PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul Comes Out Swinging Against Sanctuary Cities




AuH20
07-08-2015, 12:00 PM
Maybe someone is reading my inflammatory posts after all. Good job, Randall..... Keep it up. The people want a champion.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/08/rand-paul-calls-for-an-end-to-sanctuary-cities-says-there-should-be-populist-revolution-against-unsecured-border/


“Conservatives say we believe in the rule of law, and the beginning of the rule of law is enforcing the law. Since 1986, there was a promise we would enforce the law on border security. We’ve done squat. We’ve done nothing… Eleven million people have crossed over illegally,” Paul said on the Laura Ingraham show on Tuesday. “So, the first thing we have to do is enforce the law.” He added:

But we have not had a president, Republican or Democrat, who is willing to enforce immigration law. Now we have whole cities and states who stand up and say, ‘We just don’t care. We want these people here at all costs, and we’re not going to do anything about it.’ And I think the time’s come for that to end. But it’s not going to end until you have an executive in the White House who says, ‘I will enforce immigration laws.’

Ingraham noted that Americans are not safe from criminal aliens anywhere in the country, thanks to the sheer number who are here illegally. Paul agreed, calling for a grassroots uprising against President Obama and his administration’s dismantling of immigration law:

Well, it goes to the heart of the matter, because like I say, we’ve been promised this over and over again, and no one’s enforcing the laws. The laws on the books say we should have a secure border, and we don’t. Now, could we update the security? Yes. But even the existing laws need to be enforced, and they’re not being enforced. And they’re being flouted and basically laughed at by cities like San Francisco… They’re ought to be a revolution of folks saying, ‘We want you to obey the law,’ and making sure the president hears them loud and clear.

AuH20
07-08-2015, 12:10 PM
When you do good, you get money.....


Thank you for your $201.60 contribution to my campaign. Your transaction ID is 2289789.

kahless
07-08-2015, 12:58 PM
I had been wondering how much support Rand lost to Trump by not knowing where he stands on this issue. Good thing he got out in front of this.

AuH20
07-08-2015, 01:02 PM
I had been wondering how much support Rand lost to Trump by not knowing where he stands on this issue. Good thing he got out in front of this.

I speculate that most of Rand's potential support is bleeding into Trump and Carson's columns. Cruz is surprisingly a non-factor thus far.

r3volution 3.0
07-08-2015, 01:05 PM
Whatever one's opinion of the actual issues at stake in the immigration debate, this is good politics.

Brett85
07-08-2015, 01:33 PM
You can be opposed to illegal immigration and sanctuary cities without agreeing with Trump's rhetoric, though. Trump's rhetoric on this issue immediately makes him unelectable in a general election.

kahless
07-08-2015, 02:09 PM
You can be opposed to illegal immigration and sanctuary cities without agreeing with Trump's rhetoric, though. Trump's rhetoric on this issue immediately makes him unelectable in a general election.

We rightfully hit are opponents pretty hard here usually based on facts. But I am not going to play along with that establishment media talking point that is due Trump unable to deliver his message like a politician or has eloquently as Rand has on this subject.

We did not like it when Ron was pretty awful at times when it was most important to be able to deliver his message resulting in the media taking him to the wood shed. If we support the media doing this to other candidates on issues for which we agree it makes us look like a bunch of hypocrites.

jj-
07-08-2015, 02:20 PM
You can be opposed to illegal immigration and sanctuary cities without agreeing with Trump's rhetoric, though. Trump's rhetoric on this issue immediately makes him unelectable in a general election.

Whatever votes he loses due to immigration, if any, he would win from democrat workers who would benefit from higher wages.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 02:36 PM
What in the world is he thinking?!

erowe1
07-08-2015, 02:42 PM
What is he even proposing here? How exactly would he as president punish these cities? And when he talks about enforcing the stupid laws we have, how is anybody supposed to view that as a good thing?

AuH20
07-08-2015, 02:45 PM
What is he even proposing here? How exactly would he as president punish these cities? And when he talks about enforcing the stupid laws we have, how is anybody supposed to view that as a good thing?

Cutting off federal grants and subsidies to these cities that openly flout immigration law. He knows that many of these sanctuary cities are not solvent and dependent on fed money.

jj-
07-08-2015, 02:45 PM
What is he even proposing here? How exactly would he as president punish these cities? And when he talks about enforcing the stupid laws we have, how is anybody supposed to view that as a good thing?

I think the mom of a kid killed by illegal immigrants would view it as a positive thing for obvious reasons.

jj-
07-08-2015, 02:46 PM
Cutting off federal grants and subsidies to these cities that openly flout immigration law.

Having the Attorney General arrest the local authorities for not reporting illegal immigrants to the Federal government, like it happened with the recent killer.

dannno
07-08-2015, 02:53 PM
How is an illegal alien any different from somebody who possess cannabis? Should the Federal Govt. arrest city and state officials who don't arrest people for cannabis possession?

erowe1
07-08-2015, 02:55 PM
Cutting off federal grants and subsidies to these cities that openly flout immigration law.

So he's not for cutting them off already regardless of that?

erowe1
07-08-2015, 02:56 PM
Having the Attorney General arrest the local authorities for not reporting illegal immigrants to the Federal government, like it happened with the recent killer.

If he supported that it would be a bad thing. Right? I mean, that's the exact opposite of everything his father stood for.

jj-
07-08-2015, 02:57 PM
I mean, that's the exact opposite of everything his father stood for.

can you make a weaker argument?

AuH20
07-08-2015, 02:58 PM
If he supported that it would be a bad thing. Right? I mean, that's the exact opposite of everything his father stood for.

The same father that wanted to eliminate birthright citizenship? That guy?

William Tell
07-08-2015, 03:00 PM
Way to go Rand!

erowe1
07-08-2015, 03:03 PM
The same father that wanted to eliminate birthright citizenship? That guy?

Yes. Now that's something Rand should support. Does he?

erowe1
07-08-2015, 03:05 PM
Whatever one's opinion of the actual issues at stake in the immigration debate, this is good politics.

Why do you think that? Have you not paid any attention to every single Republican presidential nomination in the recent past?

squirl22
07-08-2015, 04:08 PM
I don't understand how a sanctuary city can even exist. They are blatantly breaking the law by not enforcing it. Shouldn't they be warned, first, to enforce the law, and if they don't, then the feds would have to take over city and enforce the laws.

ThePaleoLibertarian
07-08-2015, 04:19 PM
Why do you think that? Have you not paid any attention to every single Republican presidential nomination in the recent past?
The nominations have been for open borders and amnesty, but the GOP voters are not. Makes you wonder whose agenda they're really serving when they're so out of touch with their base.

Occam's Banana
07-08-2015, 04:31 PM
I think the mom of a kid killed by illegal immigrants would view it as a positive thing for obvious reasons.

And the mom of a kid whose life was saved by an illegal immigrant might view it as a negative thing for obvious reasons.

In either case, so what?

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
07-08-2015, 04:33 PM
Yes. Now that's something Rand should support. Does he?

He cosponsored a bill to so in his first Congress.

P3ter_Griffin
07-08-2015, 04:47 PM
I wish he would highlight the reasons why he supports border security instead of making it an issue of 'the rule of law'. But you gotta have faith the campaign knows what they're doing.

Dianne
07-08-2015, 06:07 PM
I don't understand how a sanctuary city can even exist. They are blatantly breaking the law by not enforcing it. Shouldn't they be warned, first, to enforce the law, and if they don't, then the feds would have to take over city and enforce the laws.

OMG, then Feds take over every city in the U.S. The Feds do have a case for obstruction of justice.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 06:39 PM
can you make a weaker argument?

Obviously so, since there was no weakness to that argument.

In case you haven't noticed, this website has an agenda. We stand for something here. You may not. But we do. And what we stand for is not having the regime in DC boss around the states, cities, and people of the USA.

If you hate the 10th Amendment, go elsewhere.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 06:40 PM
He cosponsored a bill to so in his first Congress.

Good. Hopefully he'll get back to those principles, rather than this statist nonsense in the OP that is the exact opposite approach.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 06:41 PM
I don't understand how a sanctuary city can even exist. They are blatantly breaking the law by not enforcing it. Shouldn't they be warned, first, to enforce the law, and if they don't, then the feds would have to take over city and enforce the laws.

An unjust law is no law at all. The federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever to demand that cities enforce its laws at their own taxpayers' expense. And good for the cities that don't bow to its wishes.

AuH20
07-08-2015, 06:42 PM
Obviously so, since there was no weakness to that argument.

In case you haven't noticed, this website has an agenda. We stand for something here. You may not. But we do. And what we stand for is not having the regime in DC boss around the states, cities, and people of the USA.

If you hate the 10th Amendment, go elsewhere.

Who said that they would have to take the federal assistance? Wouldn't the result align with our principles?

erowe1
07-08-2015, 06:42 PM
I think the mom of a kid killed by illegal immigrants would view it as a positive thing for obvious reasons.

Just because someone is the mom of a child killed by an illegal immigrant doesn't mean she's an idiot.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 06:44 PM
Who said that they would have to take the federal assistance?

No one. There should be no federal assistance for any cities. Period. No matter how they treat their immigrants. Is Rand so far gone that now he supports federal subsidizing of cities?

jj-
07-08-2015, 06:56 PM
Just because someone is the mom of a child killed by an illegal immigrant doesn't mean she's an idiot.

off the deep end...

What happened to erowe? He used to be smart.

squirl22
07-08-2015, 08:12 PM
An unjust law is no law at all. The federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever to demand that cities enforce its laws at their own taxpayers' expense. And good for the cities that don't bow to its wishes.

What's the unjust law? So, are you saying you believe in open borders?

squirl22
07-08-2015, 08:15 PM
How is an illegal alien any different from somebody who possess cannabis? Should the Federal Govt. arrest city and state officials who don't arrest people for cannabis possession?

Are you kidding? The illegal alien is illegal, the cannabis possession is a totally different issue. It multiplies the offense, but it is not the deciding factor. So, you are equating an illegal alien with a US citizen who is possessing cannabis?

AuH20
07-08-2015, 08:15 PM
What's the unjust law? So, are you saying you believe in open borders?

It's real simple. If they want to exercise their own sovereignty as a municipality, then don't take the money. Problem solved. It works out in both instances.

squirl22
07-08-2015, 08:16 PM
The Feds do have a case for obstruction of justice.

So, why don't they do something about it?

euphemia
07-08-2015, 08:23 PM
If you hate the 10th Amendment, go elsewhere.

This is not a 10th amendment issue. Neither the people of California in general, nor the people of San Francisco in particular voted to make San Francisco a sanctuary city. This was something the mayor cooked up on his own. In that case, since California is a black hole for tax dollars, it is my business. Their mayor should be taken into custody, and all federal money should stop pronto. This is Nancy Pelosi's district, and if she is not sponsoring legislation or voting to protect the citizens in her district, she should be impeached. She is not living up to her oath.

euphemia
07-08-2015, 08:26 PM
An unjust law is no law at all. The federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever to demand that cities enforce its laws at their own taxpayers' expense. And good for the cities that don't bow to its wishes.

I think it does when the city sucks up tax dollars thanks to Nancy Pelosi. Her district includes 80% of SF county. If she wasn't hauling in the pork, she would keep being reelected.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 09:23 PM
off the deep end...

What happened to erowe? He used to be smart.

I still am, moron. Get lost. You have no business here. And don't comment on others' intelligence either. You wouldn't know it if you saw it.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 09:24 PM
The illegal alien is illegal, the cannabis possession is a totally different issue.

First of all, how can a person be illegal? What does that even mean?

And cannabis possession is a totally different issue because it's what? Not illegal?

erowe1
07-08-2015, 09:28 PM
Those people who agree with Rand on this, where are you all coming from philosophically?

Do you also oppose other state and local nullification efforts? Like when a state legalizes firearms that the feds ban? Or how about what happened the next county over from mine when the sheriff sent a letter to the feds telling them he'd arrest their agents the next time they came to bother people for selling raw milk if they didn't have a warrant?

Why are any of you even here at all?

erowe1
07-08-2015, 09:31 PM
This is not a 10th amendment issue. Neither the people of California in general, nor the people of San Francisco in particular voted to make San Francisco a sanctuary city. This was something the mayor cooked up on his own. In that case, since California is a black hole for tax dollars, it is my business. Their mayor should be taken into custody, and all federal money should stop pronto. This is Nancy Pelosi's district, and if she is not sponsoring legislation or voting to protect the citizens in her district, she should be impeached. She is not living up to her oath.
The mayor should be taken into custody for doing what?

By all means, cut off their federal funds, along with every other city's. But don't connect that to this sanctuary city stuff. Nullifying federal immigration laws may be the one thing that mayor's doing right.

heavenlyboy34
07-08-2015, 09:46 PM
How is an illegal alien any different from somebody who possess cannabis? Should the Federal Govt. arrest city and state officials who don't arrest people for cannabis possession?

Illegal aliens, especially those who illegally cross the border-violate property rights of land owners in the south. (can't speak for the northern border myself) I've heard farmers complaining about trampled crops and so forth on local radio.

NewRightLibertarian
07-08-2015, 09:47 PM
It's probably just empty rhetoric, but Rand is completely shitting on the idea of decentralization and the 10th Amendment with this blather.

Brett85
07-08-2015, 10:02 PM
It's probably just empty rhetoric, but Rand is completely shitting on the idea of decentralization and the 10th Amendment with this blather.

How is that? It doesn't violate the 10th Amendment to cut off federal funds to certain cities.

NewRightLibertarian
07-08-2015, 10:05 PM
How is that? It doesn't violate the 10th Amendment to cut off federal funds to certain cities.

You really don't see how the feds cutting the states off from federal funds if they don't obey their edicts could be harmful to the 10th Amendment?

AuH20
07-08-2015, 10:07 PM
You really don't see how the feds cutting the states off from federal funds if they don't obey their edicts could be harmful to the 10th Amendment?

States. These are cities that specifically soliciting funds. Secondly, most of these grants are unconstitutional to begin with. Thirdly, I don't even think this about the illegal alien who runs a traffic light. It's about the hardcore criminal that needs to be punted over the Rio Grande with extreme prejudice.

AuH20
07-08-2015, 10:20 PM
A little background on how the feds bypassed the states..........

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/us/cities-struggle-as-us-slashes-block-grants-program.html?_r=0


The shrinking federal program, called Community Development Block Grants, was devised by the Nixon administration to bypass state governments and send money directly to big cities, which were given broad leeway to decide how to spend it. This year the federal government is giving out just $2.9 billion — a billion dollars less than it gave two years ago, and even less than it gave during the Carter administration, when the money went much further.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 10:23 PM
How is that? It doesn't violate the 10th Amendment to cut off federal funds to certain all cities.

Fixed.

Because the way you said it is flat out wrong.

For the federal government to tax the populations of all American cities and states and then send that money back to certain ones that conform to its agenda definitely violates the 10th Amendment. This kind of thing is probably the main way the 10th Amendment has come to be so neutered.

If this is not true, then I don't see how we can have any case left against the Department of Education, Obamacare, or countless other things.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 10:25 PM
Illegal aliens, especially those who illegally cross the border-violate property rights of land owners in the south. (can't speak for the northern border myself) I've heard farmers complaining about trampled crops and so forth on local radio.

Those individual crimes should be treated individually for what they are. The crime there isn't illegal immigration.

NewRightLibertarian
07-08-2015, 10:25 PM
A little background on how the feds bypassed the states..........

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/us/cities-struggle-as-us-slashes-block-grants-program.html?_r=0

Rand should just eliminate the program all together. Not just play games with cities or states who refuse to obey federal commands.

AuH20
07-08-2015, 10:28 PM
Rand should just eliminate the program all together. Not just play games with cities or states who refuse to obey federal commands.

I would hope so, but he can let the true believers suffer for their cause. Either way it's a win-win. A gluttonous city is deprived of block grants or they stop hiding criminal illegal aliens. Merely even having this on the table of options is hilarious, considering how overbearing the statists have been. Build a conduit of funding outside the 10th amendment? Well, you're going to burn for it.

DisneyFan
07-08-2015, 10:33 PM
Just so I understand the position of some here, are you guys saying that the federal government has no powers concerning immigration? Or is it that you think that the 10th Amendment means that states can do whatever the heck they want even when a federal law is an expression of a legitimate power of the federal government? How do you explain Article I, Section 8, where Congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization? I am curious, because this seems to be a somewhat common view here, but it is new to me.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 10:44 PM
What's the unjust law?
Pretty much everything in our immigration laws. How about giving people Social Security Numbers, and making it hard for us to get jobs without them, requiring us to make sure we only hire people to work for us or rent out places to people if they are citizens or have the right government papers.


So, are you saying you believe in open borders?

Of course. But honestly, you don't even have to believe in open borders to get that it's an unjust law for the feds to try to make cities enforce their immigration policies.

erowe1
07-08-2015, 10:45 PM
How do you explain Article I, Section 8, where Congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?

That mentions naturalization (i.e. who is and is not a citizen), not travel in and out of the country, or working or living in it.


Or is it that you think that the 10th Amendment means that states can do whatever the heck they want even when a federal law is an expression of a legitimate power of the federal government?

Even if federal immigration laws were constitutional, how would that permit them to require states to enforce them? Is the federal government the master over the states, or is it the other way around?

jj-
07-08-2015, 11:03 PM
In case you haven't noticed, this website has an agenda. We stand for something here. You may not. But we do. And what we stand for is not having the regime in DC boss around the states, cities, and people of the USA.

If you hate the 10th Amendment, go elsewhere.

So you haven't realized yet that if Rand Paul was a member here, you would've kicked him out a long time ago?

DisneyFan
07-08-2015, 11:35 PM
That mentions naturalization (i.e. who is and is not a citizen), not travel in and out of the country, or working or living in it.



Even if federal immigration laws were constitutional, how would that permit them to require states to enforce them? Is the federal government the master over the states, or is it the other way around?

We are going to have to agree to disagree regarding the power question. I think that Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, combined with Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 (the limitations portion that prohibits Congress from banning the migration and importations of persons before a certain date (i.e. the slave trade clause), as well as other portions concerning the concept of national defense, do implicitly suggest a lot of room for Congress and the Executive in this area, but you take a narrower view and that is fine. I doubt we will change each others minds.

Regarding your second argument, I am curious if you think (assuming for the sake of argument that Congress does have this power) that the only thing that can be done in this area is for the feds to go after these invaders themselves.

puppetmaster
07-08-2015, 11:54 PM
Pretty much everything in our immigration laws. How about giving people Social Security Numbers, and making it hard for us to get jobs without them, requiring us to make sure we only hire people to work for us or rent out places to people if they are citizens or have the right government papers.



Of course. But honestly, you don't even have to believe in open borders to get that it's an unjust law for the feds to try to make cities enforce their immigration policies. I am not sold. Immigration is a national security issue and therefore federal I suspect.

nikcers
07-09-2015, 12:26 AM
I am not sold. Immigration is a national security issue and therefore federal I suspect.

That's how i see it ultimately it lands in foreign policy. Mexico and other countries south of the border are primarily the reason why people are coming over by the million. We focus so much on middle east borders, and putting pressure on those foreign governments. Why no pressure on their government to treat their people better so they don't want to leave so badly? I know that's not really a responsibility for us as citizens of the USA, but as a country there should be some obligation for us to i dunno maybe end the drug war so we stop funding drug lords and gangsters south of the border. Over there the corruption trickles up to all parts of their government and the bribe monies they use are funded by black markets that are exacerbated by our failed drug policy.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
07-09-2015, 12:28 AM
We are going to have to agree to disagree regarding the power question. I think that Article I, Section 8, Clause 4,

Clause 10 is the operative clause. That gives Congress the power to define and punish offences against the law of nations. A foreign national migrating to a nation without that nation's permission is an offense against the law of nations. Every sovereign state/nation has the power to limit in-migration. As you pointed out, Section 9 limited Congress' section 8 power and reserved that power solely to the sovereign states before 1808; but since then both the states and the Congress have had the constitutional power to limit migration.

jaymur
07-09-2015, 06:56 AM
The claim is that people afraid of being deported won't report crime. In NYC and SF they say they became a sanctuary city because then the illegal aliens come out of the shadows when it comes to reporting more serious crime. This is the debate that needs to happen and its being skipped over.

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 07:36 AM
What is he even proposing here? How exactly would he as president punish these cities? And when he talks about enforcing the stupid laws we have, how is anybody supposed to view that as a good thing?

Who says they are stupid? What's stupid about having a border and not allowing uneducated 3rd worlders who potentially are criminals or carrying disease and suck up your resources to enter your country?


How is an illegal alien any different from somebody who possess cannabis? Should the Federal Govt. arrest city and state officials who don't arrest people for cannabis possession?

How are the two even remotely related? That is just desperate.


And the mom of a kid whose life was saved by an illegal immigrant might view it as a negative thing for obvious reasons.

In either case, so what?

Oh please, which happens more often? Do tell, how many illegal aliens live in your home? Do you volunteer to cough up the dough to send their kids to school? Pay their medical bills? Pay for the courts, jails, etc when they do commit crimes - which they do at far higher rates than legal citizens? We all the know answer, you're Mr Generous with other people's stuff of course, just like a left winger.


Those people who agree with Rand on this, where are you all coming from philosophically?

Do you also oppose other state and local nullification efforts? Like when a state legalizes firearms that the feds ban? Or how about what happened the next county over from mine when the sheriff sent a letter to the feds telling them he'd arrest their agents the next time they came to bother people for selling raw milk if they didn't have a warrant?

Why are any of you even here at all?

Yeah, nice try. A state has no authority to create "sanctuary cities" or to allow illegals to live in this country. This is as silly as saying "Hey, this state legalized rape, you must hate the 10th if you think the Feds should step in."

jaymur
07-09-2015, 07:57 AM
You come across through someone's land? Trespassing. If you want to cross legally, you come across at the border crossing.

juleswin
07-09-2015, 08:23 AM
How is that? It doesn't violate the 10th Amendment to cut off federal funds to certain cities.

You say cut off federal funding like federal funds are some form of welfare coming from the federal govt. The truth is the Federal govt barely have any money of his own, the money redistributed is money coming directly from this state.

There is nothing I hate more than the feds using states money to bribe them. You see that with common core, you see that with medicare funds and I hate to see a new version from Rand with immigration.

I saw how about we prosecute the BLM officer whose gun was stolen to commit the crime along with the shooter. He leaves his gun in the glove box of his car and it was stolen.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 08:59 AM
So you haven't realized yet that if Rand Paul was a member here, you would've kicked him out a long time ago?

Not a long time ago. But as of this thread, he seems to be coming out of the closet as an unabashed top-down statist. It's very disappointing.

I have probably been too harsh on some of the new members who have only joined the site this year. But for Rand himself to talk like this is inexplicable.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 09:01 AM
I am not sold. Immigration is a national security issue and therefore federal I suspect.

Everything is a national security issue now. We're in unending war, as a pretext for limitless war powers. That's not a good thing. The chief enemy of the American people is not Mexicans, nor Arabs. It's the regime in Washington DC. If we're going to kick anyone out, let it be they.

AuH20
07-09-2015, 09:02 AM
Everything is a national security issue now. We're in unending war, as a pretext for limitless war powers. That's not a good thing. The chief enemy of the American people is not Mexicans, nor Arabs. It's the regime in Washington DC. If we're going to kick anyone out, let it be they.

Mexicans that willingly empower the boobs in D.C. A huge issue as far as I'm concerned. We are engaged in a multi-front war against many factions who have swallowed the lie for short-term gain.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 09:06 AM
You come across through someone's land? Trespassing.

Only if it's without their permission.

One injustice of immigration laws is that the federal government doesn't recognize the right of these private land owners to grant people such permission without also having the government's permission.

jj-
07-09-2015, 09:07 AM
Mexicans that willingly empower the boobs in D.C. A huge issue as far as I'm concerned. We are engaged in a multi-front war against many factions who have swallowed the lie for short-term gain.

The best argument against immigration is not that they drive down wages, etc., is that they'll vote Democrat and accelerate the path to a communist dictatorship.

jj-
07-09-2015, 09:09 AM
One injustice of immigration laws is that the federal government doesn't recognize the right of these private land owners to grant people such permission without also having the government's permission.

The problem is that there are public roads. Without public roads, everything would've been up to the owner.

Had the roads been private, would they be allowed to use them? It's impossible to know, that's why one can't make the argument from libertarians principles that some foreigners should be allowed to use roads they don't own or even paid for.

Since taxpayers paid for the roads, I think this is a strong argument that foreigners should be allowed to use them only if the majority of taxpayers agree.

AuH20
07-09-2015, 09:09 AM
The best argument against immigration is not the they drive down wages, etc., is that they'll vote Democrat and accelerate the path to a communist dictatorship.

We are living in a Communist dictatorship. I hate to be the bearer of bad news. Nevertheless, they want to utilize these ethnic groups to completely slam the door on us, so there can be no escape.

jj-
07-09-2015, 09:09 AM
One injustice of immigration laws is that the federal government doesn't recognize the right of these private land owners to grant people such permission without also having the government's permission.

The problem is that there are public roads. Without public roads, everything would've been up to the owner.

Had the roads been private, would they be allowed to use them? It's impossible to know, that's why one can't make the argument from libertarian principles that foreigners should be allowed to use roads they don't own or even paid for.

Since taxpayers paid for the roads, I think this is a strong argument that foreigners should be allowed to use them only if the majority of taxpayers agree.

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 09:10 AM
Everything is a national security issue now. We're in unending war, as a pretext for limitless war powers. That's not a good thing. The chief enemy of the American people is not Mexicans, nor Arabs. It's the regime in Washington DC. If we're going to kick anyone out, let it be they.

Lol, first off, presenting one bad govt action and then claiming it invalidates all govt action is just faulty logic from the start. Next, trying to equate foreign intervention into vastly inferior countries 6000 miles away with our wide open borders that impact Americans on a daily basis is just downright dishonest.

It's funny too how you say our greatest enemy is our govt - which I don't disagree - but hmmmm, isn't it odd that all the elites want mass 3rd world immigration, some might take that as a huge red flag, but you will of course blind yourself to all of that because your wonderful ideals will somehow negate the realities of open borders.

AuH20
07-09-2015, 09:13 AM
Lol, first off, presenting one bad govt action and then claiming it invalidates all govt action is just faulty logic from the start. Next, trying to equate foreign intervention into vastly inferior countries 6000 miles away with our wide open borders that impact Americans on a daily basis is just downright dishonest. It's funny too how you say our greatest enemy is our govt - which I don't disagree - but hmmmm, isn't it odd that all the elites want mass 3rd world immigration, some might take that as a huge red flag, but you will of course blind yourself to all of that because your wonderful ideals will somehow negate the realities of open borders.

Mexicans and the OTM migrants are basically useful idiots to the power structure. The elites and corporate heads could care less what happens to them as long as they continue to 'build the pyramids' and rubberstamp the further federalist takeover. They represent a means to an end.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 09:16 AM
Next, trying to equate foreign intervention into vastly inferior countries 6000 miles away with our wide open borders that impact Americans on a daily basis is just downright dishonest.


No it isn't. The excuse that we are at war is used for all kinds of illegitimate powers used against us, the American people, and this immigration laws.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 09:17 AM
wonderful ideals

You're right. It's about ideals. Get some.

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 09:25 AM
You're right. It's about ideals. Get some.

I got plenty, I'm just not blind to reality. I lock my doors at night too, yeah, it'd be great if I didn't have to, but that's the world we live in, the world you're blind too. Every country has a right to have a border and to enforce it, and it is the govts duty to do so, nothing illegal or anti-freedom about it.

Countless citizens are murdered, raped, assaulted, and robbed by illegals every year, they trespass, they set fires in parks, pollute fields and streams, as a whole they believe in big govt, they abuse hospitals, schools, welfare programs, they have cultures that have very different views or human rights, I could go on all day, it is definitely a National Security issue. You can't give me one single positive that has come since ole Teddy Kennedy's Immigration Act, all you can do is throw around silly slogans.

So fine, live in your dream world, and I'd wager you don't have any of these wonderful illegals living in your house, I'm sure you don't pay their medical, legal, or schooling expenses, nope, you just preach to the rest of us because you are so wonderful and kind and caring - at other people's expense.

AuH20
07-09-2015, 09:35 AM
I got plenty, I'm just not blind to reality. I lock my doors at night too, yeah, it'd be great if I didn't have to, but that's the world we live in, the world you're blind too. Every country has a right to have a border and to enforce it, and it is the govts duty to do so, nothing illegal or anti-freedom about it.

Countless citizens are murdered, raped, assaulted, and robbed by illegals every year, they trespass, they set fires in parks, pollute fields and streams, as a whole they believe in big govt, they abuse hospitals, schools, welfare programs, they have cultures that have very different views or human rights, I could go on all day, it is definitely a National Security issue. You can't give me one single positive that has come since ole Teddy Kennedy's Immigration Act, all you can do is throw around silly slogans.

So fine, live in your dream world, and I'd wager you don't have any of these wonderful illegals living in your house, I'm sure you don't pay their medical, legal, or schooling expenses, nope, you just preach to the rest of us because you are so wonderful and kind and caring - at other people's expense.

There is nothing wrong with foreigners. They are people like us, with the same hopes and dreams. However, there is something extremely wrong with millions upon millions of foreigners coming here. It's a numbers issue and before long the ethnic mob mentality starts to take shape. That's what we need to prevent and what Thomas Jefferson explicitly warned about.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 09:38 AM
I lock my doors at night too

There's nothing immoral about your doing that.

But if you put a gun to my head to make me do the same, that's a different story.

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 09:48 AM
There is nothing wrong with foreigners. They are people like us, with the same hopes and dreams. However, there is something extremely wrong with millions upon millions of foreigners coming here. It's a numbers issue and before long the ethnic mob mentality starts to take shape. That's what we need to prevent and what Thomas Jefferson explicitly warned about.

Well, aside from that being just another catchphrase, it is not true. Most people who come to America post 1970's whether legally or illegally are certainly not like us. They have very different cultures, religions, political beliefs, this is something open borders people just want to ignore in order to stay true to their beliefs as tho it's just going to disappear or something if they believe it hard enough.

If China filled up with Arab Muslims it would no longer be China, if Mexico filled up with Nigerians it would no longer be Mexico. I don't care who calls me racist, the fact is America was a mostly white country for it's entire existence, it wasn't until the 60's that this notion came about that America is supposed to be some free buffet for every culture and hard luck case in the world, in fact the people who pushed for the 1965 Act swore up and down that it would not change the demographics of America, that anyone who suggested such a thing was an alarmist, a chicken little and of course - racist. Well, who was right and who was wrong?

People can shut their eyes and put their hands in their ears all they like, the fact of the matter is to the majority of the world culture, race, and religion most definitely matter. To believe you can just stuff so many different people's with vastly different ideas together is just naive, and it seems the only race and cultures that have bought into this insanity are whites.

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 09:51 AM
There's nothing immoral about your doing that.

But if you put a gun to my head to make me do the same, that's a different story.

Who said I'm going to put a gun to your head? I'll put a gun to the head of an illegal as any nation has every right to do. You sure would make a great media demagogue, you'll twist things every which way to advance your views. If your ideas were such a big positive you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics and could just be truthful and present facts instead.

AuH20
07-09-2015, 09:52 AM
Well, aside from that being just another catchphrase, it is not true. Most people who come to America post 1970's whether legally or illegally are certainly not like us. They have very different cultures, religions, political beliefs, this is something open borders people just want to ignore in order to stay true to their beliefs as tho it's just going to disappear or something if they believe it hard enough.

If China filled up with Arab Muslims it would no longer be China, if Mexico filled up with Nigerians it would no longer be Mexico. I don't care who calls me racist, the fact is America was a mostly white country for it's entire existence, it wasn't until the 60's that this notion came about that America is supposed to be some free buffet for every culture and hard luck case in the world, in fact the people who pushed for the 1965 Act swore up and down that it would not change the demographics of America, that anyone who suggested such a thing was an alarmist, a chicken little and of course - racist. Well, who was right and who was wrong?

People can shut their eyes and put their hands in their ears all they like, the fact of the matter is to the majority of the world culture, race, and religion most definitely matter. To believe you can just stuff so many different people's with vastly different ideas together is just naive, and it seems the only race and cultures that have bought into this insanity are whites.

You don't think that they want a better life? They don't have the same biological needs? There is nothing wrong with someone from another country that wants to improve their lot over here. However, it is not natural to transport whole sections of other countries and drop them down into the middle of this country. I consider such a phenomenon as an abomination.

euphemia
07-09-2015, 09:54 AM
The mayor should be taken into custody for doing what?

By all means, cut off their federal funds, along with every other city's. But don't connect that to this sanctuary city stuff. Nullifying federal immigration laws may be the one thing that mayor's doing right.

Dude, did you not notice that San Francisco isn't a state? Tenth amendment does not apply. The mayor is defying federal law. He is aided and abetted by his congreswoman who keeps funneling the pork.

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 09:58 AM
You don't think that they want a better life? They don't have the same biological needs? There is nothing wrong with someone from another country that wants to improve their lot over here. However, it is not natural to transport whole sections of other countries and drop them down into the middle of this country. I consider such an initiative as an abomination.

Again, that's just a catchphrase, I'm in America and I still want my life to be better. I don't even get your angle. So you're saying anyone who says they want a better life we should just throw the doors open? At last estimate there were over 5billion people in the world living in poverty, 95% of the world has a lower standard of living than the average American - are we obligated to fix them all?

For now I would halt ALL immigration, the only exceptions I would make is if you were some scientist who had a cure for cancer or something along those lines, they would be checked for disease, they would understand they are coming here to be American, not to make America their country. Aside from that, there is not one logical argument to be made that America needs more people, certainly not more poor people who we will have to feed, house, provide schooling, healthcare, who have different views on human rights, and best of all will go vote to get ever more of those things, which it's proven most immigrants do.

AuH20
07-09-2015, 10:13 AM
Again, that's just a catchphrase, I'm in America and I still want my life to be better. I don't even get your angle. So you're saying anyone who says they want a better life we should just throw the doors open? At last estimate there were over 5billion people in the world living in poverty, 95% of the world has a lower standard of living than the average American - are we obligated to fix them all?

For now I would halt ALL immigration, the only exceptions I would make is if you were some scientist who had a cure for cancer or something along those lines, they would be checked for disease, they would understand they are coming here to be American, not to make America their country. Aside from that, there is not one logical argument to be made that America needs more people, certainly not more poor people who we will have to feed, house, provide schooling, healthcare, who have different views on human rights, and best of all will go vote to get ever more of those things, which it's proven most immigrants do.

A catchphrase? They don't need food or water? They are incapable of thought? It's almost like you are insinuating that they aren't human.

Secondly, I never said open the door open for everyone. We have strict immigration quotas for that reason. I personally think we need a 5 year moratorium so as to fix the current system.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 10:20 AM
Who said I'm going to put a gun to your head?

That's the whole issue here. Without that, we have freedom, which is the very thing you're arguing against.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 10:20 AM
Dude, did you not notice that San Francisco isn't a state? Tenth amendment does not apply.

Have you ever read the 10th amendment? Go back and read it again.

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 10:24 AM
A catchphrase? They don't need food or water? They are incapable of thought? It's almost like you are insinuating that they aren't human.

Secondly, I never said open the door open for everyone. We have strict immigration quotas for that reason. I personally think we need a 5 year moratorium so as fix the current system.

That's a typical left wing play on emotion, sure, we can always go find some starving kid, or grandma getting kicked out of her home and then Presto! We have SS, Medicare, HUD housing, Food Stamps, Public Schools on an on. Like I said, there are over 5 billion people in the world living in poverty, unless you are suggesting you have some plan to handle them all not only are you a hypocrite, but you are just using a cheap dirty tactic to try and paint anti-immigration advocates as cruel and unfeeling.

If you say you're not for open borders....then what are you saying? Fix the system how? You say you won't let everyone in, so what about those you turn away? Aren't they people? Don't they have feelings, dreams, don't they get hungry and thirsty? I can't save the world, I do what I can in my little corner of it and that's all any of us can do.

NIU Students for Liberty
07-09-2015, 10:25 AM
Pretty pathetic that erowe is the only one here actually supporting property rights and the free market.

If Rand is doing this because he feels he has to catch up to Trump, he's already losing politically.

NIU Students for Liberty
07-09-2015, 10:26 AM
Double post

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 10:28 AM
That's the whole issue here. Without that, we have freedom, which is the very thing you're arguing against.

No I'm not, and you haven't presented one logical argument to back up that claim, oh, you keep saying it, that's for sure, and like I say, you'd be a great media stooge, just keep repeating something long enough and sooner or later it becomes fact.


Pretty pathetic that erowe is the only one here actually supporting property rights and the free market.

If Rand is doing this because he feels he has to catch up to Trump, he's already losing politically.

Oh sure, because illegal aliens are notorious for their great respect of property and free markets. Pretty pathetic that you actually think that flimsy statement has any merit.

AuH20
07-09-2015, 10:37 AM
That's a typical left wing play on emotion, sure, we can always go find some starving kid, or grandma getting kicked out of her home and then Presto! We have SS, Medicare, HUD housing, Food Stamps, Public Schools on an on. Like I said, there are over 5 billion people in the world living in poverty, unless you are suggesting you have some plan to handle them all not only are you a hypocrite, but you are just using a cheap dirty tactic to try and paint anti-immigration advocates as cruel and unfeeling.

If you say you're not for open borders....then what are you saying? Fix the system how? You say you won't let everyone in, so what about those you turn away? Aren't they people? Don't they have feelings, dreams, don't they get hungry and thirsty? I can't save the world, I do what I can in my little corner of it and that's all any of us can do.

A 5 year moratorium of drastically reduced immigration (below 250k). I already stated it. We had a moratorium from 1924 to 1965.

NIU Students for Liberty
07-09-2015, 10:39 AM
Oh sure, because illegal aliens are notorious for their great respect of property and free markets. Pretty pathetic that you actually think that flimsy statement has any merit.

How do you propose you deal with the "illegal" immigration "problem?" If your protectionist solution is to have the government intervene on your behalf, it ain't gonna be free. You're no more of a socialist than the immigrants you claim will vote Democrat.

jj-
07-09-2015, 10:41 AM
Pretty pathetic that erowe is the only one here actually supporting property rights and the free market.

Public roads are not private. If they were private, my house would've been close to roads were no criminal immigrants were allowed, so open borders is a violation of my property rights.

You can decide on your own property to allow criminal immigrants, but not on the road that I use.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 10:42 AM
Public roads are not private. If they were private, my house would've been close to roads were no criminal immigrants were allowed, so open borders is a violation of my property rights.

You can decide on your own property to allow criminal immigrants, but not on the road that I use.

You are welcome to have a private road and keep anyone off of it that you want. The problem is, you refuse to afford me that same right.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 10:45 AM
No I'm not, and you haven't presented one logical argument

Yes you are. You don't even have the mental capacity to recognize a logical argument. Every point you try to make here is completely incoherent and you can't even see it. You would benefit from refraining to make such a fool of yourself by uttering such nonsense and instead spending some time here just listening and asking questions of those who have better understandings of these matters than you do.

Take your silly remark about how you won't hold a gun to my head but only to the heads of illegal immigrants. Stop for a moment and think through how moronic that is. There are lots of reasons. Some of them will hit you eventually.

jj-
07-09-2015, 10:45 AM
You are welcome to have a private road and keep anyone off of it that you want. The problem is, you refuse to afford me that same right.

No, I want to allow you to have the same right. I want to privatize all roads. In the meantime, we should stop pretending that there is a property rights argument to allow immigrants to use roads they don't own or paid for, while taxpayers who actually paid for the road oppose allowing them to use them.

AuH20
07-09-2015, 10:46 AM
No, I want to allow you to have the same right. I want to privatize all roads. In the meantime, we should stop pretending that there is a property rights argument to allow immigrants to use roads they don't own or paid for, while taxpayers who actually paid for the road oppose allowing them to use them.

You are citing Hoppe's rationale.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 10:48 AM
No, I want to allow you to have the same right.

Good. Then you don't agree with Rand. Because he obviously doesn't. Welcome to the club.

AuH20
07-09-2015, 10:52 AM
Pretty pathetic that erowe is the only one here actually supporting property rights and the free market.

If Rand is doing this because he feels he has to catch up to Trump, he's already losing politically.

Immigration is completely incompatible with the concept of free trade. When two parties enter into a trade agreement, the receiver agrees upon the conditions to accept a particular product from the seller. At no time whatsoever has the property owners ever been consulted, on whether Immigrant X is essentially entitled to the fruits of their labor, which may entail healthcare or education.

erowe1
07-09-2015, 10:57 AM
Immigration is completely incompatible with the concept of free trade. When two parties enter into a trade agreement, the receiver agrees upon the conditions to accept a particular product from the seller. At no time whatsoever has the property owners ever been consulted, on whether Immigrant X is essentially entitled to the fruits of their labor, which may entail healthcare or education.

I make an agreement with person X where they will perform work for me on my property in exchange for whatever we agree on. Person X lacks the government issued papers that you require in order for them not to have the status of "illegal immigrant."

What do you propose to stop me from doing this?

jaymur
07-09-2015, 10:58 AM
I'm not sure private road vs public road is really the issue. Is this another case of the federal government owning too much of the land?

euphemia
07-09-2015, 11:00 AM
Pretty pathetic that erowe is the only one here actually supporting property rights and the free market.

I guess Kathryn Steinle thought her body was her private property. Too bad an illegal trespassed with a bullet.

AuH20
07-09-2015, 11:01 AM
I make an agreement with person X where they will perform work for me on my property in exchange for whatever we agree on. Person X lacks the government issued papers that you require in order for them not to have the status of "illegal immigrant."

What do you propose to stop me from doing this?

Nothing as long as that immigrant hasn't partaken in theft of the local area. An immigrant that wishes to be left alone and not be a ward of the state is of no concern to me. Those who aid and abet theft aren't among my favorites.

jj-
07-09-2015, 11:05 AM
I make an agreement with person X where they will perform work for me on my property in exchange for whatever we agree on. Person X lacks the government issued papers that you require in order for them not to have the status of "illegal immigrant."

What do you propose to stop me from doing this?

If they don't use any roads I paid for to get to your house, I don't have any objection to that.

NIU Students for Liberty
07-09-2015, 11:06 AM
I guess Kathryn Steinle thought her body was her private property. Too bad an illegal trespassed with a bullet.

Really, that's your argument?

http://i.imgur.com/l9lffwf.gif

If you're going to use crime as your defense of protectionist policies, you might as well support building a wall around Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc.

P3ter_Griffin
07-09-2015, 11:09 AM
You come across through someone's land? Trespassing. If you want to cross legally, you come across at the border crossing.

I am fine with this, although I could almost guarantee you there wouldn't be a designated border crossing area as I think you are imagining. It might be worth realizing that if this is your idea on how to keep 'them' out, that there are many liberty lovers and other proponents of open borders that will acquire land so to facilitate the free movement of people. At even just $1 a head, you can see there is plenty of profit motive for an individual who takes neither side to do so.

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 01:12 PM
How do you propose you deal with the "illegal" immigration "problem?" If your protectionist solution is to have the government intervene on your behalf, it ain't gonna be free. You're no more of a socialist than the immigrants you claim will vote Democrat.

Here we go with that nonsense, well, first I will say I am definitely a protectionist and proudly say so. As for it "being free" whoever said that? I don't mind paying the govt when it's actually fulfilling one of it's functions, most people don't.

We are already spending billions on border enforcement but it's all just a show, it goes to pensions, perks, etc. Next to nothing is being done about actually enforcing the law. Seems America did a pretty good job of it prior to the 1960's so claiming it can't be done is just false.


Yes you are. You don't even have the mental capacity to recognize a logical argument. Every point you try to make here is completely incoherent and you can't even see it. You would benefit from refraining to make such a fool of yourself by uttering such nonsense and instead spending some time here just listening and asking questions of those who have better understandings of these matters than you do.

Take your silly remark about how you won't hold a gun to my head but only to the heads of illegal immigrants. Stop for a moment and think through how moronic that is. There are lots of reasons. Some of them will hit you eventually.

Sure, and how many posts have made now and you've not said one single thing, it's all fluff just like this one. Get back to me when you've actually got some factual data to back up your fairytale ideas or when you're ready to at least make an attempt to refute something I said.


I guess Kathryn Steinle thought her body was her private property. Too bad an illegal trespassed with a bullet.

Hey it's not them or anyone they know, so who cares? Quite being a statist man!


Really, that's your argument? If you're going to use crime as your defense of protectionist policies, you might as well support building a wall around Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc.

That's your argument? Yeah, we have a pretty bad crime problem in America (oh, and do tell what is usually the ethnicity of those high crime areas) so we should import more? You seriously don't see how insane it is to import other countries criminals?

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 01:14 PM
Duplicate sorry

euphemia
07-09-2015, 02:57 PM
If you're going to use crime as your defense of protectionist policies, you might as well support building a wall around Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc.

I'm for secure borders. People who are not citizens are not entitled to the rights of citizens, and I think a woman should be able to walk outside without being murdered by someone who is here illegally.

The rights of citizens are guaranteed under the Constitution. Kathryn Steinle's right to life and right to be secure in her person were taken away because the US government failed to do its job. The problem exists well before people make it all the way to San Francisco. It starts at the border.

Occam's Banana
07-09-2015, 05:49 PM
I think the mom of a kid killed by illegal immigrants would view it as a positive thing for obvious reasons.


And the mom of a kid whose life was saved by an illegal immigrant might view it as a negative thing for obvious reasons.

In either case, so what?


Oh please, which happens more often? Do tell, how many illegal aliens live in your home? Do you volunteer to cough up the dough to send their kids to school? Pay their medical bills? Pay for the courts, jails, etc when they do commit crimes - which they do at far higher rates than legal citizens? We all the know answer, you're Mr Generous with other people's stuff of course, just like a left winger.

What the fuck are you yapping about? And how the hell did you manage to pull so many straw men out of your ass?

I did nothing but juxtapose jj's emotionalistic hypothetical ("mom of dead kid") with an equally emotionalistic hypothetical ("mom of saved kid") for the purpose of illustrating the invalidity of deriving policy positions on the basis of emotionalistic hypotheticals.

My rejection of BOTH of them (when I said "in either case, so what?") ought to have been obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

And your response to that very simple point is a cartoonishly ridiculous interrogation about illegals living in my home and my alleged generosity with other peoples' stuff?

:rolleyes:

Go bray at someone else, you presumptuous jackass.

HankRicther12
07-09-2015, 08:21 PM
What the fuck are you yapping about? And how the hell did you manage to pull so many straw men out of your ass?

I did nothing but juxtapose jj's emotionalistic hypothetical ("mom of dead kid") with an equally emotionalistic hypothetical ("mom of saved kid") for the purpose of illustrating the invalidity of deriving policy positions on the basis of emotionalistic hypotheticals.

My rejection of BOTH of them (when I said "in either case, so what?") ought to have been obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

And your response to that very simple point is a cartoonishly ridiculous interrogation about illegals living in my home and my alleged generosity with other peoples' stuff?

:rolleyes:

Go bray at someone else, you presumptuous jackass.

There's nothing irrelevant about it, illegals commit crimes at a higher rate than citizens, so WTF are you even talking about saying you reject both? You are honestly going to tell me that criminal potential of illegals or possible immigrants is not relevant to a discussion on immigration?

Occam's Banana
07-09-2015, 11:09 PM
There's nothing irrelevant about it, illegals commit crimes at a higher rate than citizens, so WTF are you even talking about saying you reject both?

jj's post (and my reply to it) had nothing whatsoever to do with statistics regarding who does what at whatever rates. Had he invoked any such evidence, I would likely not have demurred. But he did not do so. Instead, he invoked a single-point, emotion-based hypothetical ("mom of dead kid"). I did nothing other than point out that a mirror image of that single-point, emotion-based hypothetical ("mom of saved kid") could just as easily (and just as invalidly) be used from the opposite direction. (You then used that as an excuse to gibber at me with your fatuous "Mr. Generous-who-wants-to-give-other-peoples'-stuff-away-we-all-know-you-do" spew.)

Emotionally provocative hypotheticals have no place in rational discourse - especially not those of the much-abused "it's for the children" variety (regardless of whether they involve "dead" kids or "saved" kids). THAT is what I am "talking about saying I reject both" - as anyone who can read and understand plain English ought to have been able to figure out on his own, without needing to have it spelled out for him (assuming, of course, that he does not have his head planted so far up his own ass that he can't smell anything but the shit he tries to shove into other peoples' mouths).


You are honestly going to tell me that criminal potential of illegals or possible immigrants is not relevant to a discussion on immigration?

What part of "go bray at someone else, you presumptuous jackass" did you not understand?

Nevermind. Let me rephrase with words of two syllables or less:

Instead of telling me what I am "going to tell" you (so that you may then joust at your own staw men), go argue with someone who is willing to play your verbal version of "2 girls 1 cup" with you. I am not such a someone.

nikcers
07-10-2015, 02:26 AM
This is general election poison, this is what the left wants. We need to hit back hard dt is unelectable and the polls show it, rp is the only person with a chance at winning. dt is a this years mitt romney and his comments have shown that he only represents 47% of americans we need to unite the country we need a leader that will push for real tax reform, criminal justice reform. securing the borders doesnt matter if our country goes bankrupt, dt is the bankruptcy king.

RonPaulMall
07-10-2015, 08:23 AM
This is general election poison, this is what the left wants. We need to hit back hard dt is unelectable and the polls show it, rp is the only person with a chance at winning. dt is a this years mitt romney and his comments have shown that he only represents 47% of americans we need to unite the country we need a leader that will push for real tax reform, criminal justice reform. securing the borders doesnt matter if our country goes bankrupt, dt is the bankruptcy king.

Nonsense. This is probably the most unifying political issue in America. Republicans and Independents are massively in favor of controlling immigration and even among Democrats there is majority support. The only people opposed to it are the corporate and political elites. This is why Trump has exploded. Even a widely despised, egotistical jerk can vault to the top of the polls if champions the people over the elites. The elites of both parties just want Trump to shut up because they know the only way they can maintain the highly unpopular policy of mass Third World migration is to prevent anyone from talking about it.

EBounding
07-10-2015, 09:06 AM
Philosophically, I have no problem with people trading labor across borders. We "freely" trade capital across borders, so I don't see why labor should be any different. Where it gets hairy is when the those workers take advantage of "public benefits" (public schools, hospitals, welfare) that are meant for citizens & documented immigrants.

But I can tell you one thing--the Republican base is fanatical about illegal immigration and they feel like they've been ignored forever on the issue.

I was talking to my parents the other day about this and my mother was saying that we can build a wall or a fence. Afertall they were able to do it in Germany. :eek: My dad mentioned claymore mines and I'm pretty sure they were serious. They liked what Rand was saying about this as well as Trump. So this is the political environment Rand is in.

AuH20
07-10-2015, 09:09 AM
Philosophically, I have no problem with people trading labor across borders. We "freely" trade capital across borders, so I don't see why labor should be any different. Where it gets hairy is when the those workers take advantage of "public benefits" (public schools, hospitals, welfare) that are meant for citizens & documented immigrants.

But I can tell you one thing--the Republican base is fanatical about illegal immigration and they feel like they've been ignored forever on the issue.

I was talking to my parents the other day about this and my mother was saying that we can build a wall or a fence. Afertall they were able to do it in Germany. :eek: My dad mentioned claymore mines and I'm pretty sure they were serious. They liked what Rand was saying about this as well as Trump. So this is the political environment Rand is in.

The closest physical manifestation of the ongoing NWO takeover are these illegal aliens that you see everyday. So logically, this would be the element that would draw the most ire of your typical Republican voter who doesn't completely see the entire landscape. Illegal aliens are part of the takeover as it is multi-spectrum in design.

EBounding
07-10-2015, 09:25 AM
Is Rand's position on immigration really all that different than Ron's?

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

AuH20
07-10-2015, 11:41 AM
Here we go. No wonder Hillary is avoiding this issue like the plague.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-americans-2-1-want-sanctuary-cities-punished-defunded/article/2568013?custom_click=rss


By a huge two-to-one margin, Americans want so-called "sanctuary cities" where illegal immigrants, even convicted felons, can avoid federal immigration laws and deportation, punished and their federal funding shut off, according to a new poll.

Rasmussen Reports found that 62 percent of likely voters believe that the Justice Department should take legal action against cities that flaunt federal laws.

And it found that 58 percent believe that Washington should cut off federal funds sent to those cities.

Badger Paul
07-11-2015, 12:13 AM
"They’re ought to be a revolution of folks saying, ‘We want you to obey the law,’

Really? Okay Christian baker, you heard what Rand said, obey the law and bake the cake for the SSM couple or go to jail.

nikcers
07-11-2015, 12:48 AM
"They’re ought to be a revolution of folks saying, ‘We want you to obey the law,’

Really? Okay Christian baker, you heard what Rand said, obey the law and bake the cake for the SSM couple or go to jail.

Oh sky cake why are you so delicious...

http://new4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Oh+sky+cake+why+are+you+so+delicious+_824d54fbc189 d72795a5865510983408.jpg

erowe1
07-11-2015, 09:20 AM
You are honestly going to tell me that criminal potential of illegals or possible immigrants is not relevant to a discussion on immigration?

Criminal potential? You mean the ability to commit a crime in the future that they haven't yet committed?

We all have the exact same criminal potential. And none of us is guilty of a crime until we commit it. "Minority Report" is not something we want to have here. So, no, it's not relevant.

erowe1
07-11-2015, 09:21 AM
Is Rand's position on immigration really all that different than Ron's?

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

I don't know about in general. But on the topic of this thread, yes.

erowe1
07-11-2015, 09:21 AM
"They’re ought to be a revolution of folks saying, ‘We want you to obey the law,’

Really? Okay Christian baker, you heard what Rand said, obey the law and bake the cake for the SSM couple or go to jail.

+rep

Badger Paul
07-11-2015, 09:34 AM
Thanks erowe!

We can play these nullification games all day and it splits both sides. Jury nullification anyone? How is that different from "sanctuary cities"?

Here's what you need to know about immigration: For every Joe Arpaio, there's hundreds of sheriffs out there who look the other way. Not that they wouldn't deport someone here illegally who committed a crime but lets just say they know or have a reasonable suspicion certain individuals working at that fellows farm over here or that food processing plant over there, might not have all their papers in order if have any to begin with. Bu because such growers or businesses are politically influential or powerful or would move if harassed by law enforcement, they look the other way. Hear no evil, see no evil. They don't feel it necessary to do the ICE's job. So there you go, just like a "sanctuary city" isn't it?

That's why immigration is a local issue, because people deal with it locally on an ad-hoc basis and happens to them as result, is their choice for better or worse. But, just remember, that killer in San Francisco managed to get across the border FIVE TIMES! Do you still think the Maginot Line approach is still working?

RonPaulMall
07-11-2015, 09:39 AM
Is Rand's position on immigration really all that different than Ron's?

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

Unfortunately, yes. Ron Paul was against birthright citizenship and was an adherent to Hans-Hermann Hoppe's immigration views. Rand's stand against sanctuary cities is the first real hawkish position he's taken on immigration since he entered the Presidential Race. Up until now, Rand's immigration positions have been closer to Ted Cruz than to his father.

erowe1
07-11-2015, 09:44 AM
Thanks erowe!

We can play these nullification games all day and it splits both sides. Jury nullification anyone? How is that different from "sanctuary cities"?

Here's what you need to know about immigration: For every Joe Arpaio, there's hundreds of sheriffs out there who look the other way. Not that they wouldn't deport someone here illegally who committed a crime but lets just say they know or have a reasonable suspicion certain individuals working at that fellows farm over here or that food processing plant over there, might not have all their papers in order if have any to begin with. Bu because such growers or businesses are politically influential or powerful or would move if harassed by law enforcement, they look the other way. Hear no evil, see no evil. They don't feel it necessary to do the ICE's job. So there you go, just like a "sanctuary city" isn't it?

That's why immigration is a local issue, because people deal with it locally on an ad-hoc basis and happens to them as result, is their choice for better or worse.

What are you getting at? Are you saying that you think these sheriffs who "have a reasonable suspicion certain individuals working at that fellows farm over here or that food processing plant over there, might not have all their papers in order" should be forced by the federal government to do something about it?

Not only should those sheriffs look the other way, but so should the feds. It's none of their business whom I hire to work for me. I shouldn't need their permission to hire anyone I want regardless of where they were born or what papers they have.

This notion that we're all supposed to have some official government papers or else they can kick us out of the country is antithetical to everything this site is about. How can anybody on this website support that?

If you really believe that immigration is a local issue, as you say, then you should be for the right of each individual city to enact its own policies, rather than letting the federal government dictate those policies to them.


But, just remember, that killer in San Francisco managed to get across the border FIVE TIMES! Do you still think the Maginot Line approach is still working?

What Maginot line approach?

Badger Paul
07-11-2015, 09:28 PM
"What are you getting at? Are you saying that you think these sheriffs who "have a reasonable suspicion certain individuals working at that fellows farm over here or that food processing plant over there, might not have all their papers in order" should be forced by the federal government to do something about it?"

No, not at all. What I am doing simply stating the facts on the ground, what really happens in a lot of communities big and small across the country. That's why I say it is a local issue, because not every community reacts the same to immigration, so why would we expect to have a national policy?

As for the "Maginot Line" what I'm saying is the approach of thinking a wall is going to stop people from trying to get into the country is about a realistic as the French thinking the Maginot Line would protect them during World War II. Didn't quite work out, did it?

nikcers
07-11-2015, 11:12 PM
My coworker got killed in a motorcycle accident this year, but the papers only reported that the driver was "unlicensed", her kid in the car was not wearing a seat belt and was hurt pretty bad too. He will surely be missed in my office, but I can't know how his family must feel. Some of my coworkers have assured me the driver was deported, its not like that makes anything better. To me the fact that they didn't report it makes me wonder if this kind of thing doesn't happen more often, some people in my office dispute their claims as racism. I do know it wasn't fair for him to die like that, I just keep picturing that kid lying dead on the asphalt.

David Sadler
07-12-2015, 09:53 AM
Rand needs to immediately go comprehensive and introduce legislation to resend the anchor baby loophole, catch and release and federal benefits for illegals. He then needs to make this part of his stump speech.

Warlord
07-12-2015, 11:23 AM
Rand needs to immediately go comprehensive and introduce legislation to resend the anchor baby loophole, catch and release and federal benefits for illegals. He then needs to make this part of his stump speech.

Rand will do what he wants to do without your input

alucard13mm
07-12-2015, 01:40 PM
Lets be real here. The majority of illegsl immigrants will vote democrat once they become citizens. Why? Because they have uncle jose, auntie maria, cousin jesus, second cousin cholo and etc that want to come in too. Even if gop appeases this democgraphic, the majority will be democrats.

Rand has the right idea to go for the black block. He should also go for the asian blocks as well. The hispanic block is a lose lose situation.

David Sadler
07-12-2015, 01:44 PM
Rand will do what he wants to do without your input

And without yours. So what's your point? It isn't like we are advising him. We are expressing our opinions. But our money will go to those expressing our principles and policies. So our opinions should be tallied and considered by the campaign.

AuH20
07-12-2015, 02:18 PM
Lets be real here. The majority of illegsl immigrants will vote democrat once they become citizens. Why? Because they have uncle jose, auntie maria, cousin jesus, second cousin cholo and etc that want to come in too. Even if gop appeases this democgraphic, the majority will be democrats.

Rand has the right idea to go for the black block. He should also go for the asian blocks as well. The hispanic block is a lose lose situation.
It's not only that. They are treated like royalty over there like they are above the law. It's pretty sickening how we treat Haitians but slobber over Latinos. There are definitely different castes of illegal aliens.

erowe1
07-12-2015, 04:38 PM
As for the "Maginot Line" what I'm saying is the approach of thinking a wall is going to stop people from trying to get into the country is about a realistic as the French thinking the Maginot Line would protect them during World War II. Didn't quite work out, did it?

It seemed like you were saying that that was the approach the US was currently taking.

r3volution 3.0
07-12-2015, 11:16 PM
Whatever one's opinion of the actual issues at stake in the immigration debate, this is good politics.

Why do you think that?

Because the media has whipped the Know Nothings into a xenophobic frenzy and it behooves Rand to avoid becoming a target.


Have you not paid any attention to every single Republican presidential nomination in the recent past?

If you mean that nativist rhetoric doesn't play, it's a matter of degree.

Talk of deportation gets you a single digit ceiling.

Talk of deporting illegal aliens who've committed crimes is mainstream, and - in this poisonous climate - gets you a standing ovation.


Countless citizens are murdered, raped, assaulted, and robbed by illegals every year

And those criminals should be punished, just as any citizen would be.

...that's is no argument for deporting the non-criminal remainder (read: overwhelming majority).


they trespass, they set fires in parks, pollute fields and streams

...in the course of sneaking into the country through rural areas, yes.

Obviously, if they could just drive in through Tijuana, that problem would vanish.


they abuse hospitals, schools, welfare programs

...which is a problem with the welfare state, not immigration per se.



No, I want to allow you to have the same right. I want to privatize all roads. In the meantime, we should stop pretending that there is a property rights argument to allow immigrants to use roads they don't own or paid for, while taxpayers who actually paid for the road oppose allowing them to use them.You are citing Hoppe's rationale.

...which was demolished here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478158-Free-Immigration-Is-Forced-Integration&p=5919155&viewfull=1#post5919155) and here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478212-Open-Borders&p=5919810&viewfull=1#post5919810).


Immigration is completely incompatible with the concept of free trade. When two parties enter into a trade agreement, the receiver agrees upon the conditions to accept a particular product from the seller. At no time whatsoever has the property owners ever been consulted, on whether Immigrant X is essentially entitled to the fruits of their labor, which may entail healthcare or education.

...which is yet another argument against the welfare-state, not immigration itself.


I guess Kathryn Steinle thought her body was her private property. Too bad an illegal trespassed with a bullet.

Her killer should be executed, like any other murderer.

What does this have to do with the millions of immigrants who didn't murder her, or anyone else?


Nothing as long as that immigrant hasn't partaken in theft of the local area. An immigrant that wishes to be left alone and not be a ward of the state is of no concern to me. Those who aid and abet theft aren't among my favorites.

Then most of them should be of no concern to you. Your fellow Americans should be much more concerning.


Unfortunately, yes. Ron Paul was against birthright citizenship and was an adherent to Hans-Hermann Hoppe's immigration views. Rand's stand against sanctuary cities is the first real hawkish position he's taken on immigration since he entered the Presidential Race. Up until now, Rand's immigration positions have been closer to Ted Cruz than to his father.

This a change in tone but not in substance.

Rand's never advocated free immigration, he has a modestly less hawkish position than the norm in the GOP.

I don't recall him ever mentioning the topic, but I presume he's always been in favor of deporting criminal aliens (virtually everyone is).


Lets be real here. The majority of illegsl immigrants will vote democrat once they become citizens. Why? Because they have uncle jose, auntie maria, cousin jesus, second cousin cholo and etc that want to come in too.

Bingo. Why do they vote Dems? Because the GOP constantly attacks them. Pretty simple.

Brian4Liberty
07-13-2015, 06:12 PM
Good thing Rand jumped out on this early. Jeff Sessions has the most gravitas on this issue with almost everyone on the conservative, anti-establishment side. It's wise politically to involve him in these issues.

Unfortunately, the media is trying to give this one to Ted Cruz now...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478326-Ted-Cruz-targets-sanctuary-cities-after-California-murder

Warrior_of_Freedom
07-13-2015, 06:17 PM
the issue should be about the criminal illegal immigrant element, not people working for slave wages. No diff than persecuting jews in nazi germany. The mexicans aren't forcing the government to declare war on every country on planet earth.