President Obama encouraging aliens to invade U.S. borders!

[johnwk]

Let us take a look at the suicidal consequences which are occurring in our country because our traitorous federal government ignores the general welfare of the United States by allowing millions upon millions of impoverished aliens to invade our borders:


Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm)

Dateline: December, 2004

Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.


Hearing focuses on costs linked to immigration (http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2006/Aug/31/hearing-focuses-on-costs-linked-to-immigration/) Officials cite illegals' effect on schools, criminal justice

Testimony about "51 Florida Hospitals in trouble" due to illegal aliens expenses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDjZ6gzo0C4)

Texas Faces Rising Cost For Illegal Immigrant Care (http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/101098849.html)

Texas spent at least $250 million in the past year for medical care and imprisonment of illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.


L.A. Emergency Rooms Full of Illegal Immigrants (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html)

Mike Antonovich, the Los Angeles County supervisor, said the system has been "basically bankrupted."

The Department of Health has a $1.2 billion deficit. Caring for illegals is siphoning money from other services and forcing clinics, trauma centers and emergency rooms to close, he said.

Department of Education - Immigration Fiscal Impact Statement (http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_18_2/tsc_18_2_rubenstein_education.shtml)

(In 1982 the Supreme Court ruled that illegal immigrant children are entitled to the same education benefits available to U.S. citizens. An estimated 1.1 million public school students are illegal immigrants, according to the Urban Institute.)

Because these students require more services than the children of natives, they will naturally receive an even larger share of educational spending. It is not unreasonable to attribute 25 percent of all pre-K to 12 spending to the 19 percent of students who are immigrants or the children of immigrants.

Preventing and Controlling Tuberculosis Along the U.S.-Mexico Border (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5001a1.htm)


In 1999, Mexico was the country of origin for 23% (1,753) of all foreign-born persons with TB. Of TB cases among Mexican-born persons, three fourths were reported from the four U.S. states bordering Mexico: California, 820 cases; Texas, 364 cases; Arizona, 67 cases; and New Mexico, 17 cases (3). In 1999, TB cases among Mexican-born persons represented approximately 25% of all reported TB in the four border states. Incidence of TB was higher for the majority of border counties than the national TB rate.


Drug-resistant TB on the rise along US-Mexican border (http://potomacteapartyreport.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/drug-resistant-tb-on-the-rise-along-us-mexican-border/)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and reported by McKay, to treat one case of multidrug-resistant TB will cost us (the taxpayers) $140,000 to as high as $700,000 per patient!


The bottom line is, our President is knowingly and willingly allowing our borders to be invaded, and is even encouraging the poverty stricken populations of South American countries to cross our borders! See:Obama's Mariel: Five Ways Obama's Immigration Decisions Parallel Those Of Castro (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060614-703818-obama-immigration-decisions-parallel-those-of-castro-at-mariel.htm)

”Immigration: A wave of single mothers and children is crashing across our border from Central America in numbers not seen since Cuba's 1980 Mariel boatlift. Incredibly, it's now President Obama playing the role of Castro.

Last week, President Obama called the surge in illegal immigration across the Texas border "an urgent humanitarian situation" and vowed to put together a task force to ensure that the "needs" of the illegals are fulfilled by the U.S. taxpayer.”


And let us not forget that the Congress of the United States, including the Republican Party Leadership in the House, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, are very much complicit in this destructive and traitorous attack upon the general welfare of the United States by ignoring a constitutionally assigned duty which is stated as follows:

The Congress shall have power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…”

Indeed, our federal government has become the very enemy which our Constitution was designed to protect us from!

JWK



Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

[DP714]

https://i.imgur.com/ykTNIX4.png
:cool:

[Lucille]

Are immigrants unaware how fascist this country is, which is getting worse with every passing day? I'll happily trade my US citizenship for Mexican citizenship. Fred (http://www.fredoneverything.net/) seems very happy.

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


Three decades ago, Barry Goldwater spelled out what the United States should do about illegal immigration.

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.

It's simple really. But this is the era of highly complicated "solutions," so I expect another Ruling Class CF, if they do anything at all. They could start by enforcing the immigration laws on the books, but that's obviously out of the question.

[Zippyjuan]

by allowing millions upon millions of impoverished aliens to invade our borders:

Is this why the total number of illegal aliens in the country has been actually declining?

http://rt.com/usa/mexico-us-immigration-remittance-declining-923/


Number of Mexicans crossing US border lowest in decades

Published time: November 18, 2013 23:09
Even as immigration remains a dominant political issue in Washington, particularly the issue of providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the amount of Mexicans crossing the US border has come to a virtual standstill.

An estimated 12 million people are thought to have entered the US from Mexico over the past four decades, both by legal and illegal methods. Yet according to a recent survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, an arm of the Pew Research Center, the weakened US economy and tougher border enforcement are among the factors that have contributed to the sudden drop.

The downturn began around 2006 just as an immigration crackdown was ramping up and two years before the housing market crash that would push the US economy into a recession. Roughly seven million unauthorized immigrants were living in the US in 2007, but that number decreased by approximately 900,000 four years later, according to the Pew Research Center.



Estimated totals have fallen from 12.6 million in 2007 to 10.6 million today- a decrease of 2 million.


President Obama encouraging aliens to invade U.S. borders!

Where are the millions entering under Obama?

Illegal aliens are not elgible for any Federal benefits like Obamacare, Medicare, or Social Security.


Obama's Mariel: Five Ways Obama's Immigration Decisions Parallel Those Of Castro

Castro's Mariel encouraged people to LEAVE not go to Cuba. So Obama is encouraging them to go home? (We do spend twice as much on border security and border patrol than when he took office and deportations were at record numbers before they were dialed back).

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Anti-immigration proponents encourage government theft to secure arbitrary line that infringes upon private property!

[Zippyjuan]

If you want to get rid of all illegal aliens, you must expand the police state- more people to secure borders (which will only stop the half which try to enter illegally- most actually came in with legal visas and stayed) and more people to seek out and round up those already here. That means more taxes to pay for them and fewer civil rights. We will need national IDs and more checkpoints and random searches of individuals, homes, and businesses to find them all. Then we need bigger prisons to store them until they can be "sorted through" by a larger court system and spend more money to deport them.

[phill4paul]

Is this why the total number of illegal aliens in the country has been actually declining?

If one were to enter the country illegally, unnoticed, how would someone make an accounting?

[Zippyjuan]

You are right. How do we know there are ANY illegal aliens in the country- let alone the claim that there are millions of them? Maybe it is really less that 1,000? Or 300,000,000?

[phill4paul]

You are right. How do we know there are ANY illegal aliens in the country- let alone the claim that there are millions of them? Maybe it is really less that 1,000? Or 300,000,000?

Could be. I know five. All good people. Of course, mileage varies depending on location and involvement.

[axiomata]

I, for one, will welcome our liberators. ;)

[Michelangelo]

USCIS has a publication detailing how they count illegal aliens in the US for those interested.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2010.pdf

Basically they get the total US population - natives - legal migrants = residual is illegal migrants.

As for OP; remember that a good portion of these fiscal costs are due to the US citizen children of migrants (legal or illegal). Even if you deported their parents the children would have a claim to these services. The issue here isn't immigration, the problem here is the bloated welfare state. Ideally we should get rid of it but since that is politically impossible for the near future we should at least be concentrating on efforts on minimizing the damage by introducing more schooling voucher programs/tax credits and reforms to healthcare system.

[CPUd]

Is such a thing even possible?

[johnwk]

If you want to get rid of all illegal aliens, you must expand the police state- more people to secure borders (which will only stop the half which try to enter illegally- most actually came in with legal visas and stayed) and more people to seek out and round up those already here. That means more taxes to pay for them and fewer civil rights. We will need national IDs and more checkpoints and random searches of individuals, homes, and businesses to find them all. Then we need bigger prisons to store them until they can be "sorted through" by a larger court system and spend more money to deport them.


Seems to me you are comfortable with importing the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled foreigners of other nations into America.


JWK

[puppetmaster]

If you want to get rid of all illegal aliens, you must expand the police state- more people to secure borders (which will only stop the half which try to enter illegally- most actually came in with legal visas and stayed) and more people to seek out and round up those already here. That means more taxes to pay for them and fewer civil rights. We will need national IDs and more checkpoints and random searches of individuals, homes, and businesses to find them all. Then we need bigger prisons to store them until they can be "sorted through" by a larger court system and spend more money to deport them.

Or the inverse, one world government......which evil is the lessor.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Or the inverse, one world government......which evil is the lessor.

Yeah because not wanting the government to control my property & who I can/cannot interact with equates to wanting a world government...

http://cdn01.cdnwp.celebuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/14/jennifer-lawrence-10.gif

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah because not wanting the government to control my property & who I can/cannot interact with equates to wanting a world government...


At some point, don't you ever wonder why the statist, crony corporatists want the same thing? What is their goal? Should you help them?

[DamianTV]

I think I'll go to Mexico, illegally and take shit loads of their money and send it back to non existent family members in the US. Or, just keep it all for myself.

[nobody's_hero]

If you want to get rid of all illegal aliens, you must expand the police state- more people to secure borders (which will only stop the half which try to enter illegally- most actually came in with legal visas and stayed) and more people to seek out and round up those already here. That means more taxes to pay for them and fewer civil rights. We will need national IDs and more checkpoints and random searches of individuals, homes, and businesses to find them all. Then we need bigger prisons to store them until they can be "sorted through" by a larger court system and spend more money to deport them.

What if they eventually are granted citizenship, vote for big-gov't, and we get all that anyway? :(

[TheCount]

What if they eventually are granted citizenship, vote for big-gov't, and we get all that anyway? :(

Like all the previous generations of immigrants did?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

At some point, don't you ever wonder why the statist, crony corporatists want the same thing? What is their goal? Should you help them?

How am I helping them by wanting a free market? Should you be helping these same people increase the size and scope of the police/military state through stealing more resources to "secure" the border?

[RonPaulMall]

If you want to get rid of all illegal aliens, you must expand the police state- more people to secure borders (which will only stop the half which try to enter illegally- most actually came in with legal visas and stayed) and more people to seek out and round up those already here. That means more taxes to pay for them and fewer civil rights. We will need national IDs and more checkpoints and random searches of individuals, homes, and businesses to find them all. Then we need bigger prisons to store them until they can be "sorted through" by a larger court system and spend more money to deport them.


You don't need to expand the police state in the slightest. Our meddling in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine could pay for securing the border a hundred times over. Reassigning the TSA from their pointless security theater busy work in to actual work on the border would be another revenue and liberty neutral way of doing it. It is easy to do. The problem is our politicians want as many poor Mexicans flooding the country as humanly possible and so they chose to do nothing.

[Zippyjuan]

You don't need to expand the police state in the slightest. Our meddling in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine could pay for securing the border a hundred times over. Reassigning the TSA from their pointless security theater busy work in to actual work on the border would be another revenue and liberty neutral way of doing it. It is easy to do. The problem is our politicians want as many poor Mexicans flooding the country as humanly possible and so they chose to do nothing.

Again I will ask, if the goal is to flood the country with "poor Mexicans" why are there two milliion FEWER of them (all illegals, not just Mexican) in the country than there were in 2007? Immigrants are often used as political scapegoats to blame society's ills on. This has happened throughout our history. Those who do come are looking for jobs and a way to improve their lives. If a person only wants welfare and is too lazy to work, they aren't going to make the difficult trip and adjustment to move to another country just to do nothing.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/


APRIL 23, 2012
Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less


The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—most of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed, according to a new analysis of government data from both countries by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and broader economic conditions in Mexico.

If the government is "doing nothing" why are we spending TWICE as much on border security?

[Zippyjuan]

Seems to me you are comfortable with importing the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled foreigners of other nations into America.


JWK

I am arguing that there ISN'T a massive wave of poor, uneducated foreigners sweeping over our country. I certainly not advocating that we should start one.

[Zippyjuan]

Or the inverse, one world government......which evil is the lessor.

Arguing for not expanding the US security apparatus is favoring One World Government? Interesting leap. Ron Paul is against expanding the US security apparatus as well.

[nobody's_hero]

Like all the previous generations of immigrants did?

Like Ron Paul says, If history has shown us anything, it is that we do not learn from our history.

[johnwk]

Like all the previous generations of immigrants did?


Previous generations? You should check your history before making such an absurd, historically inaccurate comment!


JWK


Why is it that our Republican Party leadership in the House is ignoring this ongoing invasion of our borders when Congress has the duty “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…”?

[johnwk]

I am arguing that there ISN'T a massive wave of poor, uneducated foreigners sweeping over our country.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention!



See: Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children (http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011)

_________


Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.

Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.


______


JWK

Why is it that our Republican Party leadership in the House is ignoring this ongoing invasion of our borders when Congress has the duty “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…”?

[Zippyjuan]

Welfare is a state- not Federal program. But I would be curious to know what percent of illegal immigrants are actually on welfare compared to citizens at the same income levels. Immigrants do tend to be at lower income levels and all lower income households are more likely to be on some sort of assistance than an average household. They are not elgible for food stamps. http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx


Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for SNAP. Additionally, there is already a strict waiting period for documented immigrants. Documented adult immigrants (those with a greencard) are subject to a five-year waiting period before they are eligible for SNAP.
Noncitizens make up a very small portion of SNAP participants – only 4% of participants are noncitizens (documented immigrants or refugees).[xxxiv]

As your link points out:

A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens.

And as it also points out they are likely to be working.

An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009.

And it also includes legal along with illegal immigrants.

of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myths_and_facts_about_immigration_to_the_United_St ates


Immigrant labor-force participation is consistently higher than native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%).

Granted, this figure too does include legal and illegal immigrants.

They are also paying taxes (unless they are being paid in cash).

http://www.neighborhood-centers.org/en-us/content/Myths+versus+Facts.aspx


MYTH:
Undocumented workers come from here to get free government services.

FACT:
Most come here to work. Of the estimated 11.5 to 12-million undocumented workers living in America, 7.5 million are employed, and undocumented men come here almost exclusively to work: Their labor force participation--96 percent--exceeds that of men who are legal immigrants or U.S. citizens ("Undocumented Immigrants: Facts and Figures," The Urban Institute). Moreover, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other forms of public assistance.

And your own link says even legal immigrants aren't elgible for at least five years.


Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years;

[Brian4Liberty]

Or the inverse, one world government......which evil is the lessor.


Arguing for not expanding the US security apparatus is favoring One World Government? Interesting leap. Ron Paul is against expanding the US security apparatus as well.

Oh, we actually want Ron Paul's position on this matter? Aren't we lucky, he has addressed most of the issues in this thread before...

Here's an interview with Ron:


Please start by summarizing your position on immigration.

Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders. This mess has come about for various reasons. One, the laws aren`t enforced. Another, the welfare state. We have a need for workers in this country because our welfare system literally encourages people not to work. Therefore, a lot of jobs go begging. This is an incentive for immigrants to come in and take those jobs.

It is compounded because of federal mandates on the states to provide free medical care—that`s literally bankrupting the hospitals in Texas—and free education.

So my main point is to get rid of incentives that cause people to break the law—entitlements as well as the promise of amnesty, citizenship.

I also want to revisit the whole idea of birthright citizenship. I don`t think many countries have that. I don`t think it was the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment. I personally think it could be fixed by legislation. But some people argue otherwise, so I`ve covered myself by introducing a constitutional amendment.

How would legislation work?

It would define citizenship. Individuals that just stepped over the border illegally would not be technically “under the jurisdiction of the United States”. [i.e. not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the words of the Fourteenth Amendment] That`s illegal entry, so they don`t deserve this privilege.

What is your view on legal immigration?

I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.

I`m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.

But in the meantime, we want to stop the illegals. And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Is the economy healthy enough right now?

No. I don`t think so. I think the economy is going downhill. People are feeling pinched—in the middle, much more pinched than the government is willing to admit. Their standard of living is going down. I saw a clip on TV the other day about somebody who was about to lose their house, they couldn`t pay their mortgage .There`re millions of people involved, people are very uncertain about this housing market. That can`t be separated from concern about illegals.

How many illegal immigrants do you think there are in the country now?

All I can go by is those predictions they put in the paper. It used to be 3-4 million, then it went to 7-8 million. Now it`s 11-12 million! Does anybody know?

Bear Stearns made an estimate about three years ago that there were 20 million in the country. [The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface, Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA January 3, 2005(PDF)] What would you do with them?

I think when you know where they are, and you know they`re illegal, they should be sent back. Especially if they`re caught in a crime.

I think you have to be realistic. I mean, having an army to go around the country to round them up and put them in trucks and haul them out, that`s not feasible. But certainly if they`re signing up for a benefit, they should be sent back home, instead of given the benefit.

You`d like to restore the presumption against being a public charge?

Right. Or if they`re caught in a criminal act—rather than sending them through the court system and spending all that money and then putting them up in prison, we can get them shipped out pretty fast. Unless they are a very violent criminal.

You have a long record of being a serious libertarian. You must have libertarians who are annoyed with you on this.

I imagine there are some, because there are some who are literally don`t believe in any borders! Totally free immigration! I`ve never taken that position.

Why not?

Because I believe in national sovereignty.

You think there`s a role for the nation-state?

Sure. Sure. Otherwise, the vacuum is filled with international government. We won`t have a national government, we`ll have a United Nations government—and we already do, we have a WTO [World Trade Organization] government. But the problems we`re talking about, I want them to be solved by the U.S. congress and the President. I don`t want the WTO settling this dispute.

I really haven`t had much grief from the hard-core libertarians. Some who might disagree with me are not very antagonistic because they know it`s a big problem and that the lack of the free market is compounding that problem.
...
More:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-paul-i-believe-in-national-sovereignty

[Zippyjuan]

I would again add that there has indeed been a large change in the number of illegal aliens in this country. It has DECLINED by about 2 million since 2007.

There has been a wave- of them leaving.

[RonPaulMall]

Again I will ask, if the goal is to flood the country with "poor Mexicans" why are there two milliion FEWER of them (all illegals, not just Mexican) in the country than there were in 2007? Immigrants are often used as political scapegoats to blame society's ills on. This has happened throughout our history. Those who do come are looking for jobs and a way to improve their lives. If a person only wants welfare and is too lazy to work, they aren't going to make the difficult trip and adjustment to move to another country just to do nothing.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/



If the government is "doing nothing" why are we spending TWICE as much on border security?

Spending as much money as possible is always the government default position. It's part of the reason they are so keen on keeping the borders wide open. If they can spend as much money as possible not enforcing the borders and flooding the country with people that will increase the spending for schools, hospitals, and social welfare programs, that's win-win for them. As for the claim that there are less illegals now than 2007, who knows if that is true or not. Maybe 2007 was just a particularly heinous year in terms of illegal migration. But the facts on the ground don't lie. Just walk around Southern California or Southwest Texas and you'll see what is happening. Border patrol is actually busing illegals to Arizona and just dropping them off! 1,000 Children (the worst kind of immigrant you can get from a citizen's standpoint- though the best from big government's perspective) dumped in Arizona this weekend alone.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/07/feds-say-no-end-in-sight-for-policy-dumping-illegal-immigrants-in-arizona-gov/

[pcosmar]

If the government is "doing nothing" why are we spending TWICE as much on border security?

because the government is spending it on not securing the border,,, Government is real profitable to bureaucrats.

[Zippyjuan]

Spending as much money as possible is always the government default position. It's part of the reason they are so keen on keeping the borders wide open. If they can spend as much money as possible not enforcing the borders and flooding the country with people that will increase the spending for schools, hospitals, and social welfare programs, that's win-win for them. As for the claim that there are less illegals now than 2007, who knows if that is true or not. Maybe 2007 was just a particularly heinous year in terms of illegal migration. But the facts on the ground don't lie. Just walk around Southern California or Southwest Texas and you'll see what is happening. Border patrol is actually busing illegals to Arizona and just dropping them off! 1,000 Children (the worst kind of immigrant you can get from a citizen's standpoint- though the best from big government's perspective) dumped in Arizona this weekend alone.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/07/feds-say-no-end-in-sight-for-policy-dumping-illegal-immigrants-in-arizona-gov/

I live in Southern California. Within about 20 miles from the border. There is no "surge" in illegal aliens going on here. (A significant number of illegal immigrants leaving starting in 2007 was due to the economic collapse and a shortage of jobs which shows also that it is indeed work and not welfare which is the larger draw).

Interestingly, tighter border security has actually encouraged more illegal aliens to stay in the country. It used to be easier to come across, work for a while, earn money and return home. Now with getting across much harder, they come and stay and just send the money home- later trying to bring more of their family across rather than them all staying in Mexico.

[Brian4Liberty]

I would again add that there has indeed been a large change in the number of illegal aliens in this country. It has DECLINED by about 2 million since 2007.

There has been a wave- of them leaving.

"Self-deportation"? That is a terrible, evil, racist, elitist cracker thing to say! Are you working for Mitt Romney now?

[pcosmar]

I would again add that there has indeed been a large change in the number of illegal aliens in this country. It has DECLINED by about 2 million since 2007.

There has been a wave- of them leaving.

You are seriously posting this shit here today

WTF,, ???

Have you not seen the news today?? Texas has been busing them to Arizona, and dumping them there.

And they are coming from Central America. Not Mexico.

It seems someone has been spreading a rumor down there..
I am wondering which Jeb Bush started that rumor?

[johnwk]

I live in Southern California. Within about 20 miles from the border. There is no "surge" in illegal aliens going on here. (A significant number of illegal immigrants leaving starting in 2007 was due to the economic collapse and a shortage of jobs which shows also that it is indeed work and not welfare which is the larger draw).



Stop making crap up!


SEE: Oklahoma Leaders Respond To Plans To House Illegal Immigrants At Fort Sill (http://wnow.worldnow.com/story/25721203/oklahoma-leaders-respond-to-federal-plans-to-house-illegal-immigrants-juveniles-at-fort-sill)


Governor Mary Fallin said she got word of this decision from the President on Friday, and it's sparking more debate on how to handle immigration. It could cost around $250 per child per day that they're housed on base.
. . .

The number of minors who illegally immigrate to the U.S. is expected to rise to 66,000 this year and to 127,000 by next year.

If this is not an impeachable offense what is?

JWK

[69360]

Meh, give them a green card, let them work, make them pay taxes, no entitlement until citizenship. Problem solved.

The pilgrims were illegal immigrants too.

[Zippyjuan]

Stop making crap up!


SEE: Oklahoma Leaders Respond To Plans To House Illegal Immigrants At Fort Sill (http://wnow.worldnow.com/story/25721203/oklahoma-leaders-respond-to-federal-plans-to-house-illegal-immigrants-juveniles-at-fort-sill)


Governor Mary Fallin said she got word of this decision from the President on Friday, and it's sparking more debate on how to handle immigration. It could cost around $250 per child per day that they're housed on base.
. . .

The number of minors who illegally immigrate to the U.S. is expected to rise to 66,000 this year and to 127,000 by next year.

If this is not an impeachable offense what is?

JWK

Then all Presidents should be impeached. Even a president Ron or Rand Paul cannot have zero illegal immigration. The key number is NET immigration- those coming minus those leaving. That is still zero. And about half of all illegals here entered the country legally.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/politics/fact-check-immigration/


CNN Fact Check: Illegal border crossings at lowest levels in 40 years

In fiscal year 2011, there were 18,506 U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Southwest Border Sectors -- up steadily from 3,555 agents in 1992, according to Customs and Border Protection figures.

A Pew Research Hispanic Center study finds that Border Patrol apprehensions of all unauthorized immigrants are at their lowest level since 1971. "In spite of (and perhaps because of) increases in the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents, apprehensions of Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally have plummeted in recent years—from more than 1 million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011—a likely indication that fewer unauthorized migrants are trying to cross," it concluded.

Pew estimates that net migration -- newly arrived immigrants minus those leaving (forced or voluntarily) -- has come to a standstill, which it attributes to the weakened U.S. job and construction markets, border enforcement, an increase in deportations, and increased dangers associated with crossing the border.

In all, there were 327,577 illegal immigrant apprehensions in 2011, according to the U.S. Border Patrol. This is the lowest number since 1972, when there were 321,326. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the 2011 figure is a 53% drop from 2008, which it says indicates that fewer people are trying to cross the border.

The figures can be tough to interpret. Often, the same person is caught more than once, "and then the flip side of that phenomenon is there's no way of knowing how many you missed counting, how many do get through," said Dan Kowalski, editor of Bender's Immigration Bulletin and an immigration lawyer at the Fowler Law Firm in Austin, Texas. "So, you get what you measure. In other words, you count what you count."

But even if the border could be sealed in a foolproof manner, the issue of illegal immigration would not be resolved. That's because many of those people who are in the United States without authorization have entered the country legally on a visa and simply overstayed their visa status, Kowalski said.

[Zippyjuan]

All those kids coming and being caged up is a sad story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/us/more-young-illegal-immigrants-face-deportation.html?pagewanted=all

This article is from two years ago so it is not some new problem- though still a tough and sad one.


The young people, mostly from Mexico and Central America, ride to the border on the roofs of freight trains or the backs of buses. They cross the Rio Grande on inner tubes, or hike for days through extremes of heat and chill in Arizona deserts. The smallest children, like Juan, are most often brought by smugglers.


Young migrants say they are fleeing sharply escalating criminal violence in their home countries.


The rush of young illegal border crossers began last fall but picked up speed this year, according to official figures. From October through July, the authorities detained 21,842 unaccompanied minors, most at the Southwest border, a 48 percent increase over a year earlier.

Some left their parents behind at home. Many came yearning to reunite with parents who have long been living here illegally.

The figures are striking because overall migration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, fell last year to the lowest level in two decades, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a research group in Washington. Yet the numbers of young unaccompanied Mexicans crossing illegally have stayed steady, and minors from Central America — especially El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras — have nearly doubled since last year.

Policy changes in this country or Mexico do not appear to have spurred the surge.

[RonPaulMall]

Meh, give them a green card, let them work, make them pay taxes, no entitlement until citizenship. Problem solved.

The pilgrims were illegal immigrants too.

If you give them a green card they get everything they want and their children become citizens automatically. That is not a solution. The best solution is the Australian solution. House these people on an island (good use for Gitmo or even Guam) in a generally unpleasant holding center until they can be shipped back to their home country. Word travels quickly in matters like this, and it won't be long before people decide not to immigrate illegally to America.

And btw, how worthless is Governor Brewer? If I were the Governor of Arizona I'd have my own buses waiting at these drop off points and the second they got off the bus they'd be herded in to another and driven directly to the front gate of the White House. Let Obama keep these kids in his house if he wants them so bad. And I'm sure Sidwell Friends would be more than happy to take take care of their schooling.

[johnwk]

Then all Presidents should be impeached.

Stop switching the subject. You wrote that you live in Southern California. Within about 20 miles from the border. There is no "surge" in illegal aliens going on here. (A significant number of illegal immigrants leaving starting in 2007 was due to the economic collapse and a shortage of jobs which shows also that it is indeed work and not welfare which is the larger draw). That was propaganda and made up crap!

Our borders are being invaded like never before and Obama is actually assisting and encouraging our borders to be overrun with other nation's poverty stricken, poorly educated and unskilled populations.

JWK


Why is it that our Republican Party leadership in the House is ignoring this ongoing invasion of our borders when Congress has the duty “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…”?

[johnwk]

All those kids coming and being caged up is a sad story.

.

What is sad is their parents. Instead of standing up to their own tyrannical governments, they give assistance to our tyrannical government by bringing their children here, getting on the public dole, and help Obama to collapse our nation's economy.


JWK


America is being taken over by domestic enemies without a shot being fired.

[Zippyjuan]

Stop switching the subject. You wrote that you live in Southern California. Within about 20 miles from the border. There is no "surge" in illegal aliens going on here. (A significant number of illegal immigrants leaving starting in 2007 was due to the economic collapse and a shortage of jobs which shows also that it is indeed work and not welfare which is the larger draw). That was propaganda and made up crap!

Our borders are being invaded like never before and Obama is actually assisting and encouraging our borders to be overrun with other nation's poverty stricken, poorly educated and unskilled populations.

JWK


Why is it that our Republican Party leadership in the House is ignoring this ongoing invasion of our borders when Congress has the duty “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…”?

How many million a year are coming "like never before"? Actual numbers are down- not up.


Why is it that our Republican Party leadership in the House is ignoring this ongoing invasion of our borders when Congress has the duty [i]“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections [u]and repel Invasions…”

SO we should call up the military to search every household and every business and get every illegal alien out of the country. That sounds like imposing lots of liberty. Or rather denying lots of it. How big are these hordes of "poverty stricken, poorly educated and unskilled" we need to be defending ourselves from? Net immigration is zero. Bigger government to deal with a problem which really isn't as much of a problem as you make it sound. Isn't that something liberals do?

But despite talk, I guess it wasn't that big an issue for them either. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/in-budget-bill-a-dispute-over-border-security/


Preparing for the fight next week in Congress over federal spending legislation, Democratic leaders in the Senate said they will not support a bill with $60 billion in budget cuts that passed the[B] Republican-led House on Saturday because it reduces funding for border security.

In a letter sent on Monday to House appropriations leaders, Senator Charles Schumer of New York and two other Democrats said the House bill would shrink the Border Patrol by 870 agents and cut $272 million in funds for surveillance systems to monitor the border with Mexico. They said those cuts would cancel gains from a bill adopted last August, with virtually unanimous bipartisan support, that increased border funding by $600 million, adding 1,000 new agents to the Border Patrol.


At the same hearing, Michael J. Fisher, the chief of the Border Patrol, said the standards of control Mr. Stana applied were an “outdated measure” that would be replaced, because they did not reflect advances in surveillance technology and in intelligence-sharing among border agencies. With more than 20,700 agents last year, the Border Patrol has doubled in size since funding increases began in 2004. Arrests of illegal border crossers have dropped steeply, to 463,000 last year from 1.1 million in 2004.

[69360]

If you give them a green card they get everything they want and their children become citizens automatically. That is not a solution. The best solution is the Australian solution. House these people on an island (good use for Gitmo or even Guam) in a generally unpleasant holding center until they can be shipped back to their home country. Word travels quickly in matters like this, and it won't be long before people decide not to immigrate illegally to America.

And btw, how worthless is Governor Brewer? If I were the Governor of Arizona I'd have my own buses waiting at these drop off points and the second they got off the bus they'd be herded in to another and driven directly to the front gate of the White House. Let Obama keep these kids in his house if he wants them so bad. And I'm sure Sidwell Friends would be more than happy to take take care of their schooling.

What's wrong with people getting what they want? Why don't you want them or their kids to be citizens? Somewhere back in time RonPaulMall and JohnWK's ancestors were immigrants.

You need to work more on hiding your hate...

[johnwk]

Actual numbers are down- not up.

Stop posting crap!


Oklahoma Leaders Respond To Plans To House Illegal Immigrants At Fort Sill (http://wnow.worldnow.com/story/25721203/oklahoma-leaders-respond-to-federal-plans-to-house-illegal-immigrants-juveniles-at-fort-sill)


Governor Mary Fallin said she got word of this decision from the President on Friday, and it's sparking more debate on how to handle immigration. It could cost around $250 per child per day that they're housed on base.
. . .

The number of minors who illegally immigrate to the U.S. is expected to rise to 66,000 this year and to 127,000 by next year.



In any event, the point is, Obama is encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated and unskilled populations of other nations to come here and it is helping to collapse America's economy. Does the general welfare of the United States not concern you as a priority? Do you agree with the Obama Administration's desire to allow our country to be overrun with the poverty of other nations?



JWK

[Ender]

Meh, give them a green card, let them work, make them pay taxes, no entitlement until citizenship. Problem solved.

The pilgrims were illegal immigrants too.

On. The. Nose.

And all the nonsense said about Latino immigrants today, was also said about the Irish immigrants in the 1860s.

[Zippyjuan]

So you keep repeating but don't show evidence. There used to be a million a year caught trying to cross the border. And they are not "poverty stricken, poorly educated and unskilled" either. Since the wording does not change it sounds like you are copying that from someplace. Curious what the source is?


Do you agree with the Obama Administration's desire to allow our country to be overrun with the poverty of other nations?

Spending twice as much on border security means he want the country over-run? One would think if that was the case that they would just fire all border workers- not hire more of them.

[Snew]

On. The. Nose.

And all the nonsense said about Latino immigrants today, was also said about the Irish immigrants in the 1860s.

How dare someone who looks different cross our imaginary lines! These are OUR imaginary lines!

[Zippyjuan]

On. The. Nose.

And all the nonsense said about Latino immigrants today, was also said about the Irish immigrants in the 1860s.

And the Germans. And the Italians. And the Chinese. And they all helped build the country- not tear it down. Fear of foreigners can tear it down though. Hating others will tear it down.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Fuck nationalism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQQgb5hXQGU

[johnwk]

On. The. Nose.

And all the nonsense said about Latino immigrants today, was also said about the Irish immigrants in the 1860s.


Stop switching the subject. What people say is not important unless backed up by facts. As to Irish immigrants there was no 'free government cheese" given out during that time period. If immigrants didn't work they starved unless they got a helping hand from charity. Today the force of government is used to feed, house and provide medical care to those who are invading our borders. Aside from that here are some figures:

See: Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children (http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011)

_________


Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.

Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.


______


Why are you so comfortable with Obama importing the poverty stricken, poorly educated and unskilled populations of other nations into America. Do you not care about our nation's general welfare?

JWK

[69360]

The number of minors who illegally immigrate to the U.S. is expected to rise to 66,000 this year and to 127,000 by next year.


Wrong, net migration is down. More go back than come.

[johnwk]

So you keep repeating but don't show evidence. There used to be a million a year caught trying to cross the border. And they are not "poverty stricken, poorly educated and unskilled" either. Since the wording does not change it sounds like you are copying that from someplace. Curious what the source is?





Those are my words. So tell me why you are ok with Obama importing the poverty stricken, poorly education and unskilled populations of other nations into America, the vast majority of whom wind upon on the public dole?


JWK

[kcchiefs6465]

Johnwk, you repeat the same tired facts apparently expecting some grand consortium of outrage.... have you ever taken a look at America?

An entire system built upon economic fallacies and plunder yet I am to worry myself about the alleged influx of migrant workers. Workers who for the large part are 'taking' jobs the average American is too unfit or unwilling to ever do.

Yes, the entire public votes yearly to steal this or that from their neighbors across the entirety of this rock and I am supposed to beckon down or despise immigrants who for all I know, recognized the pattern.

25,000,000 government workers (1/9th of all those employed), before counting direct or indirect contractors, those subsidized, those whose by and large worthless jobs are protected by ridiculous hindrances to prosperity at large. Yes, let me worry about the dirt poor migrants coming to America. Invading as you predictably put it.

Which Mexican established the income tax?

[johnwk]

Oklahoma Leaders Respond To Plans To House Illegal Immigrants At Fort Sill (http://wnow.worldnow.com/story/25721203/oklahoma-leaders-respond-to-federal-plans-to-house-illegal-immigrants-juveniles-at-fort-sill)


Governor Mary Fallin said she got word of this decision from the President on Friday, and it's sparking more debate on how to handle immigration. It could cost around $250 per child per day that they're housed on base.
. . .

The number of minors who illegally immigrate to the U.S. is expected to rise to 66,000 this year and to 127,000 by next year.



Wrong ....

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

JWK

[johnwk]

Johnwk, you repeat the same tired facts


At least I post the facts.


JWK

[johnwk]

Which Mexican established the income tax?

The same government who is now allowing our borders to be invaded. Don't you know anything?

JWK

[69360]

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

JWK

Really? Spend 10 seconds on google and see your error.

Why don't you just come out and say you don't like brown people? Nobody here is going to make you go to sensitivity training. That's your business, but enough with the immigration whining already.

[johnwk]

Really? Spend 10 seconds on google and see your error.

Why don't you just come out and say you don't like brown people? Nobody here is going to make you go to sensitivity training. That's your business, but enough with the immigration whining already.


So now the race card is played when the facts don't support your absurdities. As to your insulting question, go ask the blacks and Puerto Ricans I grew up with in East Harlem which is where my parents lived when I was born.


JWK

[69360]

So now the race card is played when the facts don't support your absurdities. As to your insulting question, go ask the blacks and Puerto Ricans I grew up with in East Harlem which is where my parents lived when I was born.


JWK


You somehow found your way to a mostly liberterian and ancap forum. You will find most here don't really care about immigration. If they want to come here and work, let them. If you want to argue that they shouldn't get entitlements without citizenship, you'll get more support there.

[TN_VOL]

I have personally witnessed illegal immigration destroy a couple of towns. Crime rates went up, property values went down, gangs moved in, drug usage went up, stolen identities dramatically increased as well as local taxes, fees, and fines in order to pay for the new housing, schools, and cops that had to be built or hired in order to service or police the ever increasing influx of new illegals. No one will ever convince me that illegal immigration is a good thing or we should not do anything about this problem.

[johnwk]

You somehow found your way to a mostly liberterian and ancap forum. You will find most here don't really care about immigration. If they want to come here and work, let them. If you want to argue that they shouldn't get entitlements without citizenship, you'll get more support there.


Perhaps you haven't noticed but I have been posting in the forum long before you found your way here.

JWK




Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

[kcchiefs6465]

The same government who is now allowing our borders to be invaded. Don't you know anything?

JWK
"Invaded"

You speak like a Wilsonian!

What might I not know about that you could educate me on?

Please educate me on the object of protectionism. Throw in a lesson that the people might hear on work equaling prosperity.

What of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts are you versed on?

What of the country being 'open borders' at its inception do you not understand?

What part of the history of the treatment of American Indians ought be emulated or do you figure righteous? What do you suppose of those slaughtering the American Indians with wicked plots and broken treaties was righteous? Protectionism, otherwise we would be overcome, right? By piss poor Hispanics menially and manually day laboring in jobs your glutenous and lazy brethren could never do. For products that I receive more cheaply, I'd add. What a tragedy of the commons I mean market to allow such invasive and unfair measures. There ought be a law! As charitable as you are, let's strip the products being cheaply afforded to those already pillaged by economic manipulation and taxation. For what could they buy with no jobs?, Right??

You speak the language of progressives, begging for something from government, while simultaneously shunning those who do the same. The hypocrisy is astounding and frankly I find it simply amazing that while I'm sure you'd never fire the "beggars" that is the police force, or the whores that are the military, you'd rather welcome them home to police and enforce petty gestapo-esque papers checks for those who resemble a certain pigmentation in a certain area. And you'd call it progress.

So sir, don't you know anything? You're a piper for protectionist fascists and promote as much for at home.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I have personally witnessed illegal immigration destroy a couple of towns. Crime rates went up, property values went down, gangs moved in, drug usage went up, stolen identities dramatically increased as well as local taxes, fees, and fines in order to pay for the new housing, schools, and cops that had to be built or hired in order to service or police the ever increasing influx of new illegals. No one will ever convince me that illegal immigration is a good thing or we should not do anything about this problem.

You can thank white collar corporatism for that environment.

[puppetmaster]

Arguing for not expanding the US security apparatus is favoring One World Government? Interesting leap. Ron Paul is against expanding the US security apparatus as well.

Arguing for open borders while we have a massive flawed welfare system is a recipe for disaster and will usher in chaos and a military solution that will include border security like you have never seen.

I am not an open border guy....never will be.
Ron Paul also understood that it is a multi faceted issue.

[johnwk]

SEE: REPORT: Illegals Bring Contagious Diseases Across Border – Obama Spreads Them Around Country (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/report-obama-is-dumping-contagious-disease-exposed-illegal-aliens-across-us/)

”A brave news report by Phoenix station ABC-15 says that the Obama administration is dumping contagious disease carrying illegal aliens all across the country.”

Reporter Navideh Forghani reported on Friday from the border town McAllen, Texas that illegal aliens are being found with scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, and other contagious viruses. All that separates the quarantined in border detention centers from the seemingly healthy is a swatch of yellow plastic tape according to Forghani. After processing by ICE , illegal aliens are being dumped by the Obama administration on states across the country, but mainly Arizona."


JWK

[kcchiefs6465]

SEE: REPORT: Illegals Bring Contagious Diseases Across Border – Obama Spreads Them Around Country (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/06/report-obama-is-dumping-contagious-disease-exposed-illegal-aliens-across-us/)

”A brave news report by Phoenix station ABC-15 says that the Obama administration is dumping contagious disease carrying illegal aliens all across the country.”
Reporter Navideh Forghani reported on Friday from the border town McAllen, Texas that illegal aliens are being found with scabies, chicken pox, MRSA, and other contagious viruses. All that separates the quarantined in border detention centers from the seemingly healthy is a swatch of yellow plastic tape according to Forghani. After processing by ICE , illegal aliens are being dumped by the Obama administration on states across the country, but mainly Arizona.


JWK
:eek:

[Brian4Liberty]

Really? Spend 10 seconds on google and see your error.

Why don't you just come out and say you don't like brown people? Nobody here is going to make you go to sensitivity training. That's your business, but enough with the immigration whining already.

Really? Playing the race-card?

That would be the standard progressive tactic when they are losing a debate. "You don't like Obama killing children with drones because you are a racist!"


You somehow found your way to a mostly liberterian and ancap forum. You will find most here don't really care about immigration. If they want to come here and work, let them. If you want to argue that they shouldn't get entitlements without citizenship, you'll get more support there.

It is the Ron Paul Forum. You don't speak for everyone. And you conveniently ignore Ron Paul's position.

Here's an interview with Ron:


Please start by summarizing your position on immigration.

Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I don`t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders. This mess has come about for various reasons. One, the laws aren`t enforced. Another, the welfare state. We have a need for workers in this country because our welfare system literally encourages people not to work. Therefore, a lot of jobs go begging. This is an incentive for immigrants to come in and take those jobs.

It is compounded because of federal mandates on the states to provide free medical care—that`s literally bankrupting the hospitals in Texas—and free education.

So my main point is to get rid of incentives that cause people to break the law—entitlements as well as the promise of amnesty, citizenship.

I also want to revisit the whole idea of birthright citizenship. I don`t think many countries have that. I don`t think it was the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment. I personally think it could be fixed by legislation. But some people argue otherwise, so I`ve covered myself by introducing a constitutional amendment.

How would legislation work?

It would define citizenship. Individuals that just stepped over the border illegally would not be technically “under the jurisdiction of the United States”. [i.e. not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the words of the Fourteenth Amendment] That`s illegal entry, so they don`t deserve this privilege.

What is your view on legal immigration?

I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.

I`m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.

But in the meantime, we want to stop the illegals. And that`s why I don`t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Is the economy healthy enough right now?

No. I don`t think so. I think the economy is going downhill. People are feeling pinched—in the middle, much more pinched than the government is willing to admit. Their standard of living is going down. I saw a clip on TV the other day about somebody who was about to lose their house, they couldn`t pay their mortgage .There`re millions of people involved, people are very uncertain about this housing market. That can`t be separated from concern about illegals.

How many illegal immigrants do you think there are in the country now?

All I can go by is those predictions they put in the paper. It used to be 3-4 million, then it went to 7-8 million. Now it`s 11-12 million! Does anybody know?

Bear Stearns made an estimate about three years ago that there were 20 million in the country. [The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface, Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA January 3, 2005(PDF)] What would you do with them?

I think when you know where they are, and you know they`re illegal, they should be sent back. Especially if they`re caught in a crime.

I think you have to be realistic. I mean, having an army to go around the country to round them up and put them in trucks and haul them out, that`s not feasible. But certainly if they`re signing up for a benefit, they should be sent back home, instead of given the benefit.

You`d like to restore the presumption against being a public charge?

Right. Or if they`re caught in a criminal act—rather than sending them through the court system and spending all that money and then putting them up in prison, we can get them shipped out pretty fast. Unless they are a very violent criminal.

You have a long record of being a serious libertarian. You must have libertarians who are annoyed with you on this.

I imagine there are some, because there are some who are literally don`t believe in any borders! Totally free immigration! I`ve never taken that position.

Why not?

Because I believe in national sovereignty.

You think there`s a role for the nation-state?

Sure. Sure. Otherwise, the vacuum is filled with international government. We won`t have a national government, we`ll have a United Nations government—and we already do, we have a WTO [World Trade Organization] government. But the problems we`re talking about, I want them to be solved by the U.S. congress and the President. I don`t want the WTO settling this dispute.

I really haven`t had much grief from the hard-core libertarians. Some who might disagree with me are not very antagonistic because they know it`s a big problem and that the lack of the free market is compounding that problem.
...
More:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-paul-i-believe-in-national-sovereignty

[puppetmaster]

Really? Playing the race-card?

That would be the standard progressive tactic when they are losing a debate. "You don't like Obama killing children with drones because you are a racist!"



It is the Ron Paul Forum. You don't speak for everyone. And you conveniently ignore Ron Paul's position.

Here's an interview with Ron:

No leap here
You think there`s a role for the nation-state?

Sure. Sure. Otherwise, the vacuum is filled with international government

[Ender]

"Invaded"

You speak like a Wilsonian!

What might I not know about that you could educate me on?

Please educate me on the object of protectionism. Throw in a lesson that the people might hear on work equaling prosperity.

What of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts are you versed on?

What of the country being 'open borders' at its inception do you not understand?

What part of the history of the treatment of American Indians ought be emulated or do you figure righteous? What do you suppose of those slaughtering the American Indians with wicked plots and broken treaties was righteous? Protectionism, otherwise we would be overcome, right? By piss poor Hispanics menially and manually day laboring in jobs your glutenous and lazy brethren could never do. For products that I receive more cheaply, I'd add. What a tragedy of the commons I mean market to allow such invasive and unfair measures. There ought be a law! As charitable as you are, let's strip the products being cheaply afforded to those already pillaged by economic manipulation and taxation. For what could they buy with no jobs?, Right??

You speak the language of progressives, begging for something from government, while simultaneously shunning those who do the same. The hypocrisy is astounding and frankly I find it simply amazing that while I'm sure you'd never fire the "beggars" that is the police force, or the whores that are the military, you'd rather welcome them home to police and enforce petty gestapo-esque papers checks for those who resemble a certain pigmentation in a certain area. And you'd call it progress.

So sir, don't you know anything? You're a piper for protectionist fascists and promote as much for at home.

And AMEN!

Preach it Brother! :)

[Michelangelo]

Arguing for open borders while we have a massive flawed welfare system is a recipe for disaster and will usher in chaos and a military solution that will include border security like you have never seen.

I am not an open border guy....never will be.
Ron Paul also understood that it is a multi faceted issue.

So it turns out that migrants actually help reduce the welfare states. If you're interested in reading the full argument you can find it here (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-19.pdf).

The short argument is that homogeneous states vote more welfare than heterogeneous states. If you ask a Swede if he is in favor of higher taxes to pay for medical expenses of fellow Swede, he is more likely to say yes than if you ask the same question but in regards to a recent Syrian migrant. A part of human nature makes us dislike foreigners. "They smell, they have weird customs, they are ill mannered, <insert your complain about foreigners here> etc. etc."

Even when you take into account that new migrants might vote for more statist policies, the welfare state shrinks as a net because of how heterogeneous migration makes a community.

Migration is definitely a multi-dimensional issue, but so is trade in general. Simply because migration has sweeping changes does not mean we should oppose it. No more than we should oppose an economy that favors the growth of Wal*Mart at the expense of small mom and pop shops being unable to compete. To a large degree it is silly to think that we can control migration. Walls can be built as high as you wish, but people will move if they really want to. Likewise you can't really stop trade. You can hinder it, but ultimately you only drive trade to the black market via smuggling.

If you all fear illegal immigration then you should favor broadening legal migration routes.

[johnwk]

Illegal immigrant flood bringing disease outbreaks (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/illegal_immigrant_flood_bringing_disease_outbreaks .html)

U.S. Border Patrol agents are worried that what's coming over into the U.S. could harm everyone.

This time the focus is not on the women and children that are crossing over in droves.

Agents are worrying about a viral outbreak.

“We are sending people everywhere. The average person doesn't know what's going on down here,” said Border Patrol agent and Rio Grande Valley Union representative Chris Cabrera.

Cabrera says agents are seeing illegal immigrants come over with contagious infections.

JWK

[69360]

Really? Playing the race-card?

That would be the standard progressive tactic when they are losing a debate. "You don't like Obama killing children with drones because you are a racist!"



It is the Ron Paul Forum. You don't speak for everyone. And you conveniently ignore Ron Paul's position.

Here's an interview with Ron:

Yes the race card was played. Because the racism in those posts was so thinly veiled it seemed silly to pretend it wasn't there. Thing is I don't really care about racism. It's your right not to like everyone for whatever reason. Just as long as you don't impose your will on others. That's why I don't really have a problem with white separatists who prefer to live only with other white people out in the boondocks or conversely with blacks or immigrants who prefer to live in segregated neighborhoods in the city.

So if the guy says I don't want to live with brown people my response would be a big meh, but when it's brown people are dirty diseased criminals and I don't want them here because illegal immigration is bad, that isn't right.


I'm fairly close close Ron Paul's position on immigration. I don't recall calling for open borders.

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/AhcAuXv.png

http://i.imgur.com/WdkEvwJ.png

[THX 1138]

I have a question for the thread:


How many immigrants - legal or otherwise - should be allowed to enter the U.S. in 2015?

[MRK]

I have a question for the thread:


How many immigrants - legal or otherwise - should be allowed to enter the U.S. in 2015?

7 billion or so.

[LibertyEagle]

I have a question for the thread:


How many immigrants - legal or otherwise - should be allowed to enter the U.S. in 2015?

0 illegal aliens.

[69360]

I have a question for the thread:


How many immigrants - legal or otherwise - should be allowed to enter the U.S. in 2015?


How many do you think would?

Things kind of suck here if you didn't notice. We have a net negative immigration situation right now.

[pcosmar]

0 illegal aliens.

OK..

Legalize immigration. Simple. End free ride,,for them and everyone else.. level the playing field.
Legalize immigration and you eliminate illegal aliens.

[pcosmar]

How many do you think would?

Things kind of suck here if you didn't notice. We have a net negative immigration situation right now.

Who cares? I certainly don't. It does not impact me at all.

[kcchiefs6465]

OK..

Legalize immigration. Simple. End free ride,,for them and everyone else.. level the playing field.
Legalize immigration and you eliminate illegal aliens.
Their solution (to get illegal immigration to ~0) is to turn the United States into a prison, having the military patrolling the border, erecting fences, checking papers, that sort of thing.

[erowe1]

The OP says "allow" as if the federal government has the right not to allow it. There's nothing they could do to impede immigration without violating all of our rights.

[Michelangelo]

How many do you think would?

Things kind of suck here if you didn't notice. We have a net negative immigration situation right now.

Small point of order, immigration is still positive. Illegal immigration for the past few years has been negative on the net but has now stabilized.

Detailed counts can be found in the USCIS Yearbook of Immigration statistics (http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics).

Overall migration from Latin America has reached its peak. Latin America as a whole has developed substantially (thereby reducing the 'push' factor) and the United States has also slowed down in economic growth (thereby reducing the 'pull' factor). By no means does this mean we will see migration from Latin America stop altogether, but it won't be in the same level as the recent past.

Asia is quickly outpacing Latin America as the source of the US' migration population. It is obvious that PRC China has several millions who are longing to leave. Canada was previously friendly towards Asian migrants but has begun to close the door. Due to geography we might see many Chinese migrants end up settling in Australia or New Zealand, but a substantial number will wish to migrate to the US.

The fertility rates of Hispanics in the US have also ended up being lower than expected. California was expected to have a Hispanic majority in the near future, but revised numbers show that the state will have no ethnic majority for decades to come. A similar demographic trend can be seen throughout the rest of the southwest.

[dannno]

I have personally witnessed illegal immigration destroy a couple of towns. Crime rates went up, property values went down, gangs moved in, drug usage went up, stolen identities dramatically increased as well as local taxes, fees, and fines in order to pay for the new housing, schools, and cops that had to be built or hired in order to service or police the ever increasing influx of new illegals. No one will ever convince me that illegal immigration is a good thing or we should not do anything about this problem.

Somewhere around 1994 Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and Mexico was pressured to sign NAFTA as well.

Mexican officials had to alter their entire Constitution to implement NAFTA, and this meant throwing millions and millions of indigenous Mexicans off of land that they had been farming and ranching for generations so that the government could sell it to the highest bidding corporations. The poverty rate in Mexico doubled almost overnight, and this caused a huge onslaught of immigration.

I actually feel really bad for those in Mexico who had to go through that and I was a young child in Southern California when that was occurring so I saw the influx of Mexicans come into our country. They are mostly hard workers and good family people.

Everything you are talking about, the war on drugs, the crime, the influx of Mexicans coming up from Mexico can all be attributed to one thing: Our government fucked up. The problem is 100% the fault of our government and not one damn person in Mexico who you keep yelling about is at fault for any of this and it is really stupid to use them as a scapegoat.

[nobody's_hero]

The OP says "allow" as if the federal government has the right not to allow it. There's nothing they could do to impede immigration without violating all of our rights.

We could adopt the Swiss model. Local communities could vote on whether or not to allow immigrants to move in. That seems to me to be the least 'tyrannical' method of dealing with the issue.

The only big problem I see with that is that states like California would probably leave the door wide open and then pressure D.C. for bailout money to provide goodies for all the future socialist voters.

[axiomata]

Or even better, allow businesses to decide whether to hire immigrants.

[Brian4Liberty]

The fertility rates of Hispanics in the US have also ended up being lower than expected. California was expected to have a Hispanic majority in the near future, but revised numbers show that the state will have no ethnic majority for decades to come. A similar demographic trend can be seen throughout the rest of the southwest.

Yeah, it's incredible how after a generation or two, people are just normal Americans. This is despite all of the various stereotypes that are thrown around in support of more immigration. People are people.

[johnwk]

The OP says "allow" as if the federal government has the right not to allow it. There's nothing they could do to impede immigration without violating all of our rights.

Do you allow the local vagrants to enter your house and property without your permission?


JWK

[johnwk]

SEE: After Leaked Photos Expose Unaccompanied Child Crisis, Border Patrol Agents Threatened With Firings (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/09/nogales-border-patrol-station-cracks-down-on-agents-threatens-firings-over-leaked-unaccompanied-children-photos-n1849201)

"Due to the recent unauthorized use of a personally owned electronic device in the Nogales Processing Center, the use of such devices will be restricted to locations outside of detention areas," Lawson wrote in a June 6 memo to all employees at the Nogales station. "Effective immediately, the use of personally owned cellular phones, cameras, or recording devices in the Nogales Detention Facility and the Nogales Processing Center is strictly prohibited. All personnel working or visiting detention facilities at the Nogales Station will be required to turn off these electronic devices and store them in a locker other secure location prior to entering the detention area."

Let us not forget that the Congress of the United States, including the Republican Party Leadership in the House, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, are very much complicit in this destructive and traitorous attack upon the general welfare of the United States by ignoring a constitutionally assigned duty which is stated as follows:

The Congress shall have power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…”

JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

[DamianTV]

Arrests of Illegals Crossing U.S.-Mexico Border Down 75% Since 2000 (http://www.infowars.com/arrests-of-illegals-crossing-u-s-mexico-border-down-75-since-2000/)

Note: Infowars link, however links on that page do go a couple Gov sites where data is verified, but spun.

Now, this data could be interpreted one of two ways.

#1 US is no longer making the effort to arrest Illegal Immigrants

or...

#2 Immigration is actually dropping and there are less Illegal Immigrants to arrest.

I've heard quite a few times that many immigrants, both legal and illegal, are returning to their home countries. One was an Immigrant from New Zealand, and she went back home after everything went south for her. A couple Polish went back home, several Mexicans, one Russian, and a few more. So noting that not all Immigrants are illegal, and not all Immigration is bad. Levels of Expatriation from the US also is increasing, but those numbers are so low they are barely significant. What else I do see is huge numbers of people that refuse to learn to speak english, and they seem to be far better off than Im doing right now. On me, thats an emotional response that doesnt provide any useful solutions to all parties.

[69360]

Who cares? I certainly don't. It does not impact me at all.

I really don't care a whole lot personally. My opinion of illegals is generally good. All the ones I have come across were hardworking and didn't cause trouble.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by pcosmar

Who cares? I certainly don't. It does not impact me at all.


I really don't care a whole lot personally. My opinion of illegals is generally good. All the ones I have come across were hardworking and didn't cause trouble.

Well then, why don’t the both of you take a hundred of these “immigrant children” into your homes and care for them. And if that doesn't bankrupt the two of you and put you in the street, take another hundred in and care for them!

It seems to me if the America People are unwilling to defend their borders nor punish their tyrannical federal government they will regret their apathy if/when the country their forefathers created is turned into another banana dictatorship and there will be no other place to run to.


JWK

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Well then, why don’t the both of you take a hundred of these “immigrant children” into your homes and care for them. And if that doesn't bankrupt the two of you and put you in the street, take another hundred in and care for them!

It seems to me if the America People are unwilling to defend their borders nor punish their tyrannical federal government they will regret their apathy if/when the country their forefathers created is turned into another banana dictatorship and there will be no other place to run to.


JWK

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Then you can pay for the police state required to restrict immigration out of your own pocket. Just don't expect me to contribute a dime.

[erowe1]

Well then, why don’t the both of you take a hundred of these “immigrant children” into your homes and care for them. And if that doesn't bankrupt the two of you and put you in the street, take another hundred in and care for them!

It seems to me if the America People are unwilling to defend their borders nor punish their tyrannical federal government they will regret their apathy if/when the country their forefathers created is turned into another banana dictatorship and there will be no other place to run to.


JWK

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

A dictatorship is exactly what you're demanding.

[Zippyjuan]

Expand the security apparatus to get rid of all the people we don't like! Then we will all be freer! They are ruining the country!

What if this security apparatus decides YOU are somebody "we don't like"?

Freedom also means having to tolerate others trying to be free.

(I have not advocated for "open borders" but I am against expanding what is already in place- especially in light of the fact that we are not being "invaded by hordes of uneducated, unskilled, ill health foreigners" ).

[Michelangelo]

Well then, why don’t the both of you take a hundred of these “immigrant children” into your homes and care for them. And if that doesn't bankrupt the two of you and put you in the street, take another hundred in and care for them!

It seems to me if the America People are unwilling to defend their borders nor punish their tyrannical federal government they will regret their apathy if/when the country their forefathers created is turned into another banana dictatorship and there will be no other place to run to.


JWK

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Your comparison is faulty. Even open border advocates (which I am) do not argue that you need to provide state welfare to migrants. The argument isn't about letting people enter the US and giving them access to state welfare benefits. The argument is about letting people in try to find work, and thereafter pay for their own housing and other needs. If you are not an An Cap then you should favor extending the rule of law to them but that is it.

I personally believe that there is a strong economic and morale case for public subsidy (through charity not state taxation!) of primary education and healthcare for children. I think this case is valid for both children of migrants and natives alike. That argument is separate from the case for open borders or increased legal migration though. The case for open borders or increased legal migration (which are not mutually inclusive) is only about allowing people to come to work and live without the state harassing them by virtue of their birthplace. Anything further is a separate argument though and should therefore be addressed separately.

[johnwk]

Well then, why don’t the both of you take a hundred of these “immigrant children” into your homes and care for them. And if that doesn't bankrupt the two of you and put you in the street, take another hundred in and care for them!

It seems to me if the America People are unwilling to defend their borders nor punish their tyrannical federal government they will regret their apathy if/when the country their forefathers created is turned into another banana dictatorship and there will be no other place to run to.



JWK

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Your comparison is faulty. Even open border advocates (which I am) do not argue that you need to provide state welfare to migrants. The argument isn't about letting people enter the US and giving them access to state welfare benefits. The argument is about letting people in try to find work, and thereafter pay for their own housing and other needs. If you are not an An Cap then you should favor extending the rule of law to them but that is it.

I personally believe that there is a strong economic and morale case for public subsidy (through charity not state taxation!) of primary education and healthcare for children. I think this case is valid for both children of migrants and natives alike. That argument is separate from the case for open borders or increased legal migration though. The case for open borders or increased legal migration (which are not mutually inclusive) is only about allowing people to come to work and live without the state harassing them by virtue of their birthplace. Anything further is a separate argument though and should therefore be addressed separately.

Nothing faulty about the question I asked you which you refused to answer. Where are the millions upon millions to be housed under your “open border” lunacy? How do we deal with contagious diseases which your open border policy ignores?


Why do you avoid addressing the existing and predictable consequence we now suffer under because of your open border policy?

What part of your anatomy do you really think with?


JWK


Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

[erowe1]

Nothing faulty about the question I asked you which you refused to answer. Where are the millions upon millions to be housed under your “open border” lunacy? How do we deal with contagious diseases which your open border policy ignores?

Instead of saying "we," you should just be concerned about yourself. Where will you personally house them? You won't? OK, then, that's that. How will you personally deal with their contagious diseases? By keeping away from them? OK, then.

None of this has to involve you bullying me or anyone else to to what you choose to do for yourself.

[johnwk]

Instead of saying "we," you should just be concerned about yourself. Where will you personally house them? You won't? OK, then, that's that. How will you personally deal with their contagious diseases? By keeping away from them? OK, then.

None of this has to involve you bullying me or anyone else to to what you choose to do for yourself.

Don't try to bully me and tell me what I should or shouldn't do.

Bullying you? Seems that you want to bully the people of each State and ignore their rights associated with property ownership!


Are you suggesting there is no threat to our nation's population being unwittingly infected with contagious diseases brought in by those invading the borders of the various United States? Why do you not respect rights associated with property ownership and the sovereignty of the people of each state to agree to make laws concerning their general welfare within their State's borders?


JWK


“He has erected a multitude of new offices (http://www.firstgov.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

[Zippyjuan]

You can spend every penny the country has and you still cannot close the borders completely. Build a wall? Been done in California and Arizona. Along with high tech drones, helicopters and towers. They have built ramps big enough to get a semi over. They have dug tunnels under it. They go out to sea and use boats to sail around it. Sure it slowed things down and shifted traffic elsewhere but it hasn't put an end to it. But even if you theoretically could do that- you still will have illegal aliens coming into the country. About half of those presently in the country entered legally- as students or tourists or on work visas- and overstayed their visas.

We currently spend about $13 billion on the Border Patrol. Department of Homeland Security has a budget of about $40 billion. How much spending would be enough since no matter how much you spend you won't get the number down to zero? I think we have reached that point since net immigration has been zero or less since 2007.

[johnwk]

You can spend every penny the country has and you still cannot close the borders completely. .

And what does that have to do with the subject of the thread Mr. Juan?


JWK

[RonPaulMall]

You can spend every penny the country has and you still cannot close the borders completely.

You can spend every penny we have trying to prevent murder and you wouldn't stop murder completely. Does that mean murder should be legal or that we shouldn't try to limit it as best we can. And the money argument is besides the point. The current crisis has come about not because not enough money was spent, but because the elites that control the money don't want to stop the flow of immigration. Destroying the middle class is in the best interests of the elites. Their ideal world is them in their gated communities running the country and everybody else a peasant.

[johnwk]

.

Why is there is no outcry from our Republican Party Leadership to this invasion which Obama is encouraging with impunity and which violates his sword duty?

(A)

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

and

(B)

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

As a matter of fact, our federal government, and to be very specific, President Obama and Eric Holder, are complicit in giving aid and comfort to those who are invading our country!

When will our Republican Party Leadership in the House start impeachment proceedings against these two and let the chips fall where they may?


JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

[Zippyjuan]

And what does that have to do with the subject of the thread Mr. Juan?


JWK
It asks the question "is the problem getting worse that we need to spend more money on it than we currently do?" Are we being swarmed over with poor, illness infested, lazy foreigners (aside from "poor" most of those adjectives don't fit reality)? If we spend more money will this horde go away? The answer to me is "no" since we haven't seen any net increase in people here illegally for almost seven years now. If they "don't want to stop the horde" why did they stop coming? Why haven't their numbers been increasing? The entire premise that there are massive hordes swarming across our borders unfettered and even invited in by the government is wrong.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona makes good political hay by warning voters about the darned illegal immigrants coming into his state causing record crimes and destroying his cities while FBI crime statistics showed that Arizona had one of the lower crime rates in the country and it was falling- not rising. This is a political issue not based on facts.

May I ask again your sources- you do seem to copy/ past the same responces quite a bit?

(Don't let my screen name fool you, I am neither Hispanic or Mexican- my heritage is actually German if that matters).




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

Now if we did call forth a militia to take Obama out of office so we could finally and forever solve the illegal alien problem (which cannot be forever solved), wouldn't that militia be itself an insurrection and require the government to extinguish it?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

And what does that have to do with the subject of the thread Mr. Juan?


JWK



It asks the question "is the problem getting worse that we need to spend more money on it than we currently do?"


And what does you latest post have to do with the subject of the thread, Mr. Juan, which is: "President Obama encouraging aliens to invade U.S. borders!"?


JWK

[Carlybee]

I have a question for the thread:


How many immigrants - legal or otherwise - should be allowed to enter the U.S. in 2015?


25

[AuH20]

You can spend every penny we have trying to prevent murder and you wouldn't stop murder completely. Does that mean murder should be legal or that we shouldn't try to limit it as best we can. And the money argument is besides the point. The current crisis has come about not because not enough money was spent, but because the elites that control the money don't want to stop the flow of immigration. Destroying the middle class is in the best interests of the elites. Their ideal world is them in their gated communities running the country and everybody else a peasant.

That's really the issue right there.

[johnwk]

Obama and his pals say forget about it! Their policy of dumping illegal immigrants in the United States will continue!

SEE: Feds say no end in sight for policy of 'dumping' illegal immigrants in Arizona, Gov. Brewer says (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/07/feds-say-no-end-in-sight-for-policy-dumping-illegal-immigrants-in-arizona-gov/)

”Obama on Monday described the surge in children crossing the border as an "urgent humanitarian situation," appointing FEMA head Craig Fugate to lead an effort addressing the crisis. The White House is also seeking an additional $1.4 billion from Congress to deal with the influx.

"This is a humanitarian crisis and it requires a humanitarian response," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., told Reuters.”


When will the Republican Party Leadership start impeachment proceeding against President Obama for his willful neglect to enforce our immigration laws and protect our borders?

JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

[otherone]

Are you suggesting there is no threat to our nation's population being unwittingly infected with contagious diseases brought in by those invading the borders of the various United States?

What's your action plan to prevent communicable diseases being brought in by thousands of legal visitors, everyday, via airplane? Quarantine for a month before visiting Disneyland?

[johnwk]

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers: Immigrant flood 'orchestrated' (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/06/national-association-of-former-border-patrol-officers-immigrant-flood-orchestrated-2973084.html)


”An organization of former Border Patrol agents Wednesday charged that the federal government, under the administration of President Obama, is deliberately arranging for a flood of immigrant children to arrive in America for political purposes.

“This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor illegal alien children at risk for purely political purposes,” said the statement released by officials with the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers.



Is it not, at the very least, a misdemeanor for our president to knowingly and willingly refuse to enforce the immigration laws of the United States and doing so to intentionally give aid and comfort to those engaging in an invasion of our borders?



JWK

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

[CPUd]

What's your action plan to prevent communicable diseases being brought in by thousands of legal visitors, everyday, via airplane? Quarantine for a month before visiting Disneyland?

Bigger fonts.

[johnwk]

Bigger fonts.


Is it not, at the very least, a misdemeanor for our president to knowingly and willingly refuse to enforce the immigration laws of the United States and doing so to intentionally give aid and comfort to those engaging in an invasion of our borders?



JWK

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

[Occam's Banana]

Bigger fonts.Is it not, at the very least, a misdemeanor for our president to knowingly and willingly refuse to enforce the immigration laws of the United States and doing so to intentionally give aid and comfort to those engaging in an invasion of our borders?

JWK

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Bigger fonts.

[johnwk]

Why is there is no outcry from our Republican Party Leadership to this invasion which Obama is encouraging with impunity and which violates his sworn duty?


JWK



It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.

[johnwk]

What's your action plan to prevent communicable diseases being brought in by thousands of legal visitors, everyday, via airplane? Quarantine for a month before visiting Disneyland?

What does you question have to do with the current illegal invasion of our borders?

In any event, here is an existing proposal to your asinine question.

PREVENTING COMMUNICABLE DISEASES FROM FOREIGN VISITORS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES (http://www.academia.edu/6171773/Preventing_Visitors_from_Entering_The_U.S._with_Co mmunicable_Diseases)


JWK



Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.

[Carlybee]

Why is there is no outcry from our Republican Party Leadership to this invasion which Obama is encouraging with impunity and which violates his sword duty?


JWK



It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.



They don't want to touch it

[Carlybee]

What does you question have to do with the current illegal invasion of our borders?

In any event, here is an existing proposal to your asinine question.

PREVENTING COMMUNICABLE DISEASES FROM FOREIGN VISITORS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES (http://www.academia.edu/6171773/Preventing_Visitors_from_Entering_The_U.S._with_Co mmunicable_Diseases)


JWK



Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.


Too late...plus legal immigrants can bring them too not to mention bedbugs and other critters.

[Brian4Liberty]

This is turning into a big issue.

I doubt this is true, but I heard that on the little old lady chain e-mail network, the rumors spreading now are that Obama is filling up buses with kids in central America and busing them through Mexico to the US border.

It's almost ironic that the mainstream media has been "outraged" about rumors that the kids caught crossing the border and held in the US are being strip searched. Hello, McFly! Abuse by government agents is only outrageous when it is people who are crossing the border? Been through TSA? Do these idiots know what happens every day to average Americans unfortunate enough to end up in US jails, even only for minor "infractions"? Dropping bombs on kids in foreign lands is OK, and a Police State abusing Americans is OK, but selective fake outrage is useful for political agendas.

[Carlybee]

This is turning into a big issue.

I doubt this is true, but I heard that on the little old lady chain e-mail network, the rumors spreading now are that Obama is filling up buses with kids in central America and busing them through Mexico to the US border.

It's almost ironic that the mainstream media has been "outraged" about rumors that the kids caught crossing the border and held in the US are being strip searched. Hello, McFly! Abuse by government agents is only outrageous when it is people who are crossing the border? Been through TSA? Do these idiots know what happens every day to average Americans unfortunate enough to end up in US jails, even only for minor "infractions"? Dropping bombs on kids in foreign lands is OK, and a Police State abusing Americans is OK, but selective fake outrage is useful for political agendas.

http://www.100percentfedup.com/news/1608-breaking-newspapers-in-central-america-advertising-obama-s-open-borders-for-illegals-to-us

Supposedly the White House is also going to ask Congress for 2 billion dollars for this "humanitarian crisis" of their own making.

[Zippyjuan]

Why is there is no outcry from our Republican Party Leadership to this invasion which Obama is encouraging with impunity and which violates his sword duty?


JWK



It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.


"Sword duty"? Off with their heads!

I keep asking for and not seeing proof that there is a massive invasion we need more protection from. Net immigration is zero. And has been for seven years. Are you that afraid of a bunch of kids fleeing crime or trying to join their parents we need a militia called up to overthrow the government? To "halt an invasion or insurrection" by formenting an insurrection? Use unconstitutional means (violent overthrow vs using the ballot box) to support the Constitution? Or is the militia to try to force the kids to leave the country (the are "allegedly" in the country illegally- the status for many has not yet been proven). Lots of contradictions in what you propose.

[johnwk]

Why is there is no outcry from our Republican Party Leadership to this invasion which Obama is encouraging with impunity and which violates his sworn duty?


JWK



It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.



They don't want to touch it


And why is that? Are they complicit in this ongoing invasion?

JWK


The Congress shall have power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

[nobody's_hero]

I wouldn't liken it to an 'invasion' but I do think we will eventually reach a tipping point on the immigration issue, much as they have in Britain. The only reason we haven't, as far as I can tell, is that Britain is an island and the realization that they can't shelter the entire population of the world has hit them sooner than it will us.

[johnwk]

I wouldn't liken it to an 'invasion' .

You don't consider at least 5 percent of our nation's population being made up of illegal aliens as an invasion?


JWK

[Ender]

You don't consider 5 percent of our nation's population be made up of illegal aliens as an invasion?


JWK

Dude,

Unless you are an Indian, I consider YOU an illegal alien.

[DamianTV]

Then what if a person is half indian? Are they only half illegal then? What about quarter indian? Which side of illegal does that fall on? We are here, we are now, we cant control who our parents were or where they or we were born, we can choose to not displace a current population. Illegal immigration has consequences we can not afford, but fault does not fall squarely on the individuals. Not the easiest subject to come to a conclusion that benefits all parties.

[Ender]

Then what if a person is half indian? Are they only half illegal then? What about quarter indian? Which side of illegal does that fall on? We are here, we are now, we cant control who our parents were or where they or we were born, we can choose to not displace a current population. Illegal immigration has consequences we can not afford, but fault does not fall squarely on the individuals. Not the easiest subject to come to a conclusion that benefits all parties.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy in "hating" on so-called illegals. Most of the land that these "illegals" are entering used to belong to them, until the US Empire committed one of its unconstitutional wars.

The consequences are usually good from immigration and most of the negative is propaganda.

[kcchiefs6465]

Just pointing out the hypocrisy in "hating" on so-called illegals. Most of the land that these "illegals" are entering used to belong to them, until the US Empire committed one of its unconstitutional wars.

The consequences are usually good from immigration and most of the negative is propaganda.
Protectionists Restrictionists gonna restrict.

It's funny, in that sort of unfunny way, how the language has not changed over the centuries. The same tired fallacies, xenophobic tendencies, nationalistic tribalism, and dare I even say, outright sophistry still persists to this very day.

I'm being invaded by cheap lettuce and high quality landscaping. My, oh my. Someone save me! (preferably the government, with high powered weapons, facial recognition software, a database of pure citizens, and checkpoints in the street. [Though how could I ever forget; let them impede my ability to travel freely and erect pointless fences financed through my annual and daily robbery.])

And to be clear, they (the 'marauders') bring a hell of a lot more to the table than their stereotypical professions.

The welfare state needs ended. I don't much think the majority of those with authoritarian inclinations are serious about that (at least, not until a later generation pays for their perpetual healthcare needs and social security). Or their wars.

[Lord Xar]

Just pointing out the hypocrisy in "hating" on so-called illegals. Most of the land that these "illegals" are entering used to belong to them, until the US Empire committed one of its unconstitutional wars.

The consequences are usually good from immigration and most of the negative is propaganda.


... who is hating? I get none of that from that person's posts. I get grave concern, but not hate. Perhaps you just want to play the typical race card to try and dissuade others from a different point of view, than yours.

Personally, I think with the influx of such a wave of illegals that our liberty / freedom days are numbered. My guess is they are not gonna embrace the freedom message, but rather the sycophantic government obedient citizen route - as has been the case for every wave of illegals -> amnesty.

[Ender]

... who is hating? I get none of that from that person's posts. I get grave concern, but not hate. Perhaps you just want to play the typical race card to try and dissuade others from a different point of view, than yours.

Personally, I think with the influx of such a wave of illegals that our liberty / freedom days are numbered. My guess is they are not gonna embrace the freedom message, but rather the sycophantic government obedient citizen route - as has been the case for every wave of illegals -> amnesty.

I don't EVER play the race card- not part of my upbringing. As far as hate- maybe you should read a little deeper; the remarks are ridiculous.

Our freedom days are not numbered- they are GONE. This baloney about illegal immigrants just keeps the pot stirred and makes way for Americans to lose the last vestige of liberty completely.

[johnwk]

SEE: Feds looking for babysitters to help with illegal immigrant kids (http://nypost.com/2014/06/13/feds-looking-for-babysitters-to-help-with-illegal-immigrant-kids/)

”With thousands of unaccompanied children making the dangerous trek into the United States from Central America through Mexico, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is looking to bring in temporary workers to help process them.”

When will our Republican Party Leadership do its assigned duty To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…?


JWK

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion Article 4, Section 4. US Constitution

[nobody's_hero]

You don't consider at least 5 percent of our nation's population being made up of illegal aliens as an invasion?


JWK

"Invasion" makes it sound like we're in some sort of war. —A bit hyperbolic. I don't think most immigrants who come here do so with bad intent.

However, I think they do come here with ingrained philosophies of what the purpose of government should be, which is most often at odds with our founding documents. The socialists don't need any more help here in the U.S.

[Carlybee]

Just pointing out the hypocrisy in "hating" on so-called illegals. Most of the land that these "illegals" are entering used to belong to them, until the US Empire committed one of its unconstitutional wars.

The consequences are usually good from immigration and most of the negative is propaganda.


I think most of us are aware of the hypocrisy but would you like thousands of gang members and cartel members in your city and millions in your state? My ancestors walked the trail of tears and I'm bitching about this yes. Why should my tax dollars pay to feed and house illegals on top of the legal welfare recipients ? Why should our local and state resources be stretched to the brim to handle the constant influx of murderers and rapists ? Why should our military bases be used to house, feed, and clothe children from another country..on top of the billions in aid we give said country? Why is it written in the Constitution that our borders are to be secured from invasion yet it is ignored and yes when cartels are coming here with para military weaponry, that is an invasion. So those of you not being affected, feel free to sit on your ideology while we deal with crime and human trafficking down here.

http://cis.org/ICE-Document-Details-36000-Criminal-Aliens-Release-in-2013

http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/illegal-immigration-causes-financial-strain-on-texas/

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/03/21/New-Details-in-the-Houston-Illegal-Immigrant-Stash-House-Raid


http://www.chron.com/news/article/Violent-criminals-in-U-S-illegally-go-free-in-1778914.php

[erowe1]

Just pointing out the hypocrisy in "hating" on so-called illegals. Most of the land that these "illegals" are entering used to belong to them, until the US Empire committed one of its unconstitutional wars.

Really? How old are these people?

[Ender]

I think most of us are aware of the hypocrisy but would you like thousands of gang members and cartel members in your city and millions in your state? My ancestors walked the trail of tears and I'm bitching about this yes. Why should my tax dollars pay to feed and house illegals on top of the legal welfare recipients ? Why should our local and state resources be stretched to the brim to handle the constant influx of murderers and rapists ? Why should our military bases be used to house, feed, and clothe children from another country..on top of the billions in aid we give said country? Why is it written in the Constitution that our borders are to be secured from invasion yet it is ignored and yes when cartels are coming here with para military weaponry, that is an invasion. So those of you not being affected, feel free to sit on your ideology while we deal with crime and human trafficking down here.

http://cis.org/ICE-Document-Details-36000-Criminal-Aliens-Release-in-2013

http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/illegal-immigration-causes-financial-strain-on-texas/

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/03/21/New-Details-in-the-Houston-Illegal-Immigrant-Stash-House-Raid


http://www.chron.com/news/article/Violent-criminals-in-U-S-illegally-go-free-in-1778914.php

You are talking 2 different issues here. Any cartel problems comes from the WoD and is purposely fed by the alphabets.

The immigrants are not the problem- .gov is the problem.

No WoD
No Welfare State
No Fractional Banking
Free Market

And, the above issues pretty much disappear.

[Carlybee]

You are talking 2 different issues here. Any cartel problems comes from the WoD and is purposely fed by the alphabets.

The immigrants are not the problem- .gov is the problem.

No WoD
No Welfare State
No Fractional Banking
Free Market

And, the above issues pretty much disappear.


Yes and unfortunately we have an immediate problem that can't wait for government to be fixed so government needs to adhere to their constitutional duty and protect our borders yet they are doing everything but.

Seriously none of those issues you list will be repaired in the near future as long as the current bozos run things and we don't have the time or money to be paying for the non stop influx of criminals and welfare recipients. Do you people seriously think even the ones who come here to work aren't playing the system ? And we are paying for it. In Texas alone illegals cost us $12 billion in 2013...the revenue generated from them was $1.2 billion. There's the math.

[A Son of Liberty]

... who is hating? I get none of that from that person's posts. I get grave concern, but not hate. Perhaps you just want to play the typical race card to try and dissuade others from a different point of view, than yours.

Personally, I think with the influx of such a wave of illegals that our liberty / freedom days are numbered. My guess is they are not gonna embrace the freedom message, but rather the sycophantic government obedient citizen route - as has been the case for every wave of illegals -> amnesty.

Seems to me johnwk is a nativist at least, if not a racist. You think his little "Mr. Juan" was entirely innocent?

Regardless, our liberty/freedom days are well beyond numbered; they're long since passed. And immigrants had little if anything to do with it.

[erowe1]

Seems to me johnwk is a nativist at least, if not a racist. You think his little "Mr. Juan" was entirely innocent?

Regardless, our liberty/freedom days are well beyond numbered; they're long since passed. And immigrants had little if anything to do with it.

If you took all of the injustices committed by the regime in DC and put them on one side of the scale, and all of the injustices of all of governments of the nation-states south of our border on the other side (with a total population of twice that of the US), which would be greater?

The talk of them spreading their tyranny to us doesn't make sense. If anything, the added brown-skinned voters will make it harder for the neoconservatives to win the needed public support for their next war.

[Carlybee]

Ron Paul on border security and reform

http://www.dailypaul.com/140490/ron-pauls-views-on-immigration-do-you-agree-or-disagree

[AuH20]

If you took all of the injustices committed by the regime in DC and put them on one side of the scale, and all of the injustices of all of governments of the nation-states south of our border on the other side (with a total population of twice that of the US), which would be greater?

The talk of them spreading their tyranny to us doesn't make sense. If anything, the added brown-skinned voters will make it harder for the neoconservatives to win the needed public support for their next war.

That's a laughable assertion. Human beings, especially of that particular socioeconomic strata, will gleefully cheer on any initiative that will their improve their economic prospects.

[erowe1]

That's a laughable assertion. Human beings, especially of that socioeconomic strata, will gleefully cheer on any initiative that will their improve their economic prospects.

What do you base that on?

Wars don't improve very many peoples' economic prospects. And the immigrants I've spoken to have been a lot more critical of the hubris of the regime in DC than most Americans.

[AuH20]

What do you base that on?

Wars don't improve very many peoples' economic prospects. And the immigrants I've spoken to have been a lot more critical of the hubris of the regime in DC than most Americans.

Really? Why do you think the WTI crude prices have shot up of late? How do you think any future conflict will be framed?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-11/wti-oil-trades-near-three-month-high-amid-shrinking-crude-supply

[A Son of Liberty]

If you took all of the injustices committed by the regime in DC and put them on one side of the scale, and all of the injustices of all of governments of the nation-states south of our border on the other side (with a total population of twice that of the US), which would be greater?

The talk of them spreading their tyranny to us doesn't make sense. If anything, the added brown-skinned voters will make it harder for the neoconservatives to win the needed public support for their next war.

Well, you see, they come here to be lazy and vote for Democrats and the welfare state, taking advantage of hard-working Americans... that is, when they're not "stealing our jobs". Manual labor jobs where they work countless hours for a pittance, and which most Americans wouldn't or couldn't perform... which also helps counter the increase in the price of goods and services, buttressing the "American" lifestyle.

Oh yeah. "Illegal immigration" is THE problem around here.

[Ender]

Yes and unfortunately we have an immediate problem that can't wait for government to be fixed so government needs to adhere to their constitutional duty and protect our borders yet they are doing everything but.

Seriously none of those issues you list will be repaired in the near future as long as the current bozos run things and we don't have the time or money to be paying for the non stop influx of criminals and welfare recipients. Do you people seriously think even the ones who come here to work aren't playing the system ? And we are paying for it. In Texas alone illegals cost us $12 billion in 2013...the revenue generated from them was $1.2 billion. There's the math.

It is impossible to do the "math" for illegals, as they pay taxes but are usually undocumented.

And- what do you think the cost of your bio-chip and border fence will cost- as this will be used as the defense to keep them out, as well as keep US Citizens in? My POV is that this is all a highly publicized excuse to rob Americans of more freedom. Illegal Immigration numbers are down and have been for a few years, but, hey, let's make it a big deal so we can implement PA III.

[AuH20]

"Invasion" makes it sound like we're in some sort of war. —A bit hyperbolic. I don't think most immigrants who come here do so with bad intent.

However, I think they do come here with ingrained philosophies of what the purpose of government should be, which is most often at odds with our founding documents. The socialists don't need any more help here in the U.S.

Like an increasing amount of the natives, they will gladly trade their rights for paltry services and material aids dispensed by an omnipotent governmental entity. They are culturally inclined to do so.

[Ender]

Like an increasing amount of the natives, they will gladly trade their rights for paltry services and material aids dispensed by an omnipotent governmental entity. They are culturally inclined to do so.

Really.

And how many do you actually know?

[AuH20]

Really.

And how many do you actually know?

Plenty. Good moral people, but extremely susceptible to phony overtures. The concept of something being 'free' does not truly exist. A product or service is allocated from somewhere else. Many choose not to even acknowledge this fact. There is almost a child like naivete at work.

[Carlybee]

It is impossible to do the "math" for illegals, as they pay taxes but are usually undocumented.

And- what do you think the cost of your bio-chip and border fence will cost- as this will be used as the defense to keep them out, as well as keep US Citizens in? My POV is that this is all a highly publicized excuse to rob Americans of more freedom. Illegal Immigration numbers are down and have been for a few years, but, hey, let's make it a big deal so we can implement PA III.

They pay social security tax if they are on payroll. Most of them claim so many dependents they are in a zero withholding bracket so they don't pay federal income tax. Plus they get food stamps and other perks. Do you really think the cartel members are filing tax returns? Illegals are pouring into Texas at record numbers so that's bull that the numbers are down. Apparently you read none of the links I provided nor have you read any recent news. Nor an I advocating for fences or chips. I just want the border secured and crossing enforced. If we can send soldiers overseas we should be able to guard our own sovereign borders. The administration is not letting that happen,

[Carlybee]

Ron Paul's Views on Immigration


A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.


If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

[libertyjam]

Oh ya, numbers are down of migrants... :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/central-american-migrants-overwhelm-border-patrol-station-in-texas/2014/06/12/7359534e-2e1b-4a6b-b010-f622f1cac3f0_story.html


In the past eight months, Customs and Border Protection has detained 47,000 unaccompanied minors, most of them in the Rio Grande Valley area of South Texas, up 92 percent from the same period in the previous fiscal year.

“We’re fighting a losing battle right now,” said Chris Cabrera, the Border Patrol’s union representative here. “We don’t have anywhere to hold them.”

Across the river in the drug cartel-run Mexican border town of Reynosa, migrants from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala sleep on bunk-beds in church-run shelters, as they prepare for the culmination of dangerous journeys by bus and train that have often taken them weeks to finish.

Fany Yaneth, 25, a single mother of four, hitchhiked for three weeks. Tuesday, she waited in a sliver of shade in a shelter courtyard with dozens of others. In her violent home town of Choluteca, Honduras, where she milled flour and shared her mother’s apartment with three families, “you can’t walk in the streets,” she said. “They’ll kill anyone.”

The next morning, she said, she would be taking her 7-year-old daughter and her 17-year-old brother and presenting herself to the Border Patrol.

“What we’re hearing is that the Americans are helping Hondurans right now. And even more for women and children. I don’t know if it’s true,” she said. “This is what I want to do. I’m going to arrive at the bridge, to walk up to American immigration and hold out my hand.”

Unlike illegal migrants from Mexico, who can be quickly processed and returned by bus to Mexican border cities, Central Americans cannot be easily shipped home. Airplanes must be chartered. Consular arrangements must be made. And if migrants request asylum in the United States, the U.S. government has the additional responsibility to determine whether their appeal is based on a legitimate need for protection and a “credible fear” of persecution in their home countries.

More than 36,000 migrants, the majority from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, requested asylum along the southwestern border during the government’s 2013 fiscal year, nearly triple the 2012 number. Ultimately, most of the applications were denied, but critics of the process say migrants are gaming the system to extend their stays in the United States. Others may simply go underground and ignore deportation orders if their petitions are rejected.

“I guess when you advertise $2 billion of assistance to help out the cause, it’s an open invitation for anybody to come across,” said Lazaro “Larry” Gallardo Jr., a constable in Hidalgo County, as he stood along the Rio Grande riverbank.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=3758 Border Agent’s Desperate Plea For Help, Says U.S. ‘Completely Overrun by Criminal Aliens’


This border agent works in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) sector — epicenter for the unprecedented invasion of upwards of 100,000 illegal aliens in just the past 5 months.

He said it is in the RGV that aliens who evade capture are typically the most violent.

“The ones we are losing are convicted felons, aliens from special interest countries, and other high risk individuals. We are so overwhelmed and preoccupied by the flood of juveniles and family units that we cannot use our resources to catch the more serious aliens,” the agent stated.
Outrageously, the agent says, under the direction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), immigrants are being rounded up and released in largely-Hispanic populated South Texas towns, such as Brownsville and McAllen, because “fewer people will notice or care.”

“We have been doing that for months before the stories broke in Phoenix, Arizona a couple of weeks ago,” reports the agent.
As we reported (http://toprightnews.com/?p=3435) two weeks ago, Filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch predicted that the Border Patrol was “on the verge of total collapse,” as record numbers of illegals began streaming across the border from Central America, immediately surrendering themselves to Border Patrol.
The agency has become so overwhelmed with processing these surrenders, that they have pulled large numbers of agents off the border to assist — giving free reign to the drug cartels and even terrorists (http://toprightnews.com/?p=1613) to cross over undetected for the first time in decades.



As a Border Patrol Agent, I can tell you as an eye witness that we are currently losing more than we are catching. On a good day, we catch approximately 30 to 40 percent of all crossers while the rest simply get away. In the RGV, we have been averaging around 10,000 apprehensions per week. That means we are losing well over 10,000 aliens per week. And the aliens that are getting away are not the juveniles or the family units because they are turning themselves in at the first sight of agents. The ones we are losing are convicted felons, aliens from special interest countries, and other high risk individuals. We are so overwhelmed and preoccupied by the flood of juveniles and family units that we cannot use our resources to catch the more serious aliens.

In the RGV, we have been releasing aliens, through ICE, in Brownsville, Texas and McAllen, Texas. We have been ordered to go out of our way to bus them to those locations for release because they are cities of mostly Hispanic heritage, so fewer people will notice or care. We have been doing that for months before the stories broke in Phoenix, Arizona a couple of weeks ago.

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/lW1CzQw.jpg

[Ender]

http://i.imgur.com/lW1CzQw.jpg

Yep- keep them dirty Irish outta our country. ;)

[Carlybee]

Stupid to try and make an analogy comparing the immigrants who came into the country hundreds of years ago to what is happening now. Back then they were begging people to come here and populate territories that weren't even states yet. My ancestors on my dads side came in the early 1700s and their children grew up to fight in the Revolution. Our immigrant ancestors were far from perfect wth regard to what the did to the natives, but they had a stake in the country and they fought to keep us from British rule. Mexican and others who come here illegally strain resources they don't pay for. There is a legal route to citizenship. Granted it needed to be streamlined, but it's an insult to those who have to wait years for a visa, for this administration to let one certain group in free over all others without knowing or caring if they are criminals. My husband had to sign affidavits with the DHS when he immigrated from Canada that he would not apply for assistance. He had to provide passport, fingerprints etc. and it still took 3 years before we could get married.
Yet, I am supposed to applaud letting illegals come through Texas with no stake in anything. I am supposed to be happy we send billions of dollars in aid to Mexico so they can continue to encourage their citizens to come here illegally. Am supposed to be happy that if I crossed their border illegally I would be imprisoned and deported. I am supposed to be happy when murderers and rapists move to my city and create such a strain on resources and dangerous environment that I can no longer go out at night of travel through certain neighborhoods? If it doesn't concern you it's because it hasn't affected you..yet. But you are paying for it. In your local, state and federal taxes. I support Ron Paul's solution and beyond that, I would support the secession of Texas from the union because it is obvious that people who live in non border states are fucking clueless., just like our own stupid ass leaders in this state.

[Ender]

Stupid to try and make an analogy comparing the immigrants who came into the country hundreds of years ago to what is happening now. Back then they were begging people to come here and populate territories that weren't even states yet. My ancestors on my dads side came in the early 1700s and their children grew up to fight in the Revolution. Our immigrant ancestors were far from perfect wth regard to what the did to the natives, but they had a stake in the country and they fought to keep us from British rule. Mexican and others who come here illegally strain resources they don't pay for. There is a legal route to citizenship. Granted it needed to be streamlined, but it's an insult to those who have to wait years for a visa, for this administration to let one certain group in free over all others without knowing or caring if they are criminals. My husband had to sign affidavits with the DHS when he immigrated from Canada that he would not apply for assistance. He had to provide passport, fingerprints etc. and it still took 3 years before we could get married.
Yet, I am supposed to applaud letting illegals come through Texas with no stake in anything. I am supposed to be happy we send billions of dollars in aid to Mexico so they can continue to encourage their citizens to come here illegally. Am supposed to be happy that if I crossed their border illegally I would be imprisoned and deported. I am supposed to be happy when murderers and rapists move to my city and create such a strain on resources and dangerous environment that I can no longer go out at night of travel through certain neighborhoods? If it doesn't concern you it's because it hasn't affected you..yet. But you are paying for it. In your local, state and federal taxes.

This administration isn't any different than the one that proceeded it. As a kid I knew the WoT was a sham, when the borders were not closed after 911.

And I am not saying the system is good, but I am saying that over-all this country has always been wealthier with a free-market and an influx of immigrants. Bad neighbors have always been part of the city- don't go to LA, if you don't want bad neighborhoods.

Texas doesn't have a state income tax- besides property taxes, your education system is paid for by sales tax aided with federal money. The lower income people pay a much larger percentage of their income in sales tax than do the well-off.

[Carlybee]

We have a free market? That's news to me. Your arguments don't hold water, you don't live here and why should I have to move from the city I have lived in for 30 years if "I don't like it" in order to accommodate criminals who come here illegally. You are clueless. Tell it to the rape and murder victims of illegals. Tell it to the working mother who struggles to pay for her kids lunch while illegals get theirs free.

[Ender]

We have a free market? That's news to me. Your arguments don't hold water, you don't live here and why should I have to move from the city I have lived in for 30 years if "I don't like it" in order to accommodate criminals who come here illegally. You are clueless. Tell it to the rape and murder victims of illegals. Tell it to the working mother who struggles to pay for her kids lunch while illegals get theirs free.

I never said we had a free market- I said it was part of the answer.

And, I never said you should move- I SAID bad neighborhoods are part of a big city-

And, let's see your statistics about rape and murder victims of illegals. BTW- most of the illegals in Texas are from Central America and not Mexico. JFYI

[erowe1]

Really? Why do you think the WTI crude prices have shot up of late?

Yes, I'm serious. I don't know why. Enlighten me.

At any rate, what I said is correct. Wars don't improve very many peoples' economic prospects.

[Carlybee]

I never said we had a free market- I said it was part of the answer.

And, I never said you should move- I SAID bad neighborhoods are part of a big city-

And, let's see your statistics about rape and murder victims of illegals. BTW- most of the illegals in Texas are from Central America and not Mexico. JFYI

I've posted links..go read them. They are probably much higher for Houston since it's sanctuary city and since the cartels have set up shop here and ICE does little.

And you said the country had been wealthier with a free market...we don't have a free market.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Ender

It is impossible to do the "math" for illegals, as they pay taxes but are usually undocumented.

And- what do you think the cost of your bio-chip and border fence will cost- as this will be used as the defense to keep them out, as well as keep US Citizens in? My POV is that this is all a highly publicized excuse to rob Americans of more freedom. Illegal Immigration numbers are down and have been for a few years, but, hey, let's make it a big deal so we can implement PA III.


They pay social security tax if they are on payroll. Most of them claim so many dependents they are in a zero withholding bracket so they don't pay federal income tax. Plus they get food stamps and other perks. Do you really think the cartel members are filing tax returns? Illegals are pouring into Texas at record numbers so that's bull that the numbers are down. Apparently you read none of the links I provided nor have you read any recent news. Nor an I advocating for fences or chips. I just want the border secured and crossing enforced. If we can send soldiers overseas we should be able to guard our own sovereign borders. The administration is not letting that happen,

Carlybee,

Let me suggest to not feed the troll! We need to stick to the subject of the thread.


JWK




If the people of the United States do not rise up and defend the constitution they have given their consent to, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?

[Ender]

Carlybee,

Let me suggest to not feed the troll! We need to stick to the subject of the thread.


JWK




If the people of the United States do not rise up and defend the constitution they have given their consent to, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?



Troll?

I would suggest that is YOU, sir.

[Ender]

I've posted links..go read them. They are probably much higher for Houston since it's sanctuary city and since the cartels have set up shop here and ICE does little.

And you said the country had been wealthier with a free market...we don't have a free market.

Exactly.

So which is better for liberty-

Standing together and getting rid of draconian laws?

OR

Making even more laws that destroy freedom and liberty for everyone?

[Zippyjuan]

I never said we had a free market- I said it was part of the answer.

And, I never said you should move- I SAID bad neighborhoods are part of a big city-

And, let's see your statistics about rape and murder victims of illegals. BTW- most of the illegals in Texas are from Central America and not Mexico. JFYI

Immigrant (legal and illegal) neighborhoods tend to have lower crime rates than citizen neighborhoods.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717575,00.html


Immigration: No Correlation With Crime

Despite our melting-pot roots, Americans have often been quick to blame the influx of immigrants for rising crime rates. But new research released Monday shows that immigrants in California are, in fact, far less likely than U.S.-born Californians are to commit crime. While people born abroad make up about 35% of California's adult population, they account for only about 17% of the adult prison population, the report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) showed. Indeed, among men ages 18 to 40 — the demographic most likely to be imprisoned — those born in the U.S. were 10 times more likely than foreign-born men to be incarcerated.

"From a public safety standpoint, there would be little reason to limit immigration," says Kristin Butcher, an economics professor at Wellesley College and one of the report's authors.

The new report even bolsters claims by some academics that increased immigration makes the United States safer. A second study, released earlier this month by Washington-based nonprofit Immigration Policy Center, found that on the national level, U.S.-born men ages 18-39 are five times more likely to be incarcerated than are their foreign-born peers. And, while the number of illegal immigrants in the country doubled between 1994 and 2005, violent crime declined by nearly 35% and property crimes by 26% over the same period. The PPIC even determined that on average, between 2000 and 2005, cities such as Los Angeles that took in a higher share of recent immigrants saw their crime rates fall further than cities with a lower influx of illegals.

Driving these statistics, researchers believe, are the same factors that drive immigration in the first place. "People who make the decision to come here from another country want to get ahead, establish a better life," says Harvard sociology professor Robert Sampson. "That dream is not something they're likely to risk by getting arrested."

Sampson and colleagues recently examined more than 3,000 violent acts committed in Chicago from 1995 to 2003, analyzing police records, census data and a survey of more than 8,000 residents. They discovered what Sampson calls the "Latino Paradox" — first-generation Mexican immigrants were 45% less likely to engage in violence than third-generation Americans. This pattern continued into the second generation, which was 22% less likely to be violent. Similar trends have been seen in New York and Miami, both of which have large immigrant enclaves. "Immigrant communities are often responsible for revitalizing the urban neighborhoods that they live in," Sampson says. The irony of people's popular misconceptions, he adds, is "that the longer one is exposed to American culture, the more likely you are to participate in violence."



More at link.

[Carlybee]

Carlybee,

Let me suggest to not feed the troll! We need to stick to the subject of the thread.


JWK




If the people of the United States do not rise up and defend the constitution they have given their consent to, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?



Ender is not a troll. We have agreed on other things, just not this one and that is our right to have differing opinions. I just happen to be pretty passionate about this one at the moment.

[Carlybee]

Exactly.

So which is better for liberty-

Standing together and getting rid of draconian laws?

OR

Making even more laws that destroy freedom and liberty for everyone?


I stand by Ron Paul's solution and I believe this forum is named after him..so are you saying he is not for liberty?

I have not advocated making any new laws, just enforcing the one in the constitution that protects our sovereignty. How is that destroying freedom and liberty? It might destroy the freedom and liberty of criminals coming over the border. Exactly when, Ender do ya think the war on drugs will be ended? Do you think that might happen before I get shot in the head driving down the street that has now become a gangland barrio?


Oh and Zippyjuan, I am concerned right now with Texas statistics...not national or what happens in your neighborhood so pardon me if I discount your Time magazine reference. I am well aware that the average Joe Blow who comes over here to work is not in the same league as the cartel member who is over here recruiting. We recently had a manager with the Houston Parks and Recreation Dept who turned out to be a local leader of a Mexican drug cartel, so you see, they are invading our infrastructure.

I'm bowing out of this thread. It's obvious we will not see eye to eye on this. Unless it affects you or your surroundings or your daily routine or unless you feel endangered you are likely not to understand the impact of allowing borders to be open to a huge criminal element. Unless it has cost YOUR state 12 billion dollars, you probably won't understand that the 1.2 billion you got back out of it is not quite economically feasible.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I have not advocated making any new laws, just enforcing the one in the constitution that protects our sovereignty. How is that destroying freedom and liberty?

Except that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to grant citizenship and determine the naturalization process, not immigration policies. And even if the Constitution allow the federal government to intervene in immigration matters, it is a piece of paper that is not infallible and does in fact destroy freedom and liberty.

The protectionists/restrictionists who, with a straight face, argue that immigration restrictions do not destroy freedom and liberty, are either unaware or too stubborn to realize that their arguments contradict the very definition of "liberty" in the first place, which states:

: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely

: the power to do or choose what you want to

[Carlybee]

Except that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to grant citizenship and determine the naturalization process, not immigration policies. And even if the Constitution allow the federal government to intervene in immigration matters, it is a piece of paper that is not infallible and does in fact destroy freedom and liberty.

The protectionists/restrictionists who, with a straight face, argue that immigration restrictions do not destroy freedom and liberty, are either unaware or too stubborn to realize that their arguments contradict the very definition of "liberty" in the first place, which states:

: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely

: the power to do or choose what you want to

Do you think Ron Paul is a protectionist/restrictionist then? All I have called for are the exact same things he has.






Ron Paul on Border Security and Immigration.


A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

[Carlybee]

//

[Ender]

Ender is not a troll. We have agreed on other things, just not this one and that is our right to have differing opinions. I just happen to be pretty passionate about this one at the moment.

Thank you and +rep.

Friendly disagreement is where we all learn and I have a lot of respect for you.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Do you think Ron Paul is a protectionist/restrictionist then? All I have called for are the exact same things he has.

In this case, yes he is contradicting his free market arguments.

I also find it naive on his part to on one hand warn against a police state while at the same time endorse giving power to that very same being when it comes to "securing the border."

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this policing isn't isolated to just the border.

[Cutlerzzz]

We have a free market? That's news to me. Your arguments don't hold water, you don't live here and why should I have to move from the city I have lived in for 30 years if "I don't like it" in order to accommodate criminals who come here illegally. You are clueless. Tell it to the rape and murder victims of illegals. Tell it to the working mother who struggles to pay for her kids lunch while illegals get theirs free.

Anyone trying to use guns to force people to move is a criminal.

[Carlybee]

In this case, yes he is contradicting his free market arguments.

I also find it naive on his part to on one hand warn against a police state while at the same time endorse giving power to that very same being when it comes to "securing the border."

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this policing isn't isolated to just the border.


Okay...well let me know when the war on drugs ends and when we have a real free market...I mean I'm sure all those Republicans are on the verge of seeing that happen next week. Meanwhile when all these cartels that are setting up shop down here start expanding into wherever you live and bringing their special kind of economy incentives into your community, you might decide to revisit the topic.

I think I will really bow out as it appears I have stumbled onto a liberal site that now supports the Democrats immigration initiatives.

[Carlybee]

Anyone trying to use guns to force people to move is a criminal.

But it's okay if criminals come over the border illegally and use guns on American citizens?

[Zippyjuan]

But it's okay if criminals come over the border illegally and use guns on American citizens?


How often does that happen (vs citizens shooting other citizens)?

As for Texas and border cities: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/2-us-mexico-border-cities_n_2647897.html

2 U.S.-Mexico Border Cities Boast Lowest Crime Rates, New Data Shows

While the reinvigorated immigration reform debate promises to prompt more discussion about border security and transnational crime, Congressional Quarterly’s annual release of crime rate statistics highlights how safe some parts of the Southwest are.

The two U.S. cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants and the lowest crime rates-- El Paso, Texas and San Diego, California -- are both located along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the publication.

Last year was the third time in a row that El Paso took the top spot for safest large city in the United States, according to Fronteras Desk.

None of the 10 cities over 500,000 inhabitants with the highest crime rates are located along the border. The closest one is Houston, Texas, located about five hours by car from the Rio Grande Valley.

The news is consistent with a larger pattern. According to a USA Today article published on Nov. 4:


Ten of the 13 largest cities in Texas, Arizona and California closest to the Mexico border recorded reductions in overall violent crime, according to the latest FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Eleven of the 13 also saw reductions in property crime, including burglary and car theft.

Crime has also dropped across the border in Ciudad Juarez, El Paso’s sister city. Once known as the murder capital of the Americas, annual homicides in Juarez dropped from a peak of 2,738 in 2010 to 656 last year, according to a report from the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego.

[Zippyjuan]

Duplicate.

[johnwk]

Ender is not a troll. We have agreed on other things, just not this one and that is our right to have differing opinions. I just happen to be pretty passionate about this one at the moment.

What I'm talking about is the constant switching of the subject which is an ongoing invasion of our borders and the President's refusal to enforce the laws of the United States.

JWK

[CPUd]

What I'm talking about is the constant switching of the subject which is an ongoing invasion of our borders and the President's refusal to enforce the laws of the United States.

JWK

I don't see him changing the subject, I see him repeatedly calling you out for faulty premise.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I think I will really bow out as it appears I have stumbled onto a liberal site that now supports the Democrats immigration initiatives.

Yup, you got us, our libertarian ideals are really a front for our membership in the DNC :rolleyes:

[NIU Students for Liberty]

What I'm talking about is the constant switching of the subject which is an ongoing invasion of our borders and the President's refusal to enforce the laws of the United States.

JWK

So because he doesn't agree with your exaggerated, sensationalized headline, he's a troll?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Okay...well let me know when the war on drugs ends and when we have a real free market...I mean I'm sure all those Republicans are on the verge of seeing that happen next week. Meanwhile when all these cartels that are setting up shop down here start expanding into wherever you live and bringing their special kind of economy incentives into your community, you might decide to revisit the topic.

According to your logic, we might as well allow warmongers to continue to push for war in the Middle East since we don't live in a peaceful world. And those corporations that are too big to fail? Well I guess we better continue to bail them out and provide them with government subsidies and protections since we don't have a real free market.

Even though we know the source of these problems/conflicts, I guess it's easier to go along in order to get along.

[Carlybee]

According to your logic, we might as well allow warmongers to continue to push for war in the Middle East since we don't live in a peaceful world. And those corporations that are too big to fail? Well I guess we better continue to bail them out and provide them with government subsidies and protections since we don't have a real free market.

Even though we know the source of these problems/conflicts, I guess it's easier to go along in order to get along.

Stop putting words in my mouth. No I do not support war. I would just rather see our national guard actually guarding our borders rather than some other country at least until some legislation does happen to stem the reasons for this economic and criminal tsunami coming into this country that we have to pay for in tax dollars, lives and property, I dont expect you to understand it as it apparently is not affecting you or your freedom to conduct your life and business or to protect your property.

[Zippyjuan]

criminal tsunami coming into this country

Is this "criminal tsunami" the reason why crime has been falling in this country- even in border cities? (see my post above)

[Carlybee]

Is this "criminal tsunami" the reason why crime has been falling in this country- even in border cities? (see my post above)

Oh the one from Huffy Po or Time? I don't know how they come up with those statistics. I know what I see and read about everyday in Houston and it belies those statistics. As I said if it isn't affecting you.....

For the record we have an estimated 400,000 illegals in Houston. If statistics show crime is falling that could also just mean there are less arrests since ICE and other agencies have been told to look the other way as has the border patrol.

[Zippyjuan]

Let's see what the Houston Chronicle says.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Crime-remains-down-but-do-you-feel-safer-4218605.php


Crime dips, but not everyone feels safe

Bordelon's remarks came as Mayor Annise Parker and Police Chief Charles McClelland touted an 8 percent drop in crime during their three years in charge, compared with the prior three years, crediting prudent use of technology, good police work, the awareness and cooperation of the public and efforts to educate citizens about crime prevention.



I live in a border city- San Diego.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/01/27/number-undocumented-immigrants-arrested-in-us-declines/


Number of undocumented immigrants arrested in the U.S. declines

The number of undocumented immigrants arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement dropped 23 percent nationwide between Sept. 30, 2012, and August 2013, though it increased in a half-dozen cities, according to Homeland Security figures.

The monthly average of undocumented immigrants arrested shot up by 78 percent in Buffalo, New York.

At the same time it rose in Philadelphia by 10 percent, in New Orleans by 7 percent, in Detroit by 6 percent, and in Saint Paul, Minnesota, by 5 percent.

The cities that showed the greatest decline in arrests of the undocumented were Miami, San Diego, Atlanta, Houston and Chicago, according to ICE data published by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse based at Syracuse University.

The ICE office in Miami prosecuted 33 percent fewer persons than it did the year before.

Nationwide, a monthly average of 17,691 undocumented immigrants were arrested last year, compared with 22,832 in 2012.



From January, 2014: http://app1.kuhf.org/articles/1386612565-What-Do-The-Houston-Crime-Statistics-Reveal.html


What Do The Houston Crime Statistics Reveal?

Houston's top cop says the city closed 2013 with a decline in the overall crime rate, and thanked the officers for helping keep the city safe.

Houston ended last year with violent crime down 3-percent from 2012 that included a decrease in three of the four categories of part-1: violent crimes; murder, rape and aggravated assault.


While violent crime was down, thefts were up slightly.

[Carlybee]

Houston's top cop? Lol..yeah I believe that. Plus that doesn't account for the metropolitan area which includes suburbs not policed by HPD. Crime aside....what about the cost? Why do we have to pay to jail, house, feed and provide assistance to illegal citizens who mostly pay NO federal income tax yet are eligible for food stamps and other entitlements? I already stated they cost Texas 12 billion and of that they only added 1.2 billion to the economy. What is fair about that? How does a state going into debt due to illegals promote the cause of liberty? How does having our property invaded by non citizens promote the cause of liberty?

[Zippyjuan]

What "alternative crime figures" can you provide if you don't believe your own sheriff or FBI or other crime statistics?

[Zippyjuan]

Related article on costs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/how-much-did-illegal-immigrants-contribute-to-texas-economic-boom/2011/08/19/gIQASvBFQJ_blog.html


At the same time, the growing immigrant community — along with the rest of the state’s booming population — has put greater demands on the public sector, racking up costs in education, health care and other resources. While illegal immigrants are ineligible for most public benefits, they still receive emergency care that the state covers when hospitals pass on the costs. And the growing number of new residents overall is also expected to strain public resources in Texas down the road, especially if the state continues to make draconian budget cuts. By 2013, for example, Texas is expected to add 160,000 schoolchildren, and a higher demand for water amid a dwindling supply may force taxpayers to build reservoirs and fix
aging infrastructure.

But there’s some evidence that there’s a net economic benefit to illegal immigration, even with such costs factored in. In 2006, the
Texas state comptroller, a Republican, released a study showing that illegal immigrants produced more in state revenues than they received in state services in the previous year: “Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.” (The study also notes that “local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not paid for by the state,” without providing figures about local revenues that these immigrants generated.) The comptroller estimated, moreover, that the Texas workforce would decline by 6.3 percent without the illegal immigrant population, even accounting for new arrivals that would most likely come to replace them.

To be sure, the state comptroller’s report came out before the recession changed the entire economic outlook of the country, Texas included. But more recent research has confirmed some of its findings. In a study last year, University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri found that immigration — both legal and illegal — had a short-term negative impact on employment and average income rates of native-born workers. But in the longer term, Peri concludes, “immigration unambiguously improves employment, productivity, and income” for native workers as well and shows no evidence of depressing wages.

[Cutlerzzz]

Zippy, You're not from Houston, and only people from border states with random anecdotes can understand illegal immigration and its impact. Numbers and facts don't matter.

[Zippyjuan]

The problem is that fears are not usually rational and trying to argue rationally that a threat isn't what it is imagined to be won't change the fear. Which is why polititians love fear- it motivates people and facts won't sway them back. When facts are presented, the facts must be wrong.


Oh the one from Huffy Po or Time? I don't know how they come up with those statistics.


Houston's top cop? Lol..yeah I believe that.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona effectively uses fear of illegal aliens to keep his job.

[James Madison]

The problem is more cultural than fiscal. If you're talking about the inner-cities, however, then, yes, that is more fiscal than cultural.

[Carlybee]

I have provided links in this thread. If you choose not to read them that's your problem. I'm not going to keep reposting them so you can continue to tilt at windmills. The OP provided links in the very first post which you have chosen to ignore over your own sources from well known liberal bastions like Huffington Post. Surprised you haven't referenced The Daily Kos yet or La Raza. There is nothing wrong with fearing cartels like Los Zatos making incursions into this country. They are not here here bearing gifts of rainbows and unicorns

The only illegal immigrants leaving were the ones here actually working and that has to do with dollar devaluation. The criminals are still coming in and by criminals I mean cartels, murderers, rapists, you know the ones that don't fit in your tidy box of excuses Juan. It's in the links I posted.

[Zippyjuan]

I checked you links and found none claiming that violent crime has been rising. Perhaps I missed something?

[Carlybee]

I checked you links and found none claiming that violent crime has been rising. Perhaps I missed something?

How much does it have to rise to meet your criteria for a clear and present danger? The fact that I can no longer go grocery shopping at night without eyes in the back of my head is my seat of the pants barometer. I'm done here and no I don't acquiesce to your so called proof. I live here you not and seriously do you think the cops are going to admit that crime is worse on their watch? We have a major human trafficking hub here. Girls are being sold into sex slavery here...brought from over the border illegally. But keep reading the Huffy Po.

[Zippyjuan]

Again, I too live in a border town with a large (legal and illegal) immigrant population. (I haven't found any support for the claim of 400,000 illegal aliens in Houston- city has a reported population of 2 million so that would mean one in five people which is a huge number).

According to this interactive map (can't copy/ paste so use link) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274081/Pew-Hispanic-Center-Interactive-map-shows-concentration-illegal-immigrants-state-state-America.html

illegal immigrants in Texas make up six percent of the population and nine percent of the work force (meaning they are more likely to have jobs than citizens are).

I am sorry you are forced to live in a bad neighborhood.

[Carlybee]

Zippy, You're not from Houston, and only people from border states with random anecdotes can understand illegal immigration and its impact. Numbers and facts don't matter.

And if it isn't affecting you, it must not be happening.

[johnwk]

I don't see him changing the subject, I see him repeatedly calling you out for faulty premise.

Faulty premise? Do you care to elaborate on that while posting my words which are a faulty premise?


JWK

[Carlybee]

Again, I too live in a border town with a large (legal and illegal) immigrant population. (I haven't found any support for the claim of 400,000 illegal aliens in Houston- city has a reported population of 2 million so that would mean one in five people which is a huge number).

According to this interactive map (can't copy/ paste so use link) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274081/Pew-Hispanic-Center-Interactive-map-shows-concentration-illegal-immigrants-state-state-America.html

illegal immigrants in Texas make up six percent of the population and nine percent of the work force (meaning they are more likely to have jobs than citizens are).

I am sorry you are forced to live in a bad neighborhood.


Our metropolitan area is close to 6 million. The metropolitan area of Houston is over 10000 sq miles. And I don't live in a bad neighborhood ...crime comes to every neighborhood although areas I have to drive through are now filled with gangs. And I highly doubt those statistics are accurate as they only account for the illegals they can account for.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

What I'm talking about is the constant switching of the subject which is an ongoing invasion of our borders and the President's refusal to enforce the laws of the United States.

JWK




So because he doesn't agree with your exaggerated, sensationalized headline, he's a troll?


That is your absurd conclusion, not mine. And I have not exaggerated nor sensationalized in the title of the thread.


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Faulty premise? Do you care to elaborate on that while posting my words which are a faulty premise?


JWK

I can. Where is this "horde" you keep saying we need protection from?

From the first post in the thread:

Let us take a look at the suicidal consequences which are occurring in our country because our traitorous federal government ignores the general welfare of the United States by allowing millions upon millions of impoverished aliens to invade our borders:

How many millions are entering each year? (I have asked numerous times and gotten no figures). There are two million FEWER than there were seven years ago. This is millions and millions invading?

[Zippyjuan]

Our metropolitan area is close to 6 million. The metropolitan area of Houston is over 10000 sq miles. And I don't live in a bad neighborhood ...crime comes to every neighborhood although areas I have to drive through are now filled with gangs.

Thank you for the additional information. That does make it closer to six percent of the population which is the Texas state average.

Income level is much more closely related to crime rates than immigration status.

[Carlybee]

Thank you for the additional information. That does make it closer to six percent of the population.



Again that only encompasses the illegals they can account for and the jobs statistics would not account for those paid under the table or those making money in more nefarious ways and getting away with it.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Stop putting words in my mouth. No I do not support war. I would just rather see our national guard actually guarding our borders rather than some other country at least until some legislation does happen to stem the reasons for this economic and criminal tsunami coming into this country that we have to pay for in tax dollars, lives and property, I dont expect you to understand it as it apparently is not affecting you or your freedom to conduct your life and business or to protect your property.

Your faulty/inconsistent logic insinuates that you would support those things because of your arguments and reasoning behind supporting increased immigration restrictions.

[Carlybee]

Your faulty/inconsistent logic insinuates that you would support those things because of your arguments and reasoning behind supporting increased immigration restrictions.

I've not called for increased immigration restrictions nor do I find my logic faulty. I call for enforcement of current immigration laws and have conceded the legal immigration process needs to be overhauled. I have only addressed this most recent incursion which due to Obamas policies and violation of the constitution has effectively amounted to an invasion of our sovereignty. So don't put words in my mouth again. It's not our place as taxpayers to have to support criminal elements coming over the border and the government does have a constitutional obligation to protect the border.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I've not called for increased immigration restrictions nor do I find my logic faulty. I call for enforcement of current immigration laws and have conceded the legal immigration process needs to be overhauled. I have only addressed this most recent incursion which due to Obamas policies and violation of the constitution has effectively amounted to an invasion of our sovereignty. So don't put words in my mouth again. It's not our place as taxpayers to have to support criminal elements coming over the border and the government does have a constitutional obligation to protect the border.

Yes, you are calling for immigration restrictions if you're arguing for "securing" the border. That's the whole point of putting a bunch of armed troops along a line.

And if you want to complain about tax-funded support, it's not my place to have to support protectionist policies that do nothing but restrict the free market.

[Carlybee]

Yes, you are calling for immigration restrictions if you're arguing for "securing" the border. That's the whole point of putting a bunch of armed troops along a line.

And if you want to complain about tax-funded support, it's not my place to have to support protectionist policies that do nothing but restrict the free market.


Then apparently you disagree with the Constitution which does call for protecting our borders and apparently you don't support state sovereignty. That's your right just as it is mine to feel the way I do. Again...let me know when we have that free market you keep referring to.

[Cutlerzzz]

Tell us about all of the federal border patrol agents during the time of the Constitutions implementation guarding us because of the Constitution.

[devil21]

Zippy, You're not from Houston, and only people from border states with random anecdotes can understand illegal immigration and its impact. Numbers and facts don't matter.

Zippy has been outed for having a London IP address by a mod so I doubt he's in San Diego either.

[Zippyjuan]

Zippy has been outed for having a London IP address by a mod so I doubt he's in San Diego either.

Cool. I enjoyed London when I lived there (over 20 years ago). Saw Princess Diana and her two kids one day heading into their school Christmas pageant.

[Carlybee]

Tell us about all of the federal border patrol agents during the time of the Constitutions implementation guarding us because of the Constitution.

Idiotic question so no, I will decline to answer. Refer to Article IV Section IV.


And back to the OT. Yes Obama and the Dems are encouraging this latest incursion for political gain, Obama is ticking items off his bucket list before he leaves office, and is in violation of his Constitutional oath. If y'all want to keep defending his actions, knock yourselves out. If you no longer believe in the Constitution as rule of law, do whatever you need to do to realize your more perfect country. That's what the Progressives want. That's what the pro amnesty crowd wants apparently. I don't have to agree so you are wasting your collective breath. I'll stick with Ron Paul's ideas.

[Lord Xar]

Seems to me johnwk is a nativist at least, if not a racist. You think his little "Mr. Juan" was entirely innocent?

Regardless, our liberty/freedom days are well beyond numbered; they're long since passed. And immigrants had little if anything to do with it.

Well, I'd like to put up a fight than just lay down and say "well, we are past the point of no return.. so fuggg it!"... I am not understanding this insatiable need to have open borders COUPLED would a country that is fully entrenched in the welfare/entitlement mindset.

I've had discussions over the years with people like this -- "who owns what.....", "they were here first....", "You're just a nativist....". Do I have to really point to the data and say "MOST of all illegals immigrants given amnesty vote for MORE government, MORE regulations, MORE entitlements etc...". I don't get it.. I really don't. I mean, I get that you are holding strong with your convictions in the face of a contrary environment... so my guess is you want to hasten the demise, and see what rises from the ashes. That is the only thing that makes sense.... Let all come down as fast as possible. Because otherwise, you trying to leverage your arguments/beliefs in the current system AND with millions flowing across - makes no sense at all.

I mean, come right out and say it... stop hiding behind finger pointing at others for disagreeing with you and using the race card.

[Lord Xar]

Yes, you are calling for immigration restrictions if you're arguing for "securing" the border. That's the whole point of putting a bunch of armed troops along a line.

And if you want to complain about tax-funded support, it's not my place to have to support protectionist policies that do nothing but restrict the free market.

We currently don't have a free market, so how does one restrict it if it doesn't exist? You understand that the more illegals cross our border, in our current system, the thought of the "free market" will just be some free thinkers wet dream in years to come.

You can't have open borders with a government that feeds itself with the dependency of the farm animals that happen to reside on "its" land. You are trying to fit a ball into a square hole. Impossible. We do NOT have a free market, and as you advocate for open borders - all you will get is a sycophant of the state's wet dream. A BUNCH of new statists who suckle at the teet of government, and to pray to it as if it was God... in some respects, it is.

End ALL welfare, entitlements, truly have a free-market, end taxation, THEN LETS TALK. Till then you are advocating nothing but more government.

[devil21]

Well, I'd like to put up a fight than just lay down and say "well, we are past the point of no return.. so fuggg it!"... I am not understanding this insatiable need to have open borders COUPLED would a country that is fully entrenched in the welfare/entitlement mindset.

It's the Cloward-Piven strategy of socialist government, mixed with some Hegelian dialectic. It's an intentional effort to overwhelm the existing system so that a replacement system (socialism) can be offered as the solution. Not to say the current system is anything great right now but the USSR it's not. Yet.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

Lots of info on Cloward-Piven if you Google. You gotta understand their strategy if you're going to begin to fight it.

[A Son of Liberty]

I mean, come right out and say it... stop hiding behind finger pointing at others for disagreeing with you and using the race card.

EVERYONE in this country has been voting for MORE GOVERNMENT, MORE REGULATIONS, MORE ENTITLEMENTS for decades if not a century plus. Have you been looking at election returns, and RESULTS? Has even ONE election in this country in the last century resulted in an overall net reduction in the scope of the government, regulatory environment, or "entitlement" regime? Besides Ron Paul, there hasn't be a legitimately, genuinely small government advocate running in a presidential election since Calvin Coolidge, perhaps. And yet Ron pulled - what - 7% of the vote at best?

NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY WANTS A SMALLER GOVERNMENT. "Keep you government hands off of my Medicare!" Right?

Look, I didn't say "illegal immigration" isn't a problem. I said it isn't the problem. And, to any reasonable person, on the list of problems its a fair ways on down there.

[Lord Xar]

It's the Cloward-Piven strategy of socialist government, mixed with some Hegelian dialectic. It's an intentional effort to overwhelm the existing system so that a replacement system (socialism) can be offered as the solution. Not to say the current system is anything great right now but the USSR it's not. Yet.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

Lots of info on Cloward-Piven if you Google. You gotta understand their strategy if you're going to begin to fight it.


I think you are probably right. I can't speak on the "techniques" used, but I am fairly certain that many of these posters are just masquerading as patriots who are really just human enslavers serving greater masters.

[Lord Xar]

EVERYONE in this country has been voting for MORE GOVERNMENT, MORE REGULATIONS, MORE ENTITLEMENTS for decades if not a century plus. Have you been looking at election returns, and RESULTS? Has even ONE election in this country in the last century resulted in an overall net reduction in the scope of the government, regulatory environment, or "entitlement" regime? Besides Ron Paul, there hasn't be a legitimately, genuinely small government advocate running in a presidential election since Calvin Coolidge, perhaps. And yet Ron pulled - what - 7% of the vote at best?

NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY WANTS A SMALLER GOVERNMENT. "Keep you government hands off of my Medicare!" Right?

Look, I didn't say "illegal immigration" isn't a problem. I said it isn't the problem. And, to any reasonable person, on the list of problems its a fair ways on down there.

Just because it is not as important or lets say, contributing to the problem, than say the FED/ Cronyism/ Culture of dependence / M.I.C. This does not mean one needs to advocate it. In addition, this advocation just makes the "other" higher order problems MORE problemetic, more systemic/entwined in the system.... It makes no sense to me to support something that just makes the "other" more insidious issues MORE powerful. IF one symptom arises because of a deeper problem, you don't ignore the symptom because it is not the underlying cause IF the symptom gives more power to the thing which caused it. Makes no sense, to me.

[A Son of Liberty]

Just because it is not as important or lets say, contributing to the problem, than say the FED/ Cronyism/ Culture of dependence / M.I.C. This does not mean one needs to advocate it. In addition, this advocation just makes the "other" higher order problems MORE problemetic, more systemic/entwined in the system.... It makes no sense to me to support something that just makes the "other" more insidious issues MORE powerful. IF one symptom arises because of a deeper problem, you don't ignore the symptom because it is not the underlying cause IF the symptom gives more power to the thing which caused it. Makes no sense, to me.

I should have been more precise. I don't advocate amnesty. "Citizenship" is a farce, in my opinion, anyway.

It is a problem in that it can contribute to the entitlement regime, tho' any immigration or net gain in population at all can as well, on the whole.

I find the assault on freedom of association and freedom of movement to be more insulting to my sensibilities than a blip on the already enormous debt meter, I guess.

[Ender]

The Constitution stand on border protection is about INVASION. The US is NOT being invaded; the borders were not even closed after 911- should tell ya sumpin'.

Also, we already have an area around the borders that is "constitution free", meaning that people with the gov can do anything they please to Americans or anyone else. I do not want to see this increased. The answer is to restore our freedoms, not take more away for this or that favorite cause.

PLUS the bucks proposed to put more border patrol out there is 3 billion.

'Nuff said.

[Carlybee]

The Constitution stand on border protection is about INVASION. The US is NOT being invaded; the borders were not even closed after 911- should tell ya sumpin'.

Also, we already have an area around the borders that is "constitution free", meaning that people with the gov can do anything they please to Americans or anyone else. I do not want to see this increased. The answer is to restore our freedoms, not take more away for this or that favorite cause.

PLUS the bucks proposed to put more border patrol out there is 3 billion.

'Nuff said.

Depends on your definition of invasion. And border patrol is useless. We do have a national guard. What else are they doing? Restore OUR freedom yes. Illegals are not citizens. Let them find freedom in their own countries. Otherwise why have any laws at all? Why not just invite the rest of the world to come on over and let us pay for their food, healthcare, etc.? That is what happens you know. And they cost Texas alone way more than 3 billion.

[CPUd]

Depends on your definition of invasion.

Do they still fly the US and Texas flags over govt buildings in Houston?

[Carlybee]

Do they still fly the US and Texas flags over govt buildings in Houston?

Yes, why? Invasion does not necessarily mean occupation. Although there have been protests around here where foreign flags have been raised. I work near the Venezuelan consulate for example and they have demonstrations there every time they have an election and the Venezuelan flag is flown.

[Carlybee]

Libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard, in which he explains how mass immigration violates the property rights of a nation’s lawful citizens:


...a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in acountry were owned by some pers
on, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally
privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists
defacto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public
land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.


In addition to the defense of private property offered by Rothbard, the first Libertarian Party
presidential candidate, John Hospers, set forth the following in response to the standard open borders position:


When one person treads on, or in any way occupies, however temporarily, the property of another person, unless the property owner
has consented to the other person being there, the first person is by law guilty of trespass. It is the property owner’s right to have the trespasser
removed from his property. Shouldn’t that same legal principle apply to people from outside the country?


http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/research-pub/The_%28Il%29Logic_of_Open_Border_Libertarians-2.pdf

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard, in which he explains how mass immigration violates the property rights of a nation’s lawful citizens:

"A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire."



You do realize that you used Rothbard's argument to support what I've been arguing all along, right? It is up to me, the property owner to determine who I will and will not interact with on my property. You don't want someone from Juarez coming over to your house? Fine, it's your property. However, If I invite that same person over to my property, no one's freedom has been infringed since I agreed to have them enter my property.

You do not factor into this equation since you are not on my property and therefore you still retain the same freedoms you enjoyed before my guest came over to MY property.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

We currently don't have a free market, so how does one restrict it if it doesn't exist? You understand that the more illegals cross our border, in our current system, the thought of the "free market" will just be some free thinkers wet dream in years to come.

You can't have open borders with a government that feeds itself with the dependency of the farm animals that happen to reside on "its" land. You are trying to fit a ball into a square hole. Impossible. We do NOT have a free market, and as you advocate for open borders - all you will get is a sycophant of the state's wet dream. A BUNCH of new statists who suckle at the teet of government, and to pray to it as if it was God... in some respects, it is.

End ALL welfare, entitlements, truly have a free-market, end taxation, THEN LETS TALK. Till then you are advocating nothing but more government.

You are correct that we do not live in a true free market at the moment. However, I will call you out on the same faulty logic that I called Carlybee on. Just because we don't have a free market or we live in a peaceful world does not justify the government continually restricting peoples' freedoms in order to ensure a false sense of security.

If you want to create a society that values freedom, it makes no sense to take freedom away. Otherwise you sound like George W. Bush, wanting to sacrifice free market principles in order to save the free market.

[Carlybee]

You do realize that you used Rothbard's argument to support what I've been arguing all along, right? It is up to me, the property owner to determine who I will and will not interact with on my property. You don't want someone from Juarez coming over to your house? Fine, it's your property. However, If I invite that same person over to my property, no one's freedom has been infringed since I agreed to have them enter my property.

You do not factor into this equation since you are not on my property and therefore you still retain the same freedoms you enjoyed before my guest came over to MY property.


I see it differently and maybe I interpreted Rothbard differently but I see Texas (in particular) as the property of the citizens here who pay the taxes to run it and the people who own property here. So when someone comes over the border illegally they are trespassing on our property. When they come over here and my tax dollars have to pay to educate their kids, provide them with assistance, and when they take jobs such as construction jobs away from people here, then that is an infringement on OUR freedom. (granted the companies that hire them are also complicit) I have no problem with people coming to visit nor do I have a problem with people who go through the immigration process legally. It's not fair for those who do...for example my husband when he immigrated from Canada, and to give one certain group of people a free pass. So feel free to invite your friends from Juarez but if they stay indefinitely, drink all your beer and eat all your food, you might be wishing they would go home. Plus if they come to visit they are supposed to have a passport, just like when we go to Mexico or any other country we have to have one...why shouldn't they? Not that I am a particular fan of passports but what's sauce for the goose. What really just annoys the crap out of me is that there is one set of rules for Latin Americans and another one for Canadian Americans and most people from any other country not south of the border. It's not right.

[Carlybee]

You are correct that we do not live in a true free market at the moment. However, I will call you out on the same faulty logic that I called Carlybee on. Just because we don't have a free market or we live in a peaceful world does not justify the government continually restricting peoples' freedoms in order to ensure a false sense of security.

If you want to create a society that values freedom, it makes no sense to take freedom away. Otherwise you sound like George W. Bush, wanting to sacrifice free market principles in order to save the free market.


They don't have the right to restrict our freedoms, but when someone who isn't a citizen comes here and breaks our laws then they do have the right to restrict their freedom and at the very least deport them. Just because their cesspool of a country can't provide a safe, prosperous environment for them doesn't mean we need to take them all in. It's just another version of interventionism.

BTW I used to be an open borders person too. Back when I was a Democrat and sat around visualizing whirled peas. Since then I have seen too much happen as a consequence. It's not like when we go down to Cozumel for vacation, we come back. When they come here, they don't leave. I work with people from Mexico and from El Salvador and they are here legally, they work their butts off and at least contribute somewhat. Unfortunately they also get free healthcare and don't pay federal withholding for the most part, but at least they try.

[A Son of Liberty]

I see it differently and maybe I interpreted Rothbard differently but I see Texas (in particular) as the property of the citizens here who pay the taxes to run it and the people who own property here.

That's not at all a Rothbardian argument.

There is no Texas.

[Carlybee]

That's not at all a Rothbardian argument.

There is no Texas.



Rothbard made distinctions between the Nation State vs The
Individual State


I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail's anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail's concerns any longer." - p.7

Rothbard from Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State




In addition, the libertarian, especially of the anarcho-capitalist wing, asserts that it makes no difference where the boundaries are, since in a perfect world all institutions and land areas would be private and there would be no national boundaries. Fine, but in the meantime, in the real world, in which language should the government courts hold their proceedings? What should be the language of signs on the government streets? Or the language of the government schools? In the real world, then, national self-determination is a vitally important matter in which libertarians should properly take sides.

Finally, nationalism has its disadvantages for liberty, but also has its strengths, and libertarians should try to help tip it in the latter direction. If we were residents of Yugoslavia, for example, we should be agitating in favor of the right to secede from that swollen and misbegotten State of Croatia and Slovenia (that is, favoring their current nationalist movements), while opposing the desire of the Serb demagogue Slobodan Milosevic to cling to Serb domination over the Albanians in Kosovo or over the Hungarians in the Vojvodina (that is, opposing Great Serbian nationalism). There is, in short national liberation (good) versus national “imperialism” over other peoples (bad). Once we get over simplistic individualism, and this distinction should not be difficult to grasp.

Rothbard from National Determination










In a 1993 address before the Mont Pelerin Society, the late Murray N. Rothbard suggested an alternative libertarian approach to immigration. Imagine the pure private-property, or “anarcho-capitalist” model, in which all property, from streets to parks, is privately owned. There is no such thing as a “public space” under such an arrangement, and therefore no “immigration problem.” Individual property owners or contractual communities would be able to set their own immigration policy, and determine for themselves who would or would not be allowed to enter their private property.[1]
Tom Woods
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/liberty-and-immigration

If you see Texas or any other state as a contractual community able to determine their own immigration policy then the individual state is itself the individual.

Unfortunately our leaders in the state by agreeing to become part of "The State", ie the United States of America, have agreed to acquiesce to national laws, hence why Article IV Section IV of the Constitution is what forces the Nation State to in turn be obligated to provide for the protection of the border. Where we split s what determines invasion. I think there can be non military invasion that still serves the purpose and can carry the same threat of loss to life and property as a military invasion in the esoteric sense. Obviously most on here disagree but I think it's all in the distinction of details.




In addition, and bear in mind this was from 1995





A Unique Crisis

The current crisis is indeed unique in American history. As Peter Brimelow points out, previous waves of immigration were followed by long pauses during which the country was able to absorb and acculturate its new citizens. Not so today. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates the arrival of 12 to 13 million legal and illegal immigrants into the United States over the course of the 1990s, the overwhelming majority of whom will hail from radically different cultural environments from what they will find here. And there is no end in sight.[4]
We must also ask ourselves seriously whether we will be more or less free after even two more generations of immigration of the size and composition of recent decades. That immigrants and the American bureaucracy that serves them will become yet another pressure group, clamoring for privileges and benefits in Washington, can scarcely be doubted. The overwhelming majority of current immigrants is eligible for affirmative action and the myriad other benefits that accrue, at others’ expense, to the protected classes.
Yet there is a more subtle reason to be wary of the kind of radical heterogeneity that a continuation of current policy promises. In order to destroy the cultural and ethnic cohesion that acts as a bulwark against its expansion, the state has a history of engaging in deliberate demographic scrambling. When this forced integration inevitably produces animosity, the state is all too eager to impose order on a chaos of its own creation.
Massive migration of ethnic Russians into Estonia, for example, was deliberately encouraged for the purpose of destroying Estonian culture and nationalism. In Yugoslavia, Tito enforced a policy of forced mixture and resettlement of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, exploiting the resulting animosities to justify further expansion of state power. A population thus divided against itself at the local level can pose no threat whatsoever to the central state. And this, of course, is the point.
Barring the establishment of a pure private-property system, the only sound libertarian approach to immigration is thus a radical devolution of power from the central state to the local level, and to allow individuals and communities to decide the issue for themselves.
A facile advocacy of “open borders” gives the central state exactly what it wants: the chance to supersede the preferences of property owners, and to provide the pretext for further encroachments on local and individual liberty. Such a system, in short, will make America less free. That’s a good enough reason for libertarians to rethink it. .

Thomas Woods

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/liberty-and-immigration

[otherone]

NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY WANTS A SMALLER GOVERNMENT.

Of course they do. But it'll take a whole lot MORE government to get there....:p

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEx3P-2S21L4QZ71smDpwHSrgggiYl02ypkzOBChY7a55Jm7cr

[johnwk]

.

This ongoing invasion of our borders is part of Obama’s fundamental transformation of America which is to destroy America and remake her into a socialist dictatorship. And Obama is getting his fundamental transformation with the aid of our Republican Party Leadership which refuses to start impeachment proceedings against a president which refuses to enforce our immigration laws and protect our borders against this ongoing invasion.

Our Founding Fathers put the impeachment process in the Constitution for this very purpose, but all we hear from those who supposedly represent us are excuses as to why we must not look to impeach Obama and his henchman Eric Holder. Our nation cannot survive as a constitutionally limited system of government for two more years with these two using their office of public trust to fundamentally transform America into a socialist dictatorship!

Let us review what some of our Founder had to say with regard to impeachment on July 20th (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp) when framing our Constitution:

Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.

Mr. GERRY urged the necessity of impeachments. A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them. He hoped the maxim would never be adopted here that the chief magistrate could do no wrong.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him. Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS'S opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments, if the Executive was to continue for any [FN12] time in office. Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in forign pay, without being able to guard agst. it by displacing him.

It was moved & 2ded. to postpone the question of impeachments which was negatived. Mas. & S. Carolina only being ay. On ye. Question, Shall the Executive be removeable on impeachments &c.? Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay.
__________


When will our Republican Party Leadership rise to the occasion and draw up articles of impeachment for our tyrannical president and his henchman Eric Holder?

JWK

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

[amy31416]

Mah jerbs?

I like some Mexicans though, well, except for Eduardo--he's too damned uppity to pick mah lettuce. Damned aliens.

[johnwk]

SEE: Known gang members among thousands of illegal immigrant children storming the U.S. border and government is now trying to silence officers from talking to the media (http://www.coloradonewsday.com/news/regional/63108-known-gang-members-among-thousands-of-illegal-immigrant-children-storming-the-u-s-border-and-government-is-now-trying-to-silence-officers-from-talking-to-the-media.html)

Border Patrol agents overwhelmed by a recent influx of immigrant children crossing the border illegally have been knowingly letting gang members enter the country. Art Del Cueto, president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 2544 in Tucson, Arizona told the National Review that officers who recognize gang tattoos on the minors are supposed to treat them like everyone else.

When will our Republican Party Leadership draw up Articles of impeachment against Obama and his henchman Eric Holder? How many more indictable offenses must these two engage in before our spineless Republican Party Leadership draw up articles of impeachment against these two?

JWK


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion Article 4, Section 4. US Constitution

[johnwk]

.
And now we find Obama will welcome and honor those who have invaded our borders!
See White House To Welcome In, Honor Illegal Immigrants (http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2014/06/white-house-to-welcome-in-honor-illegal-immigrants-2530266.html)

President Obama’s White House will honor illegal immigrant activists at a ceremony Tuesday.

Two activists with the group Mi Familia Vota Education Fund will be honored as “Champions of Change” Mi Familia Vota Education Fund at a special White House ceremony.


And where is our spineless Republican Party Leadership? Why are they refusing to draw up articles of impeachment against Obama and Eric Holder for their indictable offenses which includes refusing to protect our borders and enforce existing law? Is it not time to rid ourselves of this unpatriotic infestation we have in Congress this coming election?

JWK


Is America about to be defeated without a shot being fired?

[Carlybee]

Let's see..We pay when they get here, we pay while they are here, we pay their own countries to take them back if they get sent back... Mmm hmmm makes sense.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Politics/us-to-spend-millions-on-immigration-crisis/26590252

[kcchiefs6465]

Let's see..We pay when they get here, we pay while they are here, we pay their own countries to take them back if they get sent back... Mmm hmmm makes sense.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Politics/us-to-spend-millions-on-immigration-crisis/26590252
It does not.

Which is why we need to end the welfare state.

Do you know who will not let that happen? While immigrants may play a small role, I'd venture to say that the majority of this system of plunderization was not established nor is it maintained by immigrants.

The fence won't just be for them, you know. Nor will the fascists, drones, nationalized identification standards, and jobs lost when every employer must hire their personal slew of lawyers and tax accountants to comply with the various regulatory edicts affect simply them.

Slippery slope is slippery and ignoring of natural rights.

[Carlybee]

It does not.

Which is why we need to end the welfare state.

Do you know who will not let that happen? While immigrants may play a small role, I'd venture to say that the majority of this system of plunderization was not established nor is it maintained by immigrants.

The fence won't just be for them, you know. Nor will the fascists, drones, nationalized identification standards, and jobs lost when every employer must hire their personal slew of lawyers and tax accountants to comply with the various regulatory edicts affect simply them.

Slippery slope is slippery and ignoring of natural rights.


Go back and read the stuff I quoted earlier by Rothbard and Tom Woods. I never supported a fence. I support border control. It is not my place to pay for their natural rights or pay for their criminals. And I was being sarcastic saying it makes sense. It does not make sense to pay their country to take them back when they shouldn't be here in the first place. Let me know when the welfare state ends and I'll stop complaining about the 12 billion dollars my state has spent on illegals.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453525-President-Obama-encouraging-aliens-to-invade-U-S-borders!&p=5566057&viewfull=1#post5566057

[WillieKamm]

You are right. How do we know there are ANY illegal aliens in the country- let alone the claim that there are millions of them? Maybe it is really less that 1,000? Or 300,000,000? There are probably more than 1000 in my small suburban town. You can at least triple that in the county I live in. Not only that but my state (SC) has a puny Hispanic population compared to many if not most others.

[kcchiefs6465]

Go back and read the stuff I quoted earlier by Rothbard and Tom Woods. I never supported a fence. I support border control. It is not my place to pay for their natural rights or pay for their criminals. And I was being sarcastic saying it makes sense. It does not make sense to pay their country to take them back when they shouldn't be here in the first place. Let me know when the welfare state ends and I'll stop complaining about the 12 billion dollars my state has spent on illegals.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453525-President-Obama-encouraging-aliens-to-invade-U-S-borders!&p=5566057&viewfull=1#post5566057
I understand that was sarcasm and didn't figure you particularly wanted a fence being erected with drones circling overhead. That is what many 'solutions' have called for, though (and the slippery slope is slippery). That, and bringing the military home to place onto the border, or a National Identification Card. All of these policies do not solely affect immigrants. They will affect American citizen's freedom as well.

It is not your place to pay for anyone's anything absent of your own volition. That's why I do not understand why on the one side folks think I should be robbed to pay for their children's (immigrants, included) education, healthcare etc. and on the other side people think I should be robbed to pay for border control and all that that entails. It seems that declaring that perhaps I shouldn't be robbed whatever is a rather unpopular or fringe position. Who could have predicted that a day would come in America where folks squabble over a limited amount of loot.

As to criminality I am not particularly aware of the statistics. I imagine when policy could be seen as 'commit a crime, and [simply] be deported' one may not be particularly dissuaded from a criminal lifestyle. As well, the century of American foreign policy in South and Central America certainly hasn't helped in this regard. The death squads, embezzlement of national funds, and oppressive states these folks travel from, certainly after participating in things there, they may not mind participating in criminal actions here. That is rather unfortunate. Fortunately for many of the border states, the laws regarding self-defense aren't that discouraging. The CIA and DEA are actively involved with major Class 1 traffickers (trafficking over 2,500 pounds is consider Class 1). Drug policy here also funds and fuels much of the gang warfare. These are issues that deserve to come to light and be corrected. Limiting my freedom even more, or taking another dollar from me, doesn't really make me particularly optimistic in a solution to these social ills. I live in a border state. I would gladly deal with the aspects of criminality if it meant freedom.

As it stands a particularly brazen fascist is elected consecutively because of a timid and subservient populace (especially the retirement communities). The kinds of things transpiring are antithetical to a free society and more brazen than an illegal gangbanger could even offer.

[Carlybee]

There are probably more than 1000 in my small suburban town. You can at least triple that in the county I live in. Not only that but my state (SC) has a puny Hispanic population compared to many if not most others.

Estimated 200K have crossed into South Texas this year

[Carlybee]

I understand that was sarcasm and didn't figure you particularly wanted a fence being erected with drones circling overhead. That is what many 'solutions' have called for, though (and the slippery slope is slippery). That, and bringing the military home to place onto the border, or a National Identification Card. All of these policies do not solely affect immigrants. They will affect American citizen's freedom as well.

It is not your place to pay for anyone's anything absent of your own volition. That's why I do not understand why on the one side folks think I should be robbed to pay for their children's (immigrants, included) education, healthcare etc. and on the other side people think I should be robbed to pay for border control and all that that entails. It seems that declaring that perhaps I shouldn't be robbed whatever is a rather unpopular or fringe position. Who could have predicted that a day would come in America where folks squabble over a limited amount of loot.

As to criminality I am not particularly aware of the statistics. I imagine when policy could be seen as 'commit a crime, and [simply] be deported' one may not be particularly dissuaded from a criminal lifestyle. As well, the century of American foreign policy in South and Central America certainly hasn't helped in this regard. The death squads, embezzlement of national funds, and oppressive states these folks travel from, certainly after participating in things there, they may not mind participating in criminal actions here. That is rather unfortunate. Fortunately for many of the border states, the laws regarding self-defense aren't that discouraging. The CIA and DEA are actively involved with major Class 1 traffickers (trafficking over 2,500 pounds is consider Class 1). Drug policy here also funds and fuels much of the gang warfare. These are issues that deserve to come to light and be corrected. Limiting my freedom even more, or taking another dollar from me, doesn't really make me particularly optimistic in a solution to these social ills. I live in a border state. I would gladly deal with the aspects of criminality if it meant freedom.

As it stands a particularly brazen fascist is elected consecutively because of a timid and subservient populace (especially the retirement communities). The kinds of things transpiring are antithetical to a free society and more brazen than an illegal gangbanger could even offer.



Except that it doesn't mean freedom. Criminals coming into my state, which already has plenty of homegrown criminals, and breaking into homes, raping etc...how is that freedom for the citizens who live and pay taxes here? Estimated 200K have crossed into South Texas this year. I don't want fences, drones or even police...since the police are becoming militarized now but I don't have a problem with our national guard actually doing what they are paid for which is to guard OUR country. I don't want people shot while coming over the border. Right now we are offering refuge to thousand and thousands of them at OUR taxpayer expense and by OUR I mean mostly Texans although supposedly more resources are coming our way. Which is a joke. I am very well aware of the typical libertarian stance on this, however, there are always special circumstances that have to supercede waiting around for decades for draconian laws to be changed. Even Ron Paul agrees with this...so does Rothbard, and so do people like Tom Woods. Drug war laws are not going to be changed anytime soon. What needs to be changed is the continued militarization of local police forces and utilization of our existing defenses. It's also not my problem that Mexico and El Salvador et al are oppressive countries. Maybe our government, instead of bankrolling them, need to cut them off completely and tell them to get their own collective shit together. It's like having to pay alimony to your neighbor's wife because he divorced her and then having their children move into your house and having to support them.

[kcchiefs6465]

Except that it doesn't mean freedom. Criminals coming into my state, which already has plenty of homegrown criminals, and breaking into homes, raping etc...how is that freedom for the citizens who live and pay taxes here? Estimated 200K have crossed into South Texas this year. I don't want fences, drones or even police...since the police are becoming militarized now but I don't have a problem with our national guard actually doing what they are paid for which is to guard OUR country. I don't want people shot while coming over the border. Right now we are offering refuge to thousand and thousands of them at OUR taxpayer expense and by OUR I mean mostly Texans although supposedly more resources are coming our way. Which is a joke. I am very well aware of the typical libertarian stance on this, however, there are always special circumstances that have to supercede waiting around for decades for draconian laws to be changed. Even Ron Paul agrees with this...so does Rothbard, and so do people like Tom Woods. Drug war laws are not going to be changed anytime soon. What needs to be changed is the continued militarization of local police forces and utilization of our existing defenses. It's also not my problem that Mexico and El Salvador et al are oppressive countries. Maybe our government, instead of bankrolling them, need to cut them off completely and tell them to get their own collective shit together. It's like having to pay alimony to your neighbor's wife because he divorced her and then having their children move into your house and having to support them.
From what it seems, it is somewhat your problem that the United States has pillaged countries South of the border, arming and funding death squads, drug trafficking rings, and backing dictators who ruled with an iron fist. After all, many of the people fleeing that are coming into Texas.

Two wrongs don't make a right. That is to say that the case is not, because we have bad laws that are violating of human rights in one instance, we need more bad laws that are violating of human rights in another. No, we need to repeal the laws that are violating human rights and a sort of natural equilibrium would be had. People wouldn't be incentivized to come here and you wouldn't be robbed to pay for all of their shit.

As to criminals, preferably they should be shot. At the least non-violent, non-crime committing prisoners should be released. Space for actual criminals. The ones that weren't shot down, that is. As any rapist should be. Society is never going to be perfect with that regard.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree... though we probably agree on more than we disagree on and by and large the disagreement appears mostly a matter of what is to come first, the chicken or the egg. I don't much get tied up in the immigration debate as it is a passionate one. I simply don't want to pay for it (and would rather do without the sheriff and his merry band o' fascists).

[Carlybee]

From what it seems, it is somewhat your problem that the United States has pillaged countries South of the border, arming and funding death squads, drug trafficking rings, and backing dictators who ruled with an iron fist. After all, many of the people fleeing that are coming into Texas.

Two wrongs don't make a right. That is to say that the case is not, because we have bad laws that are violating of human rights in one instance, we need more bad laws that are violating of human rights in another. No, we need to repeal the laws that are violating human rights and a sort of natural equilibrium would be had. People wouldn't be incentivized to come here and you wouldn't be robbed to pay for all of their shit.

As to criminals, preferably they should be shot. At the least non-violent, non-crime committing prisoners should be released. Space for actual criminals. The ones that weren't shot down, that is. As any rapist should be. Society is never going to be perfect with that regard.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree... though we probably agree on more than we disagree on and by and large the disagreement appears mostly a matter of what is to come first, the chicken or the egg. I don't much get tied up in the immigration debate as it is a passionate one. I simply don't want to pay for it (and would rather do without the sheriff and his merry band o' fascists).

You don't worry about the debate because it isn't really affecting you...other than the federal cost being built into the tax tables. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't live in a border state and doesn't understand the cost to our freedom and sovereignty as a state, is clueless. UNTIL draconian laws are changed...which is not going to happen as long as idiots within the two major parties are in charge, then security should be a concern for anyone in this country. We aren't all living on a farm stockpiled with AR-15s. Some of us live in large cities that are being literally over run with cartel members. I actually feel sorry for the innocent people coming over the border but it's not my place to support them. It may be chicken and egg, but it is also a matter of principle. If it was up to me I would see most of the 3 letter federal agencies completely dismantled, see ALL local and state police departments de-militarized and go back to having a national guard that actually guards when guarding is warranted. So yes, I will agree to disagree.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Half

http://kwout.com/cutout/y/j4/ei/feh_bor.jpg

Breaking National and World News - US News - US News (http://www.usnews.com/news)

[WillieKamm]

This is an issue that slaps me in the face and reminds me that I hate strict adherence to dogma, whether it be yours mine, or the libs that run things. Any country that can't control its borders is no longer a country. OK so you're an anarchist, libertarian, Ayn Randian or whatever and you don't believe in countries. I'm not an anarchist and I (shudder, gasp) believe that government be it local, state, federal or whatever has a role to play. We now have an overarching Nanny State government with an insatiable appetite to control our lives, but it can't even do what it's supposed to do. What it was set up to do. So while they're forcing an old man like me to have pregnancy coverage in my health insurance, and fining a rural property owner 25K a day for having a pond on his property, they can't stop the unending waves of illegals that penetrate our borders on a daily basis. I can tell you in my state the illegals are just undercutting the bottom rungs of the economic ladder from the poor whites and blacks that can often trace their roots back hundreds of years. I would like to see every damn illegal, whether from Mexico, Ireland, Eastern Europe, sub Saharan Africa or wherever deported five minutes ago. If and when the Republic totally collapses, and it's looking more like when everyday, no one thing will have done more to make that happen than the Immigration Act of 1965. I believe it was Milton Friedman who said you can't have open borders and a welfare state. If that makes me a traitor to the cause so be it. Our federal government gives you so many reasons to hate it.

[kcchiefs6465]

You don't worry about the debate because it isn't really affecting you...other than the federal cost being built into the tax tables. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't live in a border state and doesn't understand the cost to our freedom and sovereignty as a state, is clueless. UNTIL draconian laws are changed...which is not going to happen as long as idiots within the two major parties are in charge, then security should be a concern for anyone in this country. We aren't all living on a farm stockpiled with AR-15s. Some of us live in large cities that are being literally over run with cartel members. I actually feel sorry for the innocent people coming over the border but it's not my place to support them. It may be chicken and egg, but it is also a matter of principle. If it was up to me I would see most of the 3 letter federal agencies completely dismantled, see ALL local and state police departments de-militarized and go back to having a national guard that actually guards when guarding is warranted. So yes, I will agree to disagree.
I live in Arizona.

I am actually robbed quite handsomely to pay for this bullshit. "Bullshit" being all encompassing of every single way they squander my money.

Here though, you can carry open or concealed carry no permit needed. It's great. I am not a criminal but I'd imagine that the fact that any person they approach could have a pistol and could sooner gun them down is quite a crime deterrent.

I don't speak on the immigration issue because it is primarily a charged word for republicans. "National defense", "American jobs", "City on the hill" bullshit. People reflexively and vehemently defend these things. I agree with them enough on other issues that I don't typically force them to step outside of their comfort zone. More of a nudge. And people will come around to my position. Page after page of logically consistent and reasonable truth.

But it would be like me talking to democrats on why the minimum wage should be eliminated. One, they aren't going to listen. And two, those that are more reasonable than most would offer tales of inflationary plight. Well we can't get rid of the minimum wage while businesses are being subsidized and QE eternity is occurring. In principle, they may add, we shouldn't have a minimum wage, there is no real need for it. But that is simply for utopian dreamers to consider. I live in the real world. And as such, we need protection. The market cannot solve everything and as well, you are simply a visionary. A doctrinaire. Your policies look good on paper, but in the real world they'd cause misery and injustice. And I could offer page after page of why that is not particularly so but at the end of the day, what's to be gained? I suppose some on the fence may read my writing and consider something in a different light but probably not. Wall o' texts aren't appealing and I couldn't pay most to pick up a book. Especially one that was outside of their comfort zone.

At the end of the day, I like your posts, Carly. I agree with the majority of what you say.

ETA: I forgot "dogmatic."

[AuH20]

This is an issue that slaps me in the face and reminds me that I hate strict adherence to dogma, whether it be yours mine, or the libs that run things. Any country that can't control its borders is no longer a country. OK so you're an anarchist, libertarian, Ann Randian or whatever and you don't believe in countries. I'm not an anarchist and I (shudder, gasp) believe that government be it local, state, federal or whatever has a role to play. We now have an overarching Nanny State government with an insatiable appetite to control our lives, but it can't even do what it's supposed to do. What it was set up to do. So while they're forcing an old man like me to have pregnancy coverage in my health insurance, and fining a rural property owner 25K a day for having a pond on his property, they can't stop the unending waves of illegals that penetrate our borders on a daily basis. I can tell you in my state the illegals are just undercutting the bottom rungs of the economic ladder from the poor whites and blacks that can often trace their roots back hundreds of years. I would like to see every damn illegal, whether from Mexico, Ireland, Eastern Europe, sub Saharan Africa or wherever deported five minutes ago. If and when the Republic totally collapses, and it's looking more like if everyday, no one thing will have done more to make that happen than the Immigration Act of 1965. I believe it was Milton Friedman who said you can't have open borders and a welfare state. If that makes me a traitor to the cause so be it. Our federal government gives you so many reasons to hate it.

We've gotten to this dark place largely on our own merits, but make no mistake about it, this substantive push for citizenship is the final solution for the sham we call the democratic process. That's why it must be opposed at every avenue. The synthesis of Latin American and the United States must be thwarted at all costs, since it would officially signal the end. Just reference the Communist Manifesto:


Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

It's right in front of our faces.

[kcchiefs6465]

This is an issue that slaps me in the face and reminds me that I hate strict adherence to dogma, whether it be yours mine, or the libs that run things. Any country that can't control its borders is no longer a country. OK so you're an anarchist, libertarian, Ann Randian or whatever and you don't believe in countries. I'm not an anarchist and I (shudder, gasp) believe that government be it local, state, federal or whatever has a role to play. We now have an overarching Nanny State government with an insatiable appetite to control our lives, but it can't even do what it's supposed to do. What it was set up to do. So while they're forcing an old man like me to have pregnancy coverage in my health insurance, and fining a rural property owner 25K a day for having a pond on his property, they can't stop the unending waves of illegals that penetrate our borders on a daily basis. I can tell you in my state the illegals are just undercutting the bottom rungs of the economic ladder from the poor whites and blacks that can often trace their roots back hundreds of years. I would like to see every damn illegal, whether from Mexico, Ireland, Eastern Europe, sub Saharan Africa or wherever deported five minutes ago. If and when the Republic totally collapses, and it's looking more like if everyday, no one thing will have done more to make that happen than the Immigration Act of 1965. I believe it was Milton Friedman who said you can't have open borders and a welfare state. If that makes me a traitor to the cause so be it. Our federal government gives you so many reasons to hate it.
I would argue the Federal Reserve Act, myself.

[Lord Xar]

You are correct that we do not live in a true free market at the moment. However, I will call you out on the same faulty logic that I called Carlybee on. Just because we don't have a free market or we live in a peaceful world does not justify the government continually restricting peoples' freedoms in order to ensure a false sense of security.

If you want to create a society that values freedom, it makes no sense to take freedom away. Otherwise you sound like George W. Bush, wanting to sacrifice free market principles in order to save the free market.

So, how do you create more liberty/freedom/free thinkers when Government, to sustain itself, creates the impetus for a bigger, more powerful Government by allowing complete open borders while having a welfare/entitlement system that promotes a huge stream of illegal immigrants to come here. Who pays for that? I do... my taxes are thru the roof. Property values have gone done.. those who own homes, are taxed more. More government services are required.. more teachers, higher population density etc... AND for some reason, you believe by allowing this to happen - you will somehow convince people that a smaller government is more appropriate? Could you convince a religious right winger that holy war is anti-freedom/liberty and is just a seed to grow the Military Industrial Complex? No.

So, my liberties/freedoms are expendable because it allows for other non-citizens to exercise more liberties/freedoms? Gotcha.

We are in a catch 22, it seems. But to me, we've been doing it your way -- things are much worse..... lets try it my way for a bit.

[erowe1]

Could you convince a religious right winger that holy war is anti-freedom/liberty and is just a seed to grow the Military Industrial Complex? No.

Yes. That describes a lot of us here.

[libertyjam]

January 2014 - -FedBizOps US hiring contractors to: "Escort Services For Unaccompanied Alien Children" ---
January 2014 - How did they know in January what is now happening in June?

http://joeforamerica.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/UAC1.jpg

http://joeforamerica.com/2014/06/obama-admin-knew-planned-alien-children-invasion/#YR1UyUKtSYpGa7xM.01


Did the Obama Administration not only know of an impending illegal alien children invasion coming from Central America, but in fact, plan the whole thing? Back in January, the Federal Government put an ad on their BizOpps (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c6d7c0050b912fbc917a46d6709d38bd&tab=core&tabmode=list&=s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c6d7c0050b912fbc917a46d6709d38bd&tab=core&tabmode=list&amp)website seeking “Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children.”
by Rodney Lee Conover: (http://joeforamerica.com/2014/06/obama-admin-knew-planned-alien-children-invasion/kowenhoven@gmail.com) It sounds crazy, I know…
But here it is: All the proof any thinking person would need to realize the Administration planned this entire debacle with tens of thousands of children flooding the Southern border.
Not only that, but if you read the description of the document requirements for the “escorts,” you’ll see there is absolutely no intent to return anyone to their country of origin, but in fact, the plan is to assimilate them into U.S. society – where the odds are they’ll become legalized and need their families, friends and fellow future Democrat voters to join them here.
Get it now? H/T The Conservative Wife (http://theconservativewife.blogspot.com/2014/06/government-hiring-escorts-for-65000.html)




..Transport will be required for either category of UAC or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25% local ground transport, 25% via ICE charter and 50% via commercial air. Escort services include, but are not limited to, assisting with: transferring physical custody of UAC from DHS to Health and Human Services (HHS) care via ground or air methods of transportation (charter or commercial carrier), property inventory, providing juveniles with meals, drafting reports, generating transport documents, maintaining/stocking daily supplies, providing and issuing clothing as needed, coordinating with DHS and HHS staff, travel coordination, limited stationary guard services to accommodate for trip disruptions due to inclement weather, faulty equipment, or other exigent circumstances.

How the hell do they know how many there will be? You know I’m really tired of pointing out such obvious lies and scams by these guys. Is anyone listening? This is seriously Hitlerian.

And guess what? They knew exactly WHERE the kids would show up! Gee – right where we need some Democrat votes!

[Zippyjuan]

It didn't start in June. It has been going on for several years now. Article from New York Times- 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/us/more-young-illegal-immigrants-face-deportation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


Young and Alone, Facing Court and Deportation

HARLINGEN, Tex. — The judge called his next case, scanning the courtroom.

The immigrant who was facing deportation rose to his feet, in a clean T-shirt and khaki pants several sizes too large, with his name — JUAN — printed on a tag around his neck.

But the judge could not see him. Juan’s head did not rise above the court’s wooden benches.

Juan David Gonzalez was 6 years old. He was in the court, which would decide whether to expel him from the country, without a parent — and also without a lawyer.

Immigration courts in this South Texas border town and across the country are confronting an unexpected surge of children, some of them barely school age, who traveled here without parents and were caught as they tried to cross illegally into the United States.

The young people, mostly from Mexico and Central America, ride to the border on the roofs of freight trains or the backs of buses. They cross the Rio Grande on inner tubes, or hike for days through extremes of heat and chill in Arizona deserts. The smallest children, like Juan, are most often brought by smugglers.

The youths pose troubling difficulties for American immigration courts. Unlike in criminal or family courts, in immigration court there is no right to a lawyer paid by the government for people who cannot afford one. And immigration law contains few protections specifically for minors. So even a child as young as Juan has to go before an immigration judge — confronting a prosecutor and trying to fight deportation — without the help of a lawyer, if one is not privately provided.

So far this year, more than 11,000 unaccompanied minors have been placed in deportation proceedings, nearly double last year’s numbers.

Young migrants say they are fleeing sharply escalating criminal violence in their home countries. Federal agencies have scrambled to muster adequate detention facilities, while legal groups try to find lawyers to represent them. Judges, for their part, have struggled to offer fair hearings to penniless youths who speak little English and often do not even understand why they are in court.

The influx has heightened concerns that young people without legal help may not be able to obtain even the most basic justice.

“It is almost impossible for children to receive relief in immigration court on their own,” said Meredith Linsky, the director of the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project, known as ProBAR, a nonprofit organization that defends young migrants in the region. “The reality is they cannot comprehend the system and what is being asked of them.”



The rush of young illegal border crossers began last fall but picked up speed this year, according to official figures. From October through July, the authorities detained 21,842 unaccompanied minors, most at the Southwest border, a 48 percent increase over a year earlier.

Some left their parents behind at home. Many came yearning to reunite with parents who have long been living here illegally.

The figures are striking because overall migration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, fell last year to the lowest level in two decades, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a research group in Washington. Yet the numbers of young unaccompanied Mexicans crossing illegally have stayed steady, and minors from Central America — especially El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras — have nearly doubled since last year.

Policy changes in this country or Mexico do not appear to have spurred the surge.

President Obama’s announcement in June that he would halt deportations of illegal immigrant students came months after the increases were first seen. From the start, officials made it clear that no recent border crossers would be eligible.

Recent illegal crossers are also excluded from an Obama administration policy applying prosecutorial discretion to spare illegal immigrants from deportation if they have not been convicted of crimes.

Nor has there been any effect from a recent change in Mexican law that would make it easier for young migrants from Central America to cross Mexico on their way to the United States. That law has not yet been put into practice, Mexican officials said.

Some answers came from the Women’s Refugee Commission, an advocacy group in New York, which interviewed more than 150 young migrants in Texas in June. Most said they were seeking to escape increasingly violent gangs and drug traffickers at home, who were recruiting children aggressively.

“They are willing to risk the uncertain dangers of the trip north to escape certain dangers they face at home,” said Jessica Jones, a member of the commission’s fact-finding team.

Sometimes parents living illegally in this country will initiate a child’s journey. Tighter border enforcement under the Obama administration has made them reluctant to leave, fearing that they will not be able to return. Instead, they hire smugglers, paying up to $5,000 per child.

“The children at home feel unloved, they feel empty,” said Elizabeth G. Kennedy, a researcher at San Diego State University who studies child migrants. “If parents know their child is feeling empty and is in danger, they will make a decision.”

[AuH20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X-hXj-QUL5Q#t=785

[kcchiefs6465]

We've gotten to this dark place largely on our own merits, but make no mistake about it, this substantive push for citizenship is the final solution for the sham we call the democratic process. That's why it must be opposed at every avenue. The synthesis of Latin American and the United States must be thwarted at all costs, since it would officially signal the end. Just reference the Communist Manifesto:


Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

It's right in front of our faces.
Socialists gonna socialize. Needless to say, certain industries are better fared in certain areas. These benefits or detriments are part of the reason why it is destined to fail.

In any case, the BLM controls 264,000,000 acres. 110,000,000 acres are deemed to be wetlands by the EPA. Right off the bat that is 374,000,000 acres of squandered land.

There is so much open land in this country it is a rather unimaginably large plot. We aren't going to be suffering from overcrowding anytime soon.