Obama: The only people with the right to object to immigration are Native Americans

[Anti Federalist]

And we know how well unbridled immigration worked out for them.


Obama: The only people with the right to object to immigration are Native Americans

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-the-only-people-with-the-right-to-object-to-immigration-are-native-americans-9887501.html

President Obama quite succinctly summed up the absurdity of the Republicans' issues with his immigration reform in Chicago yesterday, arguing that perhaps the only people who can legitimately be pissed off about illegal immigrants are Native Americans.

Returning to his hometown to speak, the president tried to place his recent executive action, which saved five million immigrants from deportation, within a great American tradition of welcoming foreigners.

"If you look at the history of immigration in this country, each successive wave there have been periods where the folks who were already here have said, 'Well I don't want those folks,'" he said. "Even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans."

His orders were sufficient in upsetting the GOP, but he also faced criticism from immigration activists who feel they do not go far enough.

Hecklers shouted "Not one more!" and "Stop deportations!" and "There is no justice!" during the speech, to which he replied at one point: "It doesn’t make much sense to yell at me right now."

[AuH20]

And what about the peoples that preceded the native americans?

[DFF]

Immigrants? Illegal aliens!

Lawful US citizens don't want amnesty.

But a small group of hyper-wealthy individuals and corporations do.

More proof the US has become an oligarchy where the common man has no say in anything.

[HVACTech]

And what about the peoples that preceded the native americans?

Dude, we stole it from the English.. and bought it from the French.

[Christian Liberty]

I understand the constitutional issues, I understand the pragmatic issues, but how in the world can one MORALLY justify prohibitions to immigration?

I don't comment on this issue much for a few reasons. In the first place, its controversial among libertarians. In the second place, I don't think it matters that much in the grand scheme of things. I don't comment that much on IP for similar reasons. (I DO comment on abortion despite the controversy because I believe it DOES matter in the grand scheme of things.) In the third place, the federal laws are probably (I'm not 100% sure) constitutional, and my goal is to get the government back to its constitutional limits before worrying that much about the exact details. In the fourth place, the pragmatic effects of allowing unrestricted immigration with the welfare state as is would likely be awful. But since you brought it up, I still have to ask. What's the principled argument for keeping borders sealed?

Does this matter to me as much as ending the foreign wars, ending NSA spying, ending police abuse, ending the welfare state, ending the drug war, and so forth? No. But I still can't justify immigration restrictions on principle.

[AuH20]

Dude, we stole it from the English.. and bought it from the French.

I'm just saying that life on this planet is simply a series of one group conquering or leaving their 'property' to another group.

http://rt.com/news/stone-age-america-archaeologists-445/


Europeans may have been the first people to settle in America, possibly more than ten thousand years before anyone else set foot there.

A series of European-style tools dating from twenty-six-thousand to nineteen-thousand years ago have been discovered in six separate locations along the east coast of the United States.

Archaeologists previously thought that America was populated by migrants making their way from Siberia to Alaska, and then spreading through the rest of the continent.

But the first of these Asian tribes started moving there about 15,500 years ago – and there is no evidence of human activity in Siberia or Alaska from before that time.

Professors Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradford, the two archaeologists who made the discovery, suggest Europeans moved across the Atlantic during the peak of Ice Age.

At the time, a vast tranche of ice covered the Atlantic. The Stone Age migrants would have been able to survive the journey by killing seals, hunting the now-extinct great auks (a sort of giant penguin) and fishing. The archaeologists suggest they may have even used boats for large parts of their travel.

Further evidence of their thesis is a knife discovered in Virginia in 1971. Recent tests showed that it was made from French flint.

The new hypothesis is unlikely to change what we know about the Indians who greeted the Europeans upon their arrival.

The Siberian migrants came to America for longer and in greater numbers, and were either wiped out or absorbed by the European tribes.

But it does explain the long-standing mystery of the genetic code and language of some Native American tribes that appear European, not Asian in origin.

Further digs are planned deeper inland up to Texas this year, and will help historians and archaeologists understand just how far the original European colonization went.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm just saying that life on this planet is simply a series of one group conquering or leaving their 'property' to another group.

http://rt.com/news/stone-age-america-archaeologists-445/

Maybe. What does that have to do with morals?

[Anti Federalist]

Does this matter to me as much as ending the foreign wars, ending NSA spying, ending police abuse, ending the welfare state, ending the drug war, and so forth? No. But I still can't justify immigration restrictions on principle.

None of this will be possible with a wave of immigration from cultures and political systems where this is the norm, along with a shit ton of corruption.

I contend that part of the reason for all that is a fundamental shift over the last fifty years, deliberately carried out by government, to make that the norm.

[DFF]

I understand the constitutional issues, I understand the pragmatic issues, but how in the world can one MORALLY justify prohibitions to immigration?

Good to know you're in favor of amnesty and against legal immigration.

Heck, why not just take it a step further and dissolve the borders, and let everyone come here who wants to come.

But why stop there? Lets eliminate the United States completely, turn over sovereignty to the United Nations, and have a New World Order.

[AuH20]

Good to know you're in favor of amnesty and against legal immigration.

Heck, why not just take it a step further and dissolve the borders, and let everyone come here who wants to come.

But why stop there? Lets eliminate the United States period, turn over sovereignty to the United Nations, and have a New World Order.

I don't think he's in favor of this.

[rp08orbust]

If all land along the US/Mexico border were private property and property owners were able to exercise their natural right to forcibly remove trespassers from their clearly marked property, then the problem of poor people flooding across the border, overwhelming hospitals, schools etc would not exist.

[DFF]

I don't think he's in favor of this.

If you're in favor of amnesty, you're in favor of open borders. If you're in favor of open borders, you're in favor of the New World Order.

Obama, and all these other higher-ups, this what they want. It's the end-game

[rp08orbust]

If you're in favor of open borders, you're in favor of the New World Order.

Nonsense.

[Carlybee]

If all land along the US/Mexico border were private property and property owners were able to exercise their natural right to forcibly remove trespassers from their clearly marked property, then the problem of poor people flooding across the border, overwhelming hospitals, schools etc would not exist.

Not necessarily. Ask the ranchers who own private property and have had to deal with drug cartels...who outgun them.

[Christian Liberty]

Good to know you're in favor of amnesty and against legal immigration.

Heck, why not just take it a step further and dissolve the borders, and let everyone come here who wants to come.

But why stop there? Lets eliminate the United States completely, turn over sovereignty to the United Nations, and have a New World Order.


I don't think he's in favor of this.

I'm not. In fact, I didn't even take a position on "amnesty."

On principle, I take the position that any public property that does exist should be freely accessible to anyone, but I also take the position that public property shouldn't exist at all. Basically, the ideal situation would be all property being privately owned. Private owners could let "immigrants" in or not, their choice. As an ideal, long term, I support abolishing national borders but that's not because I support one-world government, its because I don't support any government (in the statist sense... you can call private PDAs and arbitrators "government" if you want, but they wouldn't have borders). Given a choice between "removing borders" for the purpose of establishing a one-world government or the status quo, I will take the latter, easily, non-question.

How this applies to "amnesty" I'm not really sure. I think I agree with Judge Napolitano that this was a power grab despite non-agreement with immigration laws on principles. Probably. I don't know all of the details, so I could be convinced that I am wrong. I do think Obama has the right to tell the DOJ not to pursue immigration law-breakers and I don't think he has a constitutional obligation to seek people to deport. I don't think he has a right to interfere with state-governments doing whatever they are going to do about immigration law-breakers, nor do I think he has any right to actually declare immigrants to be "legal."

I'd be for a modified form of amnesty, passed by congress and signed by Obama, which would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country, but not collect welfare or vote. I don't see that happening anytime soon. I suspect nefarious motives on the part of Obama and the congress, they want to hand out more money and they want more votes. I can assure you a lack of any nefarious motives from me.

Also, from a pragmatic POV, if we are going to have "countries" and governments who give themselves the right to rule over other people, closed borders seems like the worst thing all the way around. "love it or leave it" is bad enough when you actually can leave, albeit with difficulty. It will be even worse if "leave it" is taken off the table. If we wouldn't want that done to us, we probably shouldn't do it to others to.



To sum up:

My absolute ideal situation is the elimination, or at least drastic reduction of, government owned property. That would settle the issue right there.

Barring that, my proposal would be to allow "amnesty" on condition that illegal immigrants not ever be allowed to collect welfare or vote. Not ever. No "path to citizenship". No deportations either. I do believe that if you are born here you should be considered a citizen. I respectfully disagree with Ron Paul on that point (as I do a few others.)

I do not doubt that there are some "one world order" implications of Obama's amnesty plan. I think its VERY important to distinguish between the anarcho-capitalist version of "abolishing borders", and the NWO version. Comparing the two is like comparing anarcho-capitalism with anarchic chaos and the breaking down of law and all communitarian institutions. I don't "support" the current version. I'm opposed to deportations, and I don't like immigration restrictions.

[Christian Liberty]

If you're in favor of amnesty, you're in favor of open borders. If you're in favor of open borders, you're in favor of the New World Order.

Obama, and all these other higher-ups, this what they want. It's the end-game

Are you suggesting that my views are the same as Obama's? Get real.

The amnesty issue has seemed fishy to me from the beginning. That doesn't mean I think more government is the answer.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think he's in favor of this.

Ideally I support the first part (abolish the US)... not the other parts...

[staerker]

If you're in favor of amnesty, you're in favor of open borders. If you're in favor of open borders, you're in favor of the New World Order.

Obama, and all these other higher-ups, this what they want. It's the end-game

Less government = more government. Right :rolleyes:

[staerker]

I understand the constitutional issues, I understand the pragmatic issues, but how in the world can one MORALLY justify prohibitions to immigration?

I don't comment on this issue much for a few reasons. In the first place, its controversial among libertarians. In the second place, I don't think it matters that much in the grand scheme of things. I don't comment that much on IP for similar reasons. (I DO comment on abortion despite the controversy because I believe it DOES matter in the grand scheme of things.) In the third place, the federal laws are probably (I'm not 100% sure) constitutional, and my goal is to get the government back to its constitutional limits before worrying that much about the exact details. In the fourth place, the pragmatic effects of allowing unrestricted immigration with the welfare state as is would likely be awful. But since you brought it up, I still have to ask. What's the principled argument for keeping borders sealed?

Does this matter to me as much as ending the foreign wars, ending NSA spying, ending police abuse, ending the welfare state, ending the drug war, and so forth? No. But I still can't justify immigration restrictions on principle.

The Bible puts immigrants in the same category as widows, the fatherless, and the poor.

[AuH20]

The Bible puts immigrants in the same category as widows, the fatherless, and the poor.

I don't think the writers of the Bible ever envisioned the U.S. government utilizing immigrants for their ends. heh.

[staerker]

I don't think the writers of the Bible ever envisioned the U.S. government utilizing immigrants for their ends. heh.

Under the assumption (that I am making when talking to a fellow Christian) that the Bible was written by servants of a timeless God, your objection sounds slightly silly. :P

Regardless, the U.S. government could 'utilize' and pervert anything. It could defend the right to self defense, in an effort to increase it's power. It could protect the right to private property, in order to gain blind support from a select few. I will not stand in the way of either defense, and for sure will not stand against either.

In the same way, the U.S. government can defend the right of self ownership, and voluntary movement. That has no bearing on it's legitimacy.

[UWDude]

I think a nation has the right to restrict immigrants from entering, if it has social policies that help the poor. Of course that is socialism, as is, indeed, restricting immigration. A true free market economy has no need to restrict immigration.

I was at my parent's house last night, watching the charlie brown mayflower special. Oh boy, did the natives screw up when they helped the white people. Their humanity and mercy was their undoing.

[Ronin Truth]

The ancestors of the Native Americans were undocumented immigrants too.

[Weston White]

Maintaining the security of a nation’s borders is paramount in retaining the orthodox customs, expectations, and traditions of its citizens. Otherwise the birthright and heritage of its populace will be overran and sacked in the succeeding decades by the opposing social ideologies of immigrant’s en masse. That is to mean, people arriving in America from third-worlds lack understanding, care little about—or otherwise find themselves offended by—the expected rights and protections of their new acquaintances, such as: women as equals; keeping and bearing arms; age of consent; English as a primary language; healthcare as a privilege; “white entitlements”; collective bargaining units; higher pay with benefits; methods of taxation and abusive monetary inflation; competing theologies; freedom of thought, speech, and expression; anti-government opposition; racism; declared war upon their nation of origin; local history and governmental structure; etc.

[asurfaholic]

If all land along the US/Mexico border were private property and property owners were able to exercise their natural right to forcibly remove trespassers from their clearly marked property, then the problem of poor people flooding across the border, overwhelming hospitals, schools etc would not exist.

I disagree. They would just find some unprotected corridors and keep waltzing in. this isn't some fantasy land where "if everyone was a proper libertarian the worlds problems would cease to exist" thing.

Maybe if the incentives for them to come here were completely eliminated, we *might* see a decrease in immigration. I know a lot of Mexicans, many of them just wanted to get out of the shithole they came from.

[ghengis86]

What the hell is wrong with enforcing laws on the books? My great grand parents came through Ellis Island and applied for citizenship like millions of others. They learned the language and American culture, but still spoke German in the home and celebrated their unique culture within their newfound German-American neighborhoods.

Why can't this country - at least until things get "straightened out" (whatever that means) and a real law is passed (not diktat) - just say, "look, it's not perfect, but there are laws governing the legal immigration and we're going to enforce them. Please apply for citizenship or we'll send you back home."

[jmdrake]

Not necessarily. Ask the ranchers who own private property and have had to deal with drug cartels...who outgun them.

Well isn't the fact that they are outgunned in part due to the U.S. government selling automatic weapons to drug cartels (fast and furious) and barring U.S. citizens from owning automatic weapons?

[jmdrake]

The Bible puts immigrants in the same category as widows, the fatherless, and the poor.

It's funny how Obama once ridiculed using the Bible as inspiration for national policy but he harps on one part of the Bible to support his agenda.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w

[Schifference]

Furnish Cell phones with GPS tracking all along the borders with instructions that if they are in need of water, food, of help to call 911. The police can take it from there.

[jmdrake]

Furnish Cell phones with GPS tracking all along the borders with instructions that if they are in need of water, food, of help to call 911. The police can take it from there.

LOL

[Spikender]

I personally vote that Buffalo have more right to complain but I need an animal whisperer in order to get their side of the story AKA dirt on the Native Americans.

[nobody's_hero]

I think a nation has the right to restrict immigrants from entering, if it has social policies that help the poor. Of course that is socialism, as is, indeed, restricting immigration. A true free market economy has no need to restrict immigration.

I was at my parent's house last night, watching the charlie brown mayflower special. Oh boy, did the natives screw up when they helped the white people. Their humanity and mercy was their undoing.

Indeed.

But I think people, like Obama, who point to the native Americans as an example neglect to read the story all the way to the end. Open door immigration did not bode well for them in the final chapter. They now live on small plots of land, the terms of their treaties are not met, and depression/alcoholism are all too common on the reservations today. It is too late to save the native Americans. It is NOT too late to learn from their demise.

Granted, it was practically impossible, in that day and age, for the natives to warn others of the end-result: relocation, war, complete destruction of cultural identity, disease, and in some cases, physical annihilation, etc. Likewise, today, it is probably in reality impossible to secure the border with complete effectiveness without seriously accelerating the growth of the police state.

That's why I feel stuck sometimes, on this issue. To one side of me I have people like Obama who want open door immigration for nefarious reasons (political support to continue their welfare state), and on the other side, some particularly naïve libertarians who think an influx of poverty-striken, desperate people are just gonna be swayed by private property arguments.

I mean, hell, this week the mobs are burning Ferguson to the ground, and allegedly all it would take to stop it is some guy inviting the mob in for tea and crumpets while everyone has a nice chat about private property and why it's immoral to burn the Autozone parts store to the ground, right? Granted those mobs aren't comprised of immigrants, but the underlying principle is the same. Well-founded arguments are not always taken to heart by people who don't know what private property is to begin with, or just flat don't care.

But I don't see a win either way. You can't turn the U.S. into a (bigger) police state in order to secure the border, and you can't neglect the border once realizing the cold hard truth that people could give two shits about a growing police state as long as the welfare checks keep appearing in the mailbox.

The state has the power of bribery on its side, and that is a very enticing tool which will quickly turn 51% of the people into thieves who prey on the other 49%.

You have . . . eh, lewrockwell.com, and a f**k ton of huddled masses to educate.

Good luck, open border advocates.

[otherone]

I think a nation has the right to restrict immigrants from entering, if it has social policies that help the poor.

Nations don't have rights.

[moostraks]

I'm just saying that life on this planet is simply a series of one group conquering or leaving their 'property' to another group.

http://rt.com/news/stone-age-america-archaeologists-445/


Now, after painstakingly comparing DNA samples from people in dozens of modern-day Native American and Eurasian groups, an international team of scientists thinks it can put the matter to rest: virtually without exception, the new evidence supports the single ancestral population theory.

Our work provides strong evidence that, in general, Native Americans are more closely related to each other than to any other existing Asian populations, except those that live at the very edge of the Bering Strait,” said Kari Britt Schroeder, a lecturer at the University of California, Davis, and the first author on the paper describing the study...

In 1981 Dr. Wallace headed a Stanford research team that found that ethnic groups could be identified and linked to their continent of origin by the mutation patterns in their mtDNA. Moreover, by determining how often these telltale mutations occurred, it was possible to calculate how long ago certain groups stopped intermarrying and separated, each going off to develop its own unique pattern of mtDNA mutations...


The mtDNA analyses are showing that the ancestors of the Amerinds, who comprise most Native Americans, entered the Americans in a single migratory wave 20,000 to 40,000 years ago, Dr. Wallace and his Emory colleagues ... reported last year. This puts humans in the Americas long before a fluted stone-spear point--the oldest American tool ever found--was dropped by a prehistoric dweller near Clovis, N.M., 11,000 years ago.
The researchers also found that ancestors of the Navajo, Apache and other members of a Native American group, known collectively as the Na-Dene, are latecomers; they entered the continent in a second migration a mere 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, the research indicates... http://www.manataka.org/page410.html

There is research that disputes the position you are trying to float. The previous theory is well known in certain circles for be a political move to justify the European invasion and destruction of native culture.

[AuH20]

Maintaining the security of a nation’s borders is paramount in retaining the orthodox customs, expectations, and traditions of its citizens. Otherwise the birthright and heritage of its populace will be overran and sacked in the succeeding decades by the opposing social ideologies of immigrant’s en masse. That is to mean, people arriving in America from third-worlds lack understanding, care little about—or otherwise find themselves offended by—the expected rights and protections of their new acquaintances, such as: women as equals; keeping and bearing arms; age of consent; English as a primary language; healthcare as a privilege; “white entitlements”; collective bargaining units; higher pay with benefits; methods of taxation and abusive monetary inflation; competing theologies; freedom of thought, speech, and expression; anti-government opposition; racism; declared war upon their nation of origin; local history and governmental structure; etc.

well said. end of discussion. Many of the new immigrants for lack of a better term are rubes.

[moostraks]

Well now that explains why he has been playing two faced to the native population. Sadly, some folks never learn and think by having this blanket amnesty they are righting past wrongs. Smh...

[acptulsa]

Obama says, we're going to do what we want and if you don't like it you're racist.

In the thousandth different way and for the millionth time.

If you want to take responsibility and participate in the running of this republic you're racist. If you don't want the rich to get richer at our expense you're racist. We get it. We just don't buy it.

[juleswin]

If all land along the US/Mexico border were private property and property owners were able to exercise their natural right to forcibly remove trespassers from their clearly marked property, then the problem of poor people flooding across the border, overwhelming hospitals, schools etc would not exist.

Just about the worst idea to control illegal immigration I have ever heard. whats to stop a sympathetic or just business savy farmer from opening up a bed and breakfast and instead of wasting his time, energy and resources fighting illegal immigration, he instead gives them free passage and safety for a small fee? I mean if you think about it, its all benefit for him since he no longer has to do this unpaid job and this also means more buyers for his produce (everybody eats food).

The problem with hospitals and schools are really not his problem and in a perfect world, the typical farmer will just leave it to govt to figure out. . But if the fed implement your idea, the problem with schools and hospitals will get worse overnight. I can imagine private hospitals who are now forced to take care of the poor immigrants burning their hospitals and collecting the insurance money.

Liberty in this sense will be very good for the farmer but devastating for the hospitals. But if you take away all the welfare, voting and privatize the lands, the farmer, the hospital, the school, taxpayers, businesses looking for higher supply of labor to reduce cost will all benefit.

[moostraks]

well said. end of discussion. Many of the new immigrants for lack of a better term are rubes.

No different than the ones during the European invasion. The key to the situation is who can effectively harness the movement for the most positive outcome and in what manner ethically that can best be done.

[Southron]

Obama knows the easiest way to change a country is through immigration.

[AuH20]

Obama knows the easiest way to change a country is through immigration.

We essentially live in an oligarchy, but things can be sped up at a much quicker pace with the influx of new, more susceptible 'citizens.' AKA as Rubes.

[Anti Federalist]

I know a lot of Mexicans, many of them just wanted to get out of the shithole they came from.

And therein lies the problem.

Just like Massholes, "half backs", and states that get Californicated, people from a shithole show up, to escape said shithole, only to immediately start undoing everything at the place they just moved to, turning it into a mirror image of the shithole they just escaped from.

It is human nature, to want the familiar around you, no matter how bad it is.

[AuH20]

And therein lies the problem.

Just like Massholes, "half backs", and states that get Californicated, people from a shithole show up, to escape said shithole, only to immediately start undoing everything at the place they just moved to, turning it into a mirror image of the shithole they just escaped from.

It is human nature, to want the familiar around you, no matter how bad it is.

See Colorado.

[juleswin]

Maintaining the security of a nation’s borders is paramount in retaining the orthodox customs, expectations, and traditions of its citizens. Otherwise the birthright and heritage of its populace will be overran and sacked in the succeeding decades by the opposing social ideologies of immigrant’s en masse. That is to mean, people arriving in America from third-worlds lack understanding, care little about—or otherwise find themselves offended by—the expected rights and protections of their new acquaintances, such as: women as equals; keeping and bearing arms; age of consent; English as a primary language; healthcare as a privilege; “white entitlements”; collective bargaining units; higher pay with benefits; methods of taxation and abusive monetary inflation; competing theologies; freedom of thought, speech, and expression; anti-government opposition; racism; declared war upon their nation of origin; local history and governmental structure; etc.

You mean the orthodox customs that was formed by mass immigration from all over the world that changed the orthodox custom at the time? And the part I put in bold is a lot of nonsensical statements. People in the third world care little about what? offended by expected rights and protection....? where did you come up with this. if anything its the natives that are offended by what immigrants do. Women as equal? the reasons why it seems women are not really treated as equal in third world countries are a bit complicated to discuss right now, but those problems is usually related to poverty and religion and they disappear when poverty (dogmatic religion also goes with poverty) disappears. Just like it almost disappeared in the west when it became more prosperous (except for some pockets in religious orgs), it will disappear once the 1st generation of 3rd world immigrants who were raised with it dies off . Healthcare as a privilege, collective bargaining units are two are 1st world inventions, if anything, it is the west with its global orgs trying to export these ideas out. Add minimum wage to that list of 1st world inventions

English as a primary language? is anyone trying to make anything else a primary language. But thanks to govt, the primary language will always be English just as long as we keep and maintain a central govt. Leave humans to do what they normally do and English will lose their status in certain regions. You will see french speaking bubbles in New Orleans, German in Pennsylvania, Dutch in New York?, Spanish in Texas and California and Mandarin in maybe California. A large society like America having one primary language is actually not normal. Don't be afraid of learning a second or third language, research have shown that its actually good for you :)

Then again, you want to take away the welfare so the people coming in are the people who have the resources and the determination to adapt. This way, the immigrants you get will be somewhat self screened to bring in the more capable and more willing to adapt.

[presence]

1776 there were no identification cards
1776 there were no entitlement programs
1776 the settler had greater property rights than the man with the deed
1776 most americans were immigrants

1776 the very concept of being "subject" to a king through subordinate allegiance or conquest was OVERTURNED, In The Spirit of The Revolution, by the republican concept of

consenting

to being "citizen"

Citizenship comes from the individual not the state.


Citizenship comes from I AM
Subjectship comes from YOU ARE


There is nothing outside of a man which can bestow or revoke his citizenship. The moment we think otherwise we devolve into subjugation.


A man cannot recieve citizenship; he can only declare it:

This is the battle cry of Liberty.


keywords:

Cokean subjectship
doctrine of the right of election
Ramsay dissertation 1789 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36590701/Ramsay-1789-Dissertation-on-Citizenship)


The following appear to be the only modes of acquiring this distinguishing privilege.

1st. By being parties to the original compact, the declaration of independence.
2d. By taking an oath of fidelity to some one of the United States, agreeably to law.
3d. By tacit consent and acquiescence.
4th. By birth or inheritance.
5th. By adoption

[otherone]

Many of the new immigrants for lack of a better term are rubes.

Muh Kulture....must...protect...muh kulture
http://cdn.soundpublishing.com/dailyweekly/People%20of%20Walmart%20-%20Scooter%20Ride.jpg

[AuH20]

Muh Kulture....must...protect...muh kulture
http://cdn.soundpublishing.com/dailyweekly/People%20of%20Walmart%20-%20Scooter%20Ride.jpg

You think that is culture? ROFL That's sloth and Madison Avenue consumerism that's been resold as American values.

[juleswin]

Muh Kulture....must...protect...muh kulture
http://cdn.soundpublishing.com/dailyweekly/People%20of%20Walmart%20-%20Scooter%20Ride.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/lightstalkers/images/171734/ePV_07_0028-copy_large.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDFYr6uSz7iVGbKOYjeG2JafGbT72Df FmUqHUhECQNktopkVfN

This is a learned behavior from all the 3rd world immigration, just look at the way they roll and tell me you don't see the similarity.

[AuH20]

“The argument now that the spread of pop culture and consumer goods around the world represents the triumph of Western civilization trivializes Western culture. The essence of Western civilization is the Magna Carta, not the Magna Mac. The fact that non-Westerners may bite into the latter has no implications for their accepting the former.”
― Samuel P. Huntington

[otherone]

You think that is culture? ROFL That's sloth and Madison Avenue consumerism that's been resold as American values.

WHOOPSIE...sorry...

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/highres_00008437%20copy.jpg

better, Herr Goldwasser?

[AuH20]

“These transnationalists have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite's global operations”
― Samuel P. Huntington

[Dianne]

I don't think anyone objects to immigration. We object to the bankrupting of America by offering immigrants free money to come here. Obama wants 5 million more people on Obamacare. He is hoping Obamacare will be his legacy, and a successful legacy. He is already offering corporations $3,000. tax incentives on Obamacare to hire immigrants over U.S. born citizens. So what you will see is every employee at Walmart eventually speaking in Spanish. Obama doesn't give a damn if the U.S. goes broke. We already have one in ever five children in America homeless.. So usher in 5,000,000. from other countries for jobs, free housing, free food, free Obamacare? That man is just hell bent on destroying America. That will be his legacy.

[AuH20]

I don't think anyone objects to immigration. We object to the bankrupting of America by offering immigrants free money to come here. Obama wants 5 million more people on Obamacare. He is hoping Obamacare will be his legacy, and a successful legacy. He is already offering corporations $3,000. tax incentives on Obamacare to hire immigrants over U.S. born citizens. So what you will see is every employee at Walmart eventually speaking in Spanish. Obama doesn't give a damn if the U.S. goes broke. We already have one in ever five children in America homeless.. So usher in 5,000,000. from other countries for jobs, free housing, free food, free Obamacare? That man is just hell bent on destroying America. That will be his legacy.

It's very simple. It's about collectivism vs. individual liberty. These immigrants aren't coming here for the latter. They want something and you most likely own it.

[acptulsa]

Obama wants 5 million more people on Obamacare. He is hoping Obamacare will be his legacy, and a successful legacy. He is already offering corporations $3,000. tax incentives on Obamacare to hire immigrants over U.S. born citizens.

Um, you're kind of contradicting yourself.

The main one of the 'tax incentives' making illegal amnesty recipients more attractive to employers than citizens are is the fact that they don't have to sign up for Obamacare, and their employers don't have to contribute to their Obamacare.

Which is something we should all remember the next time we hear that the only reason the illegals come is there are all these jobs lying around that no American will do. Obama, with some help from the Congress that passed Obamacare overwhelmingly against our wishes, has made American citizens uncompetitive in our own nation's labor marketplace.

[otherone]

It's very simple. It's about collectivism vs. individual liberty. These immigrants aren't coming here for the latter. They want something and you most likely own it.

Can you see the irony in your comment? Is it your business who your neighbor is?

[Dr.3D]

I don't object to immigration, I object to sneaking in through the back door without an invitation.

I wish Obama would stop saying, sneaking in the back door is immigration.

[juleswin]

It's very simple. It's about collectivism vs. individual liberty. These immigrants aren't coming here for the latter. They want something and you most likely own it.

This is the point you fail to understand. They do not have to come to this country for individual liberty. All that is required is that they are allowed to take care of themselves and the individual liberty part take care of itself. Think a business man who starts up a shop just to make money, he may not even intent to serve the public or provide good service but as he plies his trade, he will quickly figure out that the easiest way to survive is to serve the public and provide good service. This works better in a climate where you have little individual and business welfare built into the system.

We had immigrants from communist Russia and east Europe come to the country and they did not transplant their communist and socialist loving ways. The same applies other immigrants. Also another important way to ensure your nightmare scenario doesn't come to fruition is to end all govt social service programs for new immigrants. Because they come in and the 1st thing they (talking mostly about refugees here) get is a welfare card, sec 8 card, food stamps, daycare cards, translation services etc and they are off the bat taught that government is there to serve their every need. I say end it all and leave the services to private charities, family, friends and businesses who sponsor them.

[AuH20]

Can you see the irony in your comment? Is it your business who your neighbor is?

Sadly, in today's world............yes. I wish it wasn't case. I wish everyone would mind their own business and not collectivize through factions in the government.

[roho76]

Not necessarily. Ask the ranchers who own private property and have had to deal with drug cartels...who outgun them.

Yet another example of bad government policy. I'm pretty sure that if people had the right to defend their own property along the border than we also wouldn't have the "War on Drugs" which would pretty much put the drug cartels out of business making them a non issue.

[Tywysog Cymru]

First off let me say that I oppose Obama's executive order.

But we can't blame immigrants for our current situation. The majority of people who are responsible for electing our politicians we have were born within our own borders.

[Brian4Liberty]

Obama: The only people with the right to object to immigration are Native Americans*


Some people oppose or support more immigration mostly for the perceived benefit to their cultural, ethnic or racial group. Obama probably fits into that category, in addition to the leftist political motivations.

[juleswin]

Yet another example of bad government policy. I'm pretty sure that if people had the right to defend their own property along the border than we also wouldn't have the "War on Drugs" which would pretty much put the drug cartels out of business making them a non issue.

I don't quite get this line of thinking. Is it that farmers will use their private property to grow weed, cocaine, heroine etc and sell it cheaply which will then drive the drug cartels out of business or that the farmers who have no financial incentive to confront this people will somehow put the drug cartels out of business by blocking their movement? And the reason why the drug cartels are outgunning the farmers is that they a bigger financial gain by trying to transport the drugs than the farmer has by trying to stop them. Its so one sided that its not even funny.

The truth is, the drug war exists because the federal government is fighting a war on drugs and it ends when they declare its over. Private property has very little to do with it when they govt can still arrest and throw you in jail for possessing drugs.

[acptulsa]

All I know is, for an elected official in a republic to tell the citizens--also known as his bosses--which among them has the right to complain about his policies is beyond presumptuous and beyond wrong.

It almost makes me believe in requiring tests to get a voting license. If you believe crap like this, you aren't fit to help run this republic.

[Brian4Liberty]

And therein lies the problem.

Just like Massholes, "half backs", and states that get Californicated, people from a shithole show up, to escape said shithole, only to immediately start undoing everything at the place they just moved to, turning it into a mirror image of the shithole they just escaped from.

It is human nature, to want the familiar around you, no matter how bad it is.

And it's ironic that most of them can't see that. It's their own political beliefs that create a situation where they no longer want to live in a place. Those negative conditions usually consist of overcrowding, high taxes and high prices. One might surmise that their support for migration stems more from their desire to flee places that they themselves have destroyed. Maybe it is just human nature, and maybe humans really evolved from locusts...

[presence]

All I know is, for an elected official in a republic to tell the citizens--also known as his bosses--which among them has the right to complain about his policies is beyond presumptuous and beyond wrong.

It almost makes me believe in requiring tests to get a voting license. If you believe crap like this, you aren't fit to help run this republic.


All I know is if anyone thinks the government grants citizenship then they have it backwards.

Citizenship is declared by the individual.
Subjectship is declared by the state.

[otherone]

One might surmise that their support for migration stems more from their desire to flee places that they themselves have destroyed. Maybe it is just human nature, and maybe humans really evolved from locusts...

How is it that it's the oligarchs who are destroying our country, but it's the mundanes that are destroying theirs?

[Southron]

We had immigrants from communist Russia and east Europe come to the country and they did not transplant their communist and socialist loving ways. The same applies other immigrants.

Sure, not all of them transplanted their ways, but I notice a pattern of growth in the government in the early 20th Century, which was preceded by massive immigration, especially from Germany.

Whatever we may think of our British ancestors, we largely inherited our system of government from them. If this country had been largely founded by any other group of immigrants, I doubt we would have ever had a constitutional republic.

[presence]

The only people with the right to object to immigration are Lords and their Subjects.

[Dr.3D]

What immigration? People who enter the country illegally are not immigrants, they are criminals.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[otherone]

Obama: The only people with the right to object to immigration are Native Americans

Is Mr. Obama telling me I'm not a native American?

SWEET ...I AM SOOOOO OUTTA HERE

[Dr.3D]

Maybe he wasn't born a native American after all.

[staerker]

It's funny how Obama once ridiculed using the Bible as inspiration for national policy but he harps on one part of the Bible to support his agenda.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w

Hmm? One man's incompetence does not excuse us all.

[Ender]

Sure, not all of them transplanted their ways, but I notice a pattern of growth in the government in the early 20th Century, which was preceded by massive immigration, especially from Germany.

Whatever we may think of our British ancestors, we largely inherited our system of government from them. If this country had been largely founded by any other group of immigrants, I doubt we would have ever had a constitutional republic.

The Constitution and the Republic idea came from the Iroquois Nation and not the Brits.

[Brian4Liberty]

We had immigrants from communist Russia and east Europe come to the country and they did not transplant their communist and socialist loving ways.

Communism, socialism and big government ideas (and people with those ideas) have been continuously imported to America since the days when Karl Marx was writing for the New York Daily Tribune in the mid 1800s.

[acptulsa]

Communism, socialism and big government ideas (and people with those ideas) have been continuously imported to America since the days when Karl Marx was writing for the New York Daily Tribune in the mid 1800s.

Seems the main thing we have to fear from immigration these days, other than the obvious fact that there are fewer jobs for them to steal than ever before, is...


'There are among us a great mass of people who have been reared for generations under a government of tyranny and oppression. It is ingrained in their blood that there is no other form of government. They are disposed and inclined to think our institutions partake of the same nature as these they have left behind. We know they are wrong. They must be shown they are wrong.'--Calvin Coolidge

...that our public schools have left us so ignorant of the sound and moral principles upon which this nation was built that we can't share them with the newcomers any more.

[orenbus]

I'm just saying that life on this planet is simply a series of one group conquering or leaving their 'property' to another group.

http://rt.com/news/stone-age-america-archaeologists-445/

Interesting, other than the same RT article being re-posted on some forums and blogs I can't find a second source or basic details of this story such as what schools Stanford and Bradford are professors of, updates on their follow up digs or these thesis papers presented. If anyone has any links documenting these finds would appreciate it, thanks in advance.

[orenbus]

The Constitution and the Republic idea came from the Iroquois Nation and not the Brits.

Haven't gone through the background info yet on this. Good story though hadn't heard this one, thanks.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK7OmIDmiB8

[AuH20]

How is it that it's the oligarchs who are destroying our country, but it's the mundanes that are destroying theirs?

Where do the oligarchs summon their concentration of power from? Answer being the mundanes.

[JustinTime]

None of this will be possible with a wave of immigration from cultures and political systems where this is the norm, along with a shit ton of corruption.

I contend that part of the reason for all that is a fundamental shift over the last fifty years, deliberately carried out by government, to make that the norm.

Exactly.

I feel strongly that this country could take immigrants from anywhere and make "Americans" out of them (what American used to mean) but only if its limited. You reach a point where there many to assimilate.

Look at all the terrible things that came out of the last great wave of immigration, the creation of the Fed, the Federal income tax, direct election of senators, prohibition, and you could even argue social security and Roosevelts confiscation of gold. We dodged a bullet and restricted immigration in the nick of time (maybe) but today we are making the same mistakes all over again.

Im all about preserving freedom here, and I don't share this doomed idea of a borderless world.

[JustinTime]

The Constitution and the Republic idea came from the Iroquois Nation and not the Brits.


That's a modern Cultural Marxist trope I saw on Saturday Morning TV 30 years ago.

When writing the Constitution the founders did indeed take a look at many confederations and federations, and Im sure they looked at the Iroquois Confederacy too, but I have never seen any evidence they borrowed anything from them, much less that the US Constitution is really just an Indian idea.

Most of the time people who support this idea point out obvious vague similarities, but all Ive ever seen is "no duh" things pertaining to the nature of federal and confederal unions. Yeah, they are all governments composed of parts with designated powers. That's what federations are confederations are.

[DFF]

Communism, socialism and big government ideas (and people with those ideas) have been continuously imported to America since the days when Karl Marx was writing for the New York Daily Tribune in the mid 1800s.

Yes, and these ideas are the biggest obstacle facing the United States and the world for that matter. Contrary to popular belief, Communism didn't end with the fall of the Soviet Union. It's still very much alive. Ron Paul has mentioned this as well.

[staerker]

Exactly.

I feel strongly that this country could take immigrants from anywhere and make "Americans" out of them (what American used to mean) but only if its limited. You reach a point where there many to assimilate.

Look at all the terrible things that came out of the last great wave of immigration, the creation of the Fed, the Federal income tax, direct election of senators, prohibition, and you could even argue social security and Roosevelts confiscation of gold. We dodged a bullet and restricted immigration in the nick of time (maybe) but today we are making the same mistakes all over again.

Im all about preserving freedom here, and I don't share this doomed idea of a borderless world.

You two would possibly have an argument, if the USA government was not the prime example of international corruption, and the US's populace wasn't the prime example of moral destitution.

[JustinTime]

You two would possibly have an argument, if the USA government was not the prime example of international corruption, and the US's populace wasn't the prime example of moral destitution.

I think that makes my argument all the more compelling. In fact, THAT IS my argument. The awful government is a result of slowly destroying the heritage Americans founded the country with, and importing a hell of a lot of people from places where that heritage has never existed is just one way that is accomplished.

Waves of unassimilated Europeans, my own ancestors among them, made up the support base for the things I named.

[staerker]

I think that makes my argument all the more compelling. In fact, THAT IS my argument. The awful government is a result of slowly destroying the heritage Americans founded the country with, and importing a hell of a lot of people from places where that heritage has never existed is just one way that is accomplished.

Waves of unassimilated Europeans, my own ancestors among them, made up the support base for the things I named.

Are you saying those who are born in America naturally have the "heritage Americans founded the country with?"

[euphemia]

I want to say a couple of things:

1. This wave of immigration is not the same as any other because the context has changed. We now have a welfare state that really did not exist prior to the 1960s.

2. Mexico and the rest of Latin America need to care that their citizens are pouring over the borders by the millions. Evenutally their own systems will collapse. All of their taxpayers and potential taxpayers will be Americans and Latin America will be more vulnerable than they already are to US exploitation. That's something they need to think about.

[Christian Liberty]

The Bible puts immigrants in the same category as widows, the fatherless, and the poor.

Meanwhile our country drone bombs the crap out of civilians, permits the murder of the unborn, and dominates every aspect of our lives.

I don't think refusing to let immigrants cross the border measures up to that in terms of monstrosity...

[fr33]

I want cheap labor because your kids are fat lazy and entitled. Cheap labor doesn't go to college and expect to be paid for sitting on their asses.

[staerker]

Meanwhile our country drone bombs the crap out of civilians, permits the murder of the unborn, and dominates every aspect of our lives.

I don't think refusing to let immigrants cross the border measures up to that in terms of monstrosity...

I may not seem very monstrous. In fact it is very easy, and we may not even notice it if we don't pay close attention. See the Sheep and the Goats.

[FloralScent]

I don't think he's in favor of this.

Well, that is the whole point of the unfettered immigration into the U.S. and all Western nations. They won't stop until we're all one nice, easily controllable, homogenous empire. So either he supports that goal, or he's too naive to realize that is the goal.

[fr33]

I want cheap labor because your kids are fat lazy and entitled. Cheap labor doesn't go to college and expect to be paid for sitting on their asses.

I'm just wondering... Should I hire your kids because they file for income taxes, Obamacare, or to help them pay for student loans, or just because they don't want the damn job anyways? So many reasons to hire them /s

I need a ditch-digger. I need someone to process cattle. I need someone to drive a truck. I need someone that works at least 6 days a week (preferably 7 like I do). I need someone to work from dawn to dusk (like I do). Most of you taught or paid others to teach them to not do any of those things, but nature and farming/ranching doesn't give a fuck about your entitlement attitude.

Who's going to feed these people that think pushing papers is the only way to make a living.

Nevermind. Go back to your fucking cubicle and gripe about Mexicans.

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

Obama ia dumb

[Zippyjuan]

I want to say a couple of things:

1. This wave of immigration is not the same as any other because the context has changed. We now have a welfare state that really did not exist prior to the 1960s.

2. Mexico and the rest of Latin America need to care that their citizens are pouring over the borders by the millions. Evenutally their own systems will collapse. All of their taxpayers and potential taxpayers will be Americans and Latin America will be more vulnerable than they already are to US exploitation. That's something they need to think about.


How many million came last year?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/09/PH-unauthorized-immigrants-1-01.png
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/09/23/population-decline-of-unauthorized-immigrants-stalls-may-have-reversed/

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/11/PH_2014-11-18_unauthorized-immigration-05.png

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorized-immigrant-totals-rise-in-7-states-fall-in-14/


Decrease in Unauthorized Immigrants from Mexico

Mexicans are a majority of unauthorized immigrants (52% in 2012), but both their numbers and share have declined in recent years, according to the Pew Research estimates. Although the U.S. population of unauthorized immigrants was stable from 2009 to 2012, the number of Mexicans in this population fell by about half a million people during those years.

[alucard13mm]

I think a nation has the right to restrict immigrants from entering, if it has social policies that help the poor. Of course that is socialism, as is, indeed, restricting immigration. A true free market economy has no need to restrict immigration.

I was at my parent's house last night, watching the charlie brown mayflower special. Oh boy, did the natives screw up when they helped the white people. Their humanity and mercy was their undoing.

In hindsight the natives should have killed the white man right when they stepped off the ship. If you let survivors live, they will tell their other white man friends to come... especially to claim land and find gold.

Lol.. now natives are relegated to reservations. High poverty. High alcoholism. Their culture and language is slowly fading.

Man... is there a continent that the white man did not raped and pillaged back then?

[Zippyjuan]

Do you think we should give everything back and move us all back to Europe (or wherever we come from)?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E

[alucard13mm]

And therein lies the problem.

Just like Massholes, "half backs", and states that get Californicated, people from a shithole show up, to escape said shithole, only to immediately start undoing everything at the place they just moved to, turning it into a mirror image of the shithole they just escaped from.

It is human nature, to want the familiar around you, no matter how bad it is.

I doubt those people will vote for rand, massie, Amash or ron. A small # might, but most will vote for the guy who will give them the most benefits.

they import new people to balance out the power and votes of people who turn to the r(love)ution.

Those that claim restricting illegal immigration is anti freedom.. well, the freedom will be gone once the new voter block votes for anti freedom and big government. Of course, again, I mean most of them will, not all.

We have a lot of sheep already.. why import more sheep?

[nobody's_hero]

Do you think we should give everything back and move us all back to Europe (or wherever we come from)?

Well, the damage has been done to the native Americans.

Do you think we should just ignore the lessons of the past?

In other words, if you see someone stand in the freeway and get clobbered by a bus, do you go stand in the freeway too?

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm just wondering... Should I hire your kids because they file for income taxes, Obamacare, or to help them pay for student loans, or just because they don't want the damn job anyways? So many reasons to hire them /s

I need a ditch-digger. I need someone to process cattle. I need someone to drive a truck. I need someone that works at least 6 days a week (preferably 7 like I do). I need someone to work from dawn to dusk (like I do). Most of you taught or paid others to teach them to not do any of those things, but nature and farming/ranching doesn't give a fuck about your entitlement attitude.

Who's going to feed these people that think pushing papers is the only way to make a living.

Nevermind. Go back to your fucking cubicle and gripe about Mexicans.
That's what's rather unamusing about this whole thing.

These bumpkins yell about jobs being taken but you probably couldn't find one American in ten that would even want them or physically and mentally be able to do them. I see people get sluggish after four hours of [light] work. In my experience, only the few have actual work ethic. Most just fuck around as much as tolerable and take up space, riding the coattails of the few who work. All I ask is for an honest day's work. Too much to ask for nowadays, it would appear.

[RandallFan]

There aren't 12 million farmworkers.

Mexicans are being replaced by central Americans and others using the Mexican border. They are still crossing the Mexican border. You also got the visa overstayers.




Anywhere illegals are working there is majority or mostly Americans doing that job. How many farmworkers are lawful 30,40, or 50%?

In other industries 70,80 or 90% of the workers are lawful.

Does an illegal alien count as a farmworker if he is working at a John Deere factory? That is what's going to be in the fineprint in an amnesty bill.

Sure big business can save a few pennies and Cato and Treason Magazine can have a circle jerk over the lower price of inputs.

Not to mention the jobs that should exist if the EPA and others weren't given jackboot power. There's complaints about a few farm jobs not being filled because the farmer is cheap. What about all the energy jobs that would be around and energy that would be extracted if Obama and the RINOS hadn't given so much poer to the EPA?

The same people pushing amnesty are saying none of the illegals will leave, when half a million or a million Mexicans have left. If a million Mexicans, others won't leave is the employer is sanctioned?

[Zippyjuan]

Not to mention the jobs that should exist if the EPA and others weren't given jackboot power. There's complaints about a few farm jobs not being filled because the farmer is cheap. What about all the energy jobs that would be around and energy that would be extracted if Obama and the RINOS hadn't given so much poer to the EPA?

You mean like all that oil and natural gas the frackers are producing? Which made the US the #1 producer in the world in both? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html Jobs there are booming.


There aren't 12 million farmworkers.

Neither are there 12 million Mexican in the country illegally. There are less than six million of them.


The same people pushing amnesty are saying none of the illegals will leave, when half a million or a million Mexicans have left. If a million Mexicans, others won't leave is the employer is sanctioned?

We do agree that the number of Mexicans in the US illegally has been declining and we agree that most come to work and be productive rather than collect welfare as others have suggested. You are also right about visa overstays. About half the people in the country entered it legally.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/splitting-the-difference-on-illegal-immigration


Overwhelmingly, they migrate in pursuit of work. This is particularly true for undocumented males: Among all men in the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 64, illegal immigrants are the most likely to be working. In 2009, for example, 93% of undocumented men participated in the labor force, compared to 86% of legal-immigrant men and 81% of native-born men. Yet the opposite pattern is evident among women. In 2009, 58% of undocumented women were in the labor force, compared to 66% of legal-immigrant women and 72% of native-born women. So while a majority of undocumented women do work, more of them remain at home — presumably to care for their children — than do other women in America.

American Values? More of the men are working while more women tend their families. We don't want that ruining our values. Do we?

[juleswin]

In hindsight the natives should have killed the white man right when they stepped off the ship. If you let survivors live, they will tell their other white man friends to come... especially to claim land and find gold.

Lol.. now natives are relegated to reservations. High poverty. High alcoholism. Their culture and language is slowly fading.

Man... is there a continent that the white man did not raped and pillaged back then?

You watch too much Walking dead, you don't just kill off outsiders that wonder into your territory. You want to trade with them, share ideas and most importantly, if they decide to stick around, you have to keep an eye on them to make sure they don't turn around and stab you in the back. What would be of human advancement if that was how humans behaved?

[euphemia]

How many million came last year?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/09/PH-unauthorized-immigrants-1-01.png
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/09/23/population-decline-of-unauthorized-immigrants-stalls-may-have-reversed/

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/11/PH_2014-11-18_unauthorized-immigration-05.png

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/18/unauthorized-immigrant-totals-rise-in-7-states-fall-in-14/

Dude, it's still millions. Latin America is going to have to start being concerned about their own infrastructures because if all those people become Americans, they will be paying taxes, not sending money home to those countries.

[juleswin]

That's what's rather unamusing about this whole thing.

These bumpkins yell about jobs being taken but you probably couldn't find one American in ten that would even want them or physically and mentally be able to do them. I see people get sluggish after four hours of [light] work. In my experience, only the few have actual work ethic. Most just fuck around as much as tolerable and take up space, riding the coattails of the few who work. All I ask is for an honest day's work. Too much to ask for nowadays, it would appear.

But its not just able bodied workers coming in through the border, the types people are worried about are the types who will be a burden to society i.e. the sick, the children etc

[Tywysog Cymru]

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-BK001628.jpg?size=67&uid=9365b00f-16cb-4489-9d22-a4bd5d91b020

It's too late, we already let the Irish in! They ruined our culture and took our jobs! I must confess that I am part of the problem, being of not only Irish, but also Jewish decent. I'm sorry for destroying our constitutional republic.

[juleswin]

Dude, it's still millions. Latin America is going to have to start being concerned about their own infrastructures because if all those people become Americans, they will be paying taxes, not sending money home to those countries.

Lol, why would they stop sending money back home if they become citizens? citizenship doesn't affect their ability or desire to send money back home. If anything, this just means they would have more money to send back home

[Zippyjuan]

Dude, it's still millions. Latin America is going to have to start being concerned about their own infrastructures because if all those people become Americans, they will be paying taxes, not sending money home to those countries.

A million have left since 2007. That is not millions still coming here. What is the impact on Mexico? (I am sure they are touched by your concern!) Most who left did so because they found better opportunities there. The Mexican economy is much better than it was 20 years ago. If they are working in Mexico, they are paying taxes to the Mexican government. If they were working in the US and sending cash home, they were not paying taxes to the Mexican government.

[kcchiefs6465]

But its not just able bodied workers coming in through the border, the types people are worried about are the types who will be a burden to society i.e. the sick, the children etc
So what?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx