Keep fighting phony wars [mod delete].

QED.

[Dr.3D]

Is [mod delete] the same as @%&*!?

[GunnyFreedom]

Is [mod delete] the same as @%&*!?

That would seem to me an accurate assessment. :)

[Michelangelo]

Many are arguing over the consequences of immigration without addressing the real problem of immigration itself. All things in balance, and immigration is very out of balance. That I think we can mostly agree with.

Can you please elaborate on what your concern is? I will attempt to address it to the best of my ability.


It doesn't help that many on the right in the '60s sadly courted racist support, and alienated minority voters. I think Rand Paul knows what he's doing, we don't need a majority of the minority votes, just more than what Romney got.

The United States will become a minority-majority country within our lifetimes. Much of the southwest has reached minority-majority status and Hispanics will at minimum become the plurality and may even become the majority. We shouldn't be playing racial politics at all, but if we are going to play that game there is no point in alienating the largest growing demographic group in favor of the declining demographic group.

Libertarians should break with Republicans on this issue. Hell, libertarians should break with Republicans altogether. Their brand is toxic but the libertarian label might still be worth something if we make it clear that we're different than them when it comes to these issues.


A change of language would do very little to curb 8 out of 10 pulling levers for democrats. Their culture, especially after our country's meddling in Latin America, is inclined to favor the socialist model. If you're hungry and not overly educated, obviously you're going to gravitate towards whatever scraps you can receive. And what's worse is that generational speaking, there isn't much in terms of economic mobility in comparison to earlier immigrant groups.

Again, why in the world are we implying that voting Republican is any better? Both parties are filled with statists.

Hispanics and Asians are both moving up economically. Hispanics are taking longer than some other migrant groups in reaching the top of the economic ladder, but that is because they started out at the bottom. A recent study by Min Zhou (UCLA Sociology Professor) found that Mexican-Americans are more successful than one would think. (http://ideas.time.com/2014/02/25/dont-tell-amy-chua-mexicans-are-the-most-successful-immigrants/)

[RonPaulMall]

Too many people here are not acknowledging the current state of America, regarding the welfare government. Until this is changed, illegal immigration is DEVASTATING the US economy. And before someone writes dissertation trying to explain Austrian economics, save your time. I already know and agree, but I am also looking at the now and real, and not what I wish. And if you need proof, a great example is the Dominican Republic. With it's smaller population, 10 million illegal immigrants from Haiti have destroyed their nation.

It is actually the supporters of illegal immigration that fail to appreciate Austrian Economics. There is more to a nation's "wealth" than simply whether there has been a net increase in GDP. Imagine a Southern California without the stifling burdens of its idiotic regulatory state. Would it be a "richer" region than the same region 50 years earlier? Probably? Would anybody want to live there? Probably still not.

People don't care about the marginal economic impact of immigration in the face immigration that devastate quality of life and makes entire states and counties no go zones. I live in Miami Beach. It is probably the only livable area left in Miami Dade Country, and only for single people. When I have a family, I'll have to move. Is Miami Dade wealthier than it was in the 1940's? Sure. But if the price of that wealth turning the entire country in to a third world hell whole with pockets of exclusive, billionaire luxury high rises, how exactly is that wealth a benefit?

[Dr.3D]

Again, why in the world are we implying that voting Republican is any better? Both parties are filled with statists.

That's not true. Some of us are here to vote for somebody who isn't a "statist" and he happens to be in the Republican party.
Perhaps you need to read the Mission Statement (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957-Mission-Statement) of these forums again.

[Michelangelo]

That's not true. Some of us are here to vote for somebody who isn't a "statist" and he happens to be in the Republican party.
Perhaps you need to read the Mission Statement (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1957-Mission-Statement) of these forums again.

Most =/= All

The Pauls and company are the exception. Republicans as a whole are statists unless you wish to argue the Bushes, McCain, Romney, Boehner etc are friends of the liberty movement?

I restate myself; both parties are statist and it is silly to propose one is genuinely better than the other.

[erowe1]

I kinda thought I'd have gotten some +reps for post 44 by now. Oh well.

[TheCount]

I just want to say thank you to everyone participating in this thread. As we all know, there have been allegations that Paul supporters and/or libertarians are racist, etc, etc. Instead, as we see in this thread, the beliefs of true racists are diametrically opposed to liberty, and racist arguments don't go far with supporters of liberty.



I disagree with this - this is collectivism.

How can you possibly claim to disagree with collectivism when your opinions on race relations are based on collectivist thought?

[jllundqu]

Are you trying to make yourself and state look bad?

You said you worked in immigration but you obviously [mod delete]. You should just put a welcome mat at the border.

And speaking of boring, you just look like an average joe smith with no good traits. I bet your taste in music, arts and life in general [mod delete].

:) Someone's got some compensation issues :rolleyes: Ad hominems suit you perfectly btw... I'll wait while you look up "ad hominem" in the online dictionary before you respond with something equally refreshing. lol

[Dr.3D]

Most =/= All

The Pauls and company are the exception. Republicans as a whole are statists unless you wish to argue the Bushes, McCain, Romney, Boehner etc are friends of the liberty movement?

I restate myself; both parties are statist and it is silly to propose one is genuinely better than the other.
I for one would like to know what your plan to do something about it is. It's not like there is suddenly going to be a stateless society.
If we end up having eight years of Hillery, I'm going to die from barfing to death.

[Carson]

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - Updated 2010

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

[Michelangelo]

I for one would like to know what your plan to do something about it is. It's not like there is suddenly going to be a stateless society.
If we end up having eight years of Hillery, I'm going to die from barfing to death.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450325-Libertarians-as-Kingmakers&p=5501645#post5501645

I created a new thread to answer this sidebar.

[AuH20]

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - Updated 2010

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

Rand actually talked about this very subject a week or two ago. He stated point blank that we can't realistically let the entire world in and cater to them.

[Michelangelo]

Rand actually talked about this very subject a week or two ago. He stated point blank that we can't realistically let the entire world in and cater to them.

'Letting everyone in' vs. today's broken immigration system is a false dichotomy. Consider the fact that there is a black market price for those who wish to enter into the United States and that it is roughly $4,000-$5,000. With that price we have about eleven million people who have entered the United States illegally. This is a small percentage of the current US population and hardly anything close to the 'whole world'.

One keyhole solution is DRITI (Don't Restrict It, Tax It) by Nathan Smith. The details can be found here (http://openborders.info/driti/).
Gary Becker has a similar situation where we have potential migrants out-right pay for citizenship. Details can be found here. (http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/IEA%20Challenge%20of%20Immigration%20web.pdf)

It may be disturbing to think that citizenship can be bought, but why not? Citizenship is already bought and sold today. Several countries, including the United States, already sell citizenship to those willing to 'invest' in the country a given amount. Illegal migrants essentially buy their way in by paying coyotes. Why not just replace all of this with a simpler system where we ask potential migrants to pay an upfront bond of $50,000 to enter? If they are law abidding for so so years they get citizenship at the end. They won't get any welfare in the meantime and any incidental costs they incur will be paid for through the bond.

Again, we know that at $5,000 we only get some eleven million migrants. This suggests we'd have even less willing to pay $50,000. Indeed, the only ones who would be willing to pay that amount are those confident they can make the money back through work. We don't have to ask whether they will do high or low skilled work or anything like that. We won't create a way for politicians to control the labor market. All that'll matter is whether they can pay the bond amount through their own hard work or by getting someone to lend them the money.

[erowe1]

A change of language would do very little to curb 8 out of 10 pulling levers for democrats.

That's not any worse than pulling levers for Republicans.

[Feeding the Abscess]

'Letting everyone in' vs. today's broken immigration system is a false dichotomy. Consider the fact that there is a black market price for those who wish to enter into the United States and that it is roughly $4,000-$5,000. With that price we have about eleven million people who have entered the United States illegally. This is a small percentage of the current US population and hardly anything close to the 'whole world'.

One keyhole solution is DRITI (Don't Restrict It, Tax It) by Nathan Smith. The details can be found here (http://openborders.info/driti/).
Gary Becker has a similar situation where we have potential migrants out-right pay for citizenship. Details can be found here. (http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/IEA%20Challenge%20of%20Immigration%20web.pdf)

It may be disturbing to think that citizenship can be bought, but why not? Citizenship is already bought and sold today. Several countries, including the United States, already sell citizenship to those willing to 'invest' in the country a given amount. Illegal migrants essentially buy their way in by paying coyotes. Why not just replace all of this with a simpler system where we ask potential migrants to pay an upfront bond of $50,000 to enter? If they are law abidding for so so years they get citizenship at the end. They won't get any welfare in the meantime and any incidental costs they incur will be paid for through the bond.

Again, we know that at $5,000 we only get some eleven million migrants. This suggests we'd have even less willing to pay $50,000. Indeed, the only ones who would be willing to pay that amount are those confident they can make the money back through work. We don't have to ask whether they will do high or low skilled work or anything like that. We won't create a way for politicians to control the labor market. All that'll matter is whether they can pay the bond amount through their own hard work or by getting someone to lend them the money.

If you require a 50k payment to come live and work here, you'd just have people come here without paying the 50k. It also doesn't solve the problems of enforcement of those illegally living here. The only viable solution compatible with a free society is to eliminate immigration laws.

[Michelangelo]

Unrestricted open borders are ideal but the reaction of some of those here makes it clear that there is still much resistance to the idea among the wider libertarian movement, let alone the general public. An immigration tariff would certainly be several steps short of open borders, but it would be better than the current situation and is therefore worthy of being advocated for.

I certainly like your enthusiasm though!

[PRB]

what's with all the mod deletes??

[GunnyFreedom]

what's with all the mod deletes??

A few of us lost our minds

[AuH20]

That's not any worse than pulling levers for Republicans.

Republicans (despite as bad as they are) sometimes act as a brake to the sad destination we are destined to end up in. A vote for the democrats is essentially a startling increase in the speed of the passenger car. Case in point: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2014/04/experts_markey_proposal_may_threaten_free_speech All contemporary political roads lead to tyranny but I'd rather take my time getting there, while exploring other non-political ends.

[erowe1]

Republicans (despite as bad as they are) sometimes act as a brake to the sad destination we are destined to end up in. A vote for the democrats is essentially a startling increase in the speed of the passenger car. Case in point: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2014/04/experts_markey_proposal_may_threaten_free_speech All contemporary political roads lead to tyranny but I'd rather take my time getting there, while exploring other non-political ends.

I disagree. Between Romney and Obama, a Romney presidency would have sped up government expansion significantly more than Obama. Likewise with McCain.

[erowe1]

Rand actually talked about this very subject a week or two ago. He stated point blank that we can't realistically let the entire world in and cater to them.

That's just stating a fact. It's also a fact that we can't deport very many illegal immigrants, and, more importantly, it's a fact that it would be wrong to do even if we could. And it's a fact that we can't bring about self-deportation except by doing other things that we would be wrong to do, such as punishing employers for hiring illegal immigrants.

[timosman]

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - Updated 2010

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

bump

[RonPaulMall]

Consider drug laws. In its early history the United States had lax or non-existent drug laws. Should we consider the large numbers of Americans in jails today a sign that we are less law abiding than our ancestors? No. It is simply that new laws have arisen that have criminalized behavior that was previously considered acceptable.


Less "criminals" overall back then, sure. But this doesn't explain why the Irish were (relatively speaking) highly criminal while the Germans that were arriving at the same time in large numbers barely committed any crimes at all. The make up of the population is the single greatest factor in determining the greatness of a country (or state, or city, or neighborhood). If you randomly import the Third World, your nation will turn in to a third world country. If on the other hand, you are selective about who you let in, immigration can be a net positive.

[PRB]

bump

look at those diverse gumball colors

[AmericanSpartan]

This is hogwash.

Today's immigrants are assimilating faster than their predecessors. Hispanics are adopting English at a faster rate than Germans (the largest ancestry group in the US) and it isn't difficult to realize it is because the United States has become increasingly more efficient at assimilating newcomers. The reason why a large portion of today's migrants come illegally is because they do not have a viable method to do so legally. Prior immigrants were no more noble or law abiding than present immigrants, immigration laws were simply so lax that there was no need to come illegally.

Consider drug laws. In its early history the United States had lax or non-existent drug laws. Should we consider the large numbers of Americans in jails today a sign that we are less law abiding than our ancestors? No. It is simply that new laws have arisen that have criminalized behavior that was previously considered acceptable.

The Senate immigration reform bill would not grant instant citizenship to anyone. It would put illegal aliens on a possible pathway to permanent residency, if several triggers are met. These triggers include ensuring that the border is certified as protected and includes the input of regional governments who directly border Mexico. Mind you, it is a myth that the US-Mexican border isn't secure.

Furthermore, why are libertarians of all people buying into this myth that somehow either party is better than the other? This is what is implicitly conceded when the case is made that migrants vote for Democrats and therefore statists. Both Republicans and Democrats are statist parties and things would be little better if migrants voted over whelming for the Republican Party. Migrants could be easy pickings for converting over to libertarianism; many of these are individuals who have spent their lives under statist regimes much worse than the United States and who migrate partially out of a desire for greater liberty for themselves and their children. Why aren't more migrants libertarian? Gee, it might have to do with all the hostility they get with videos like these. You cannot expect to persuade migrants of our cause if you simultaneously trying to kick them out.

There is one truth to this video, the 'cabal' is trying to divide us. It isn't trying to do so with multiculturalism. Nay, it is achieving its means by promoting the very concept that we are intrinsically different from one another by sheer virtue of place of birth. If we truly wish to defeat the 'cabal' we should do so by fighting alongside our brethren and welcoming them regardless of their ethnic background or birthplace.

Your lies are laughable.