Ann Coulter Leaves ‘The View’ Co-Host Tongue-Tied

[RandPaul4Prez]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-T_QVY1Jo4


Ann Coulter Leaves ‘The View’ Co-Host Tongue-Tied With Quick Counterpunch to Attack During Seriously Tense On-Air Clash


Ann Coulter surely knew she was entering hostile territory when she agreed to appear on “The View” as a guest, but she’s never been afraid to take her critics head-on.
Predictably, she was confronted by a hostile panel of co-hosts on Friday when the topic turned to the divisive issue of illegal immigration. But one exchange in particular is likely set for viral status.
Co-host Raven-Symone, who came under fire last week when she admitted to being “very discriminatory” against people with exotic names (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/09/watch-how-quickly-the-view-turns-on-co-host-raven-symone-when-she-admits-to-being-discriminatory-in-this-way/), asked Coulter why she can’t keep her mouth shut if she “doesn’t have anything nice to say.”
Coulter quickly replied, “Well, I’m at least talking about policy. You have a position on what people’s names should be — Watermelandrea. You’ll insult people for their names.”
“I’m talking about a government policy that affects all Americans and immigrants and the people living here. And it’s harming our country,” Coulter continued, accusing the co-host of not following her own advice.
Seemingly tongue-tied and frustrated, Raven-Symone started to respond, but then dismayingly said “OK” and turned away from the discussion.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/16/ann-coulter-leaves-the-view-co-host-tongue-tied-with-quick-counterpunch-to-attack-during-seriously-tense-on-air-clash/

[Crashland]

As soon as you say we're importing many immigrants from "backwards cultures", almost everyone listening to you will have already made up their mind about what you are going to say next, whatever it is, one way or the other.

[LatinsforPaul]

I know Ann Coulter is not a racist, but she came off as one in that exchange. The latina women, at least one of them is a Republican, were fuming and had to bite their tongues.

[acptulsa]

I know Ann Coulter is not a racist, but she came off as one in that exchange. The latina women, at least one of them is a Republican, were fuming and had to bite their tongues.

What makes you think she's not a racist?

Everyone else in the world thinks she's a racist.

[erowe1]

That's a pretty leftist thing for Coulter to say. The reality is the exact opposite. Raven Symone shouldn't be demonized for her opinion about how she would choose to spend her own money. At least she's not demanding that the government enact it as public policy.

[Sola_Fide]

Ann Coulter was wrong, and no one on that panel was competent enough to tell her why.

[LatinsforPaul]

What makes you think she's not a racist?

Everyone else in the world thinks she's a racist.


You are right, I should have said I don't "think" she is a racist because I tend to give people that I do not know personally the benefit of the doubt.

[cajuncocoa]

What makes you think she's not a racist?

Everyone else in the world thinks she's a racist.*raises hand*

[Sola_Fide]

That's a pretty leftist thing for Coulter to say. The reality is the exact opposite. Raven Symone shouldn't be demonized for her opinion about how she would choose to spend her own money. At least she's not demanding that the government enact it as public policy.

Exactly.

[Crashland]

Why should Raven Symone not be demonized for her opinion on how she would choose to spend their own money? Everyone has the 1st amendment right to demonize her.

[RandPaul4Prez]

What I always find funny about the people that support illegal immigration is that they just think the US is just some kind of free for all and that immigration laws don't apply to them. They somehow just made up their own laws.

Did my ancestors immigrate here? yes but they did so legally.

But she is right about the settlers point of view.

I'm pro-immigration and I'm against illegal aliens. They cut in line in front of others who have put effort into moving here legally.

[Sola_Fide]

Why should Raven Symone not be demonized for her opinion on how she would choose to spend their own money? Everyone has the 1st amendment right to demonize her.

The point is that she's not (at least not here) calling for government-enforced discrimination. Ann Coulter was.

[Crashland]

The point is that she's not (at least not here) calling for government-enforced discrimination. Ann Coulter was.

Sorry, I think I am being dense here & not quite sure what you're saying. Are you saying Coulter's immigration policy proposal is government-enforced discrimination?

[RandPaul4Prez]

The point is that she's not (at least not here) calling for government-enforced discrimination. Ann Coulter was.

illegal knows no color.

[RJB]

The View gives me a headache. Literally. Listening to 3 or more people constantly talking at the same time as well as the endless and brainless applause of the audience is too much for me.

[Sola_Fide]

Are you saying Coulter's immigration policy proposal is government-enforced discrimination?

Yes, of course.

[acptulsa]

Seemingly tongue-tied and frustrated, Raven-Symone started to respond, but then dismayingly said “OK” and turned away from the discussion.

She was probably on the verge of saying something nasty about transgender people, then remembered she's supposed to be liberal.

That sort of thing happens to liberals a lot.

[Sola_Fide]

illegal knows no color.

I guess not. But a government declaring any free person "illegal" is contradictory to the principles of freedom.

Are people free?

[RJB]

Are people free?

A citizen should be. An invader shouldn't.

[Sola_Fide]

A citizen should be. An invader shouldn't.

Invading what? The free market?

[Crashland]

I guess not. But a government declaring any free person "illegal" is contradictory to the principles of freedom.

Are people free?

Illegal only refers to a law having been broken. If 'illegal' is contradictory to the principles of freedom, then laws are contradictory to the principles of freedom. which is, well, kind of true, but I'm not sure that's where you wanted to go with the train of thought.

[erowe1]

Why should Raven Symone not be demonized for her opinion on how she would choose to spend their own money? Everyone has the 1st amendment right to demonize her.

It's their First Amendment right to be wrong. Just like it's Ann Coulter's First Amendment right to be wrong. You have a right to believe something, but not a right for your wrong beliefs to be right.

[Sola_Fide]

Illegal only refers to a law having been broken. If 'illegal' is contradictory to the principles of freedom, then laws are contradictory to the principles of freedom. which is, well, kind of true, but I'm not sure that's where you wanted to go with the train of thought.

An arbitrary law like a government declaring a free person "illegal" is contradictory to freedom.

A law that is based on the moral law of God (don't murder people and don't steal because individuals own property and they own the property of their person) is consistent with freedom.

[erowe1]

Illegal only refers to a law having been broken.

Except when it comes to immigration, when all of a sudden we have a special situation where people themselves are "illegal," in the thinking of so many.

[Crashland]

It's their First Amendment right to be wrong. Just like it's Ann Coulter's First Amendment right to be wrong. You have a right to believe something, but not a right for your wrong beliefs to be right.

Indeed. Although if you're implying that it is a wrong belief that people should be criticized for how they decide to spend their own money, I'd disagree.

[Crashland]

An arbitrary law like a government declaring a free person "illegal" is contradictory to freedom.

A law that is based on the moral law of God (don't murder people and don't steal because individuals own property and they own the property of their person) is consistent with freedom.

Seems to be a problem with terminology then. I'd agree that a free person should not be defined as an "illegal" person because that is a contradiction in terms. But I wouldn't say that being illegal with respect to an immigration law is a contradiction. So we appear to have a disagreement over whether a law enforcing a border is a just law.

[Rudeman]

An arbitrary law like a government declaring a free person "illegal" is contradictory to freedom.

A law that is based on the moral law of God (don't murder people and don't steal because individuals own property and they own the property of their person) is consistent with freedom.

What if one person trespasses on another person's property?

[specsaregood]

The View gives me a headache. Literally. Listening to 3 or more people constantly talking at the same time as well as the endless and brainless applause of the audience is too much for me.

Skip to 1:40, that is when the exchange is. Agree/Disagree with Coulter, argue about immigration all you want; but she shut that Raven broad down. She won the exchange.

[Sola_Fide]

What if one person trespasses on another person's property?

That's a violation of property rights.

[erowe1]

Indeed. Although if you're implying that it is a wrong belief that people should be criticized for how they decide to spend their own money, I'd disagree.

I wouldn't say they never should. But I would definitely say that Coulter's taxonomy was completely backwards. It's the person expressing a private opinion about how they would spend their own money who is far less open to criticism than the one calling for government force to impose their opinion on others.

[erowe1]

What if one person trespasses on another person's property?

Great point. Because trespassing on my property is exactly what the state is doing when it prohibits me from hiring illegal immigrants.

[William R]

I guess not. But a government declaring any free person "illegal" is contradictory to the principles of freedom.

Are people free?

This is nation and we have laws. We have immigration laws. If you cross the border without our consent you are an illegal alien. Grow up and get in the real world kid.

[Sola_Fide]

This is nation and we have laws. We have immigration laws. If you cross the border without our consent you are an illegal alien. Grow up and get in the real world kid.

Kid? I am a man, and run a successful business at that.

We aren't talking about age here. We are talking about the concept that people are free, as opposed to your view that they are defined by their masters in government. You are on the wrong website.

[THX 1138]

How many people should be allowed to enter the U.S. in 2016?

[erowe1]

How many people should be allowed to enter the U.S. in 2016?

There shouldn't be a number.

[erowe1]

This is nation and we have laws. We have immigration laws. If you cross the border without our consent you are an illegal alien. Grow up and get in the real world kid.

You're saying that every law a government passes is good. You really believe that?

[Sola_Fide]

This is nation and we have laws. We have immigration laws. If you cross the border without our consent you are an illegal alien. Grow up and get in the real world kid.

Who is "our"?

[timosman]

There shouldn't be a number.

1 bilion is OK ?

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-C5aQT3KVo

[Batman]

*raises hand*

Well she is. But at least she's honest about the fact that it doesn't bother her. I wish more racists were like her.

[jmdrake]

Skip to 1:40, that is when the exchange is. Agree/Disagree with Coulter, argue about immigration all you want; but she shut that Raven broad down. She won the exchange.

I wish I had known that before watching the clip. I want my 4 minutes of my life back.

[Jamesiv1]

The View gives me a headache. Literally. Listening to 3 or more people constantly talking at the same time as well as the endless and brainless applause of the audience is too much for me.
right? lol

3 minutes is about all I can handle.

[LibertyEagle]

The point is that she's not (at least not here) calling for government-enforced discrimination. Ann Coulter was.

WTF are you talking about? Do you even know? If you are implying that our country doesn't or shouldn't have the right to choose who is allowed to immigrate here and who isn't, then you are a fool. If someone is going to be a financial drain, then hell no, they shouldn't be allowed in. Have you looked at the criteria to immigrate to other countries?

[AngryCanadian]

The View gives me a headache. Literally. Listening to 3 or more people constantly talking at the same time as well as the endless and brainless applause of the audience is too much for me.

U do know that the audience are paid to be there right? they have to give the applause if those members in the audience want the money..

[Rudeman]

That's a violation of property rights.

Well doesn't the US Government view US territory their property? That is more the issue isn't it?

[Rudeman]

Great point. Because trespassing on my property is exactly what the state is doing when it prohibits me from hiring illegal immigrants.

It'd be great if you actually owned your property, but it's only on lease to you via your friendly government. At any point they can determine you as a trespasser of their property.

[Spikender]

Grow up and get in the real world kid.

Man, I hate that kid stuff. I've seen teenagers talk down to adults and call them "kid". And most of the time the person who's saying it is a wack ass skinny white dude with a snapback on.

No, we don't have laws. We have codes. If we had laws they'd be based on the NAP and would have moral standing. A bedrock. 95% of the laws we have nowadays are backwards and an affront to liberty. So remember, next time you criticize any laws in our nation that you disagree with, I will respond back:

This is nation and we have laws. Grow up and get in the real world kid.

[timosman]

Skip to 1:40, that is when the exchange is. Agree/Disagree with Coulter, argue about immigration all you want; but she shut that Raven broad down. She won the exchange.

She did. They also never tried to discuss the issue her book is about and were using strawman arguments instead. I hate it when youtube comments make more sense than this forum posts. :eek:

[William R]

Kid? I am a man, and run a successful business at that.

We aren't talking about age here. We are talking about the concept that people are free, as opposed to your view that they are defined by their masters in government. You are on the wrong website.


Kid, people are not free to cross our border as they please. I'm sorry you're too dumb to recognize it. And your business can't be all that successful because it looks like you spend all your time at this forum.

[erowe1]

1 bilion is OK ?

Sure. The government shouldn't impose any limit on it, any more than they should impose limits on anything else. Allowing the laws of economics to work, not central managers, is the best way to allocate scarce goods.

A billion wouldn't even bee that many people for a land mass the size of the US.

[erowe1]

Kid, people are not free to cross our border as they please.

We all know that.

We're not free to buy non-pasteurized milk or short-barreled rifles. We're not free to offer our labor for below the minimum wage. We're not free to not buy government approved health insurance. We're not free not to fund the murder of kids in hospitals in the Middle East. We're not free.

That's a bad thing. The purpose of this website is to support public policy changes that will make us free.

Maybe that makes us dumb. But that's what we're about here.

[erowe1]

It'd be great if you actually owned your property, but it's only on lease to you via your friendly government. At any point they can determine you as a trespasser of their property.

I can go along that way of saying it, viewed from the regime's perspective. The point is, that's a bad thing.

[erowe1]

If you are implying that our country doesn't or shouldn't have the right to choose who is allowed to immigrate here and who isn't, then you are a fool.

We as a country are a whole bunch of individuals who don't all think the same thing. There is no way for us as a country to make decisions like that. One individual will choose one thing for themselves, and another will choose something else for themselves.

[Sola_Fide]

Kid, people are not free to cross our border as they please. I'm sorry you're too dumb to recognize it. And your business can't be all that successful because it looks like you spend all your time at this forum.

There's your name calling again. I'm a 38 year old businessman. I run a national award winning hotel in Indiana. I have the forums up in my office in the background while I do work.

So that's my life. I won't get in to your gutter level of debate and calling you "old" and "brain deficient" or anything like that. You just throw around assertions like they are just to be taken as true without any debate. "People aren't free to cross our border". Ok. Why not?

[Sola_Fide]

If you are implying that our country doesn't or shouldn't have the right to choose who is allowed to immigrate here and who isn't, then you are a fool.

Yeah, I'm implying that. I don't know what "we" is and "our country" is. Those terms are collectivistic.



Have you looked at the criteria to immigrate to other countries?

Yes, most other countries have national health care too, but who cares what other countries do? We are talking about the freedom of people here.

[angelatc]

Man, I hate that kid stuff. I've seen teenagers talk down to adults and call them "kid". And most of the time the person who's saying it is a wack ass skinny white dude with a snapback on.

Valid point, but then you immediately lose all credibility when you follow it up with:


No, we don't have laws.
We have codes. If we had laws they'd be based on the NAP and would have moral standing.

That's the pseudo intellectual stuff of juvenile dorm room philosophy debates. We have a system of rules codified by various legislative bodies and enforced by social institutions to govern behaviour. That is the very definition of law.

So son, once you realize that the debates between the way things are and the way things ought to be are two different discussions, you're welcome to come back and opine on the topic. Until then, let the grown ups talk.

[Ender]

Who is "our"?

Obviously the bunch of current illegal immigrants who stole the land from the previous immigrants. ;)

[timosman]

Obviously the bunch of current illegal immigrants who stole the land from the previous immigrants. ;)

Why stop there ? Why not go back all the way to amoebas ?

[libertyjam]

I guess not. But a government declaring any free person "illegal" is contradictory to the principles of freedom.

Are people free?


free from what?

[Ender]

Why stop there ? Why not go back all the way to amoebas ?

Oh NOES! Not the amoeba!

They'll live off of us, get all the freebies, and take over the world while the stupid Americans will be too dumb to notice!

OH NOES!!!

[Ronin Truth]

'The View' folks tend to be none too bright. Definitely much dimmer and duller than Coulter.

[liveandletlive]

'The View' folks tend to be none too bright. Definitely much dimmer and duller than Coulter.

agree...cant believe im applauding Anne Coulter for something.

[Peace&Freedom]

'The View' folks tend to be none too bright. Definitely much dimmer and duller than Coulter.

Indeed, and despite being over-abrasive, she may be brighter than many of the posters on this thread, who are running the PC playbook by starting their comments by calling one side "racist." As for the "illegal" matter, the term applies to the status of the people who have ignored the lawful process for obtaining citizenship. They are "illegal immigrants" with respect to that status and process, not to their nature as persons. The government is not preventing them from complying with the legal process for becoming naturalized, thus there is no "government discrimination" going on, or any other loaded negative spin term the open borders side wants to use.

[Mr Tansill]

Indeed, and despite being over-abrasive, she may be brighter than many of the posters on this thread, who are running the PC playbook by starting their comments by calling one side "racist." As for the "illegal" matter, the term applies to the status of the people who have ignored the lawful process for obtaining citizenship. They are "illegal immigrants" with respect to that status and process, not to their nature as persons. The government is not preventing them from complying with the legal process for becoming naturalized, thus there is no "government discrimination" going on, or any other loaded negative spin term the open borders side wants to use.

Hey, plus rep (+) for calling out the abuse of language that I've seen on the rise on this site. It is critically important that we speak using the same terms if we are ever able to get past the emotional reasoning that BOTH sides seem to resort to. Thanks.

[Sola_Fide]

They are "illegal immigrants" with respect to that status and process, not to their nature as persons. The government is not preventing them from complying with the legal process for becoming naturalized, thus there is no "government discrimination" going on, or any other loaded negative spin term the open borders side wants to use.

Should the government interfere with the market or the freedom of a person to immigrate?

[Peace&Freedom]

Should the government interfere with the market or the freedom of a person to immigrate?

Where is the government interfering? How do we know, in a free market, that a person is in fact migrating, or transferring their allegiance to a different nation, unless they in fact change their allegiance? The native people give their consent and acknowledgement to that change of status through their government's naturalization process. If a person does not engage in that process, the government is not guilty of "interfering" with them, nor obliged to acknowledge they have legally migrated.

[Ronin Truth]

Indeed, and despite being over-abrasive, she may be brighter than many of the posters on this thread, who are running the PC playbook by starting their comments by calling one side "racist." As for the "illegal" matter, the term applies to the status of the people who have ignored the lawful process for obtaining citizenship. They are "illegal immigrants" with respect to that status and process, not to their nature as persons. The government is not preventing them from complying with the legal process for becoming naturalized, thus there is no "government discrimination" going on, or any other loaded negative spin term the open borders side wants to use.

Or 'criminal aliens' as some of us really prefer to correctly call them.

[The Free Hornet]

Did my ancestors immigrate here? yes but they did so legally.

What documents do you have to support that assertion? What's an ancestor in this context anyway? Did they have permission from both governing authorities? One to leave and one to arrive? How far back in your family tree can you demonstrate the legal activity of your ancestors? It's a remarkable claim especially since most people who aren't inbred would consider their ancestors as having 4, 8, 16 or 32 background stories. How many stories of legal immigration can you tell us?

Sure I've read about parents or grandparents that immigrated "legally" (lol), but ancestors??? If they were all legally purchased African slaves and legally brought here, then I might believe it. The rest of us - ancestors included - don't always wait for permission to do stuff. You must come from a long, proud line of "mother may I" types.

And for the dumbfucks without a clue - half the posters typically - disdain with your perspective doesn't mean "open borders".

[erowe1]

As for the "illegal" matter, the term applies to the status of the people who have ignored the lawful process for obtaining citizenship. They are "illegal immigrants" with respect to that status and process, not to their nature as persons.

That explanation doesn't work when people shorten it to just calling them "illegals."

And when else do you refer to people that way? If I ran a red-light, do I spend the rest of my life with the status of "illegal red light passer"? And if so, would you also abbreviate that to just calling me an illegal?

[Ronin Truth]

That explanation doesn't work when people shorten it to just calling them "illegals."

And when else do you refer to people that way? If I ran a red-light, do I spend the rest of my life with the status of "illegal red light passer"? And if so, would you also abbreviate that to just calling me an illegal?

How about if you were just continued to be called a sinner? Does that cover it?

[erowe1]

How about if you were just continued to be called a sinner? Does that cover it?

No, since illegal immigration isn't a sin.

[specsaregood]

I liked how she answered YES that she was a native American since her ancestors were settlers.

[erowe1]

How do we know, in a free market, that a person is in fact migrating, or transferring their allegiance to a different nation, unless they in fact change their allegiance?

Someone's changing of allegiance isn't a something we can ever know anyway. Besides, giving one's allegiance to the regime in DC is not a point in one's favor.


The native people give their consent and acknowledgement to that change of status through their government's naturalization process.

This assumes that the government acts on behalf of the native people. But it doesn't. The native people have no greater enemy in all the world than the regime that subjugates them.

[Peace&Freedom]

Someone's changing of allegiance isn't a something we can ever know anyway. Besides, giving one's allegiance to the regime in DC is not a point in one's favor.

Following the existing process at least reasonably documents the migrant IS migrating, from one nation to another, in a manner that permits the new country to consent to the action. If that change is not something we can know, then their citizen status likewise is something that can't be known. Sauce for the goose.


This assumes that the government acts on behalf of the native people. But it doesn't. The native people have no greater enemy in all the world than the regime that subjugates them.

As they say in court (at least on Perry Mason) that is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, as it assumes no civil government is legitimate, as delegated by the people to act on their behalf. That is part of a minarchist-anarchist debate that is not the subject here, as it overlays an anarchist presumption over the issue. It also distracts from the point that it is the individual responsibility of the migrant to reasonably evidence they are migrating, not the obligation of the receiving nation to accept them whether they evidence it or not.

[erowe1]

Following the existing process at least reasonably documents the migrant IS migrating, from one nation to another, in a manner that permits the new country to consent to the action. If that change is not something we can know, then their citizen status likewise is something that can't be known. Sauce for the goose.

Illegal immigration is an existing process. What you really mean when you say "existing process" is the process preferred by the regime. Sure, this permits the regime to consent. But this does not equate to the consent of the country itself. Nor does the regime's rejection of an immigrant equate to the country's rejection of them.




As they say in court (at least on Perry Mason) that is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, as it assumes no civil government is legitimate, as delegated by the people to act on their behalf.

It doesn't assume that no civil government it legitimately delegated to act on behalf of people. It only assumes that about the regime in DC. Do you dispute that? Do you believe the regime actually represents us?

If that were true, then it would not enforce any of its immigration laws, because the very purpose of immigration laws is to impose restrictions on us without our consent. Obviously, if I want to hire an illegal immigrant to work for me, and the government has to use force to prohibit me from doing so, then it is not acting with my consent.

[DFF]

What makes you think she's not a racist?

Everyone else in the world thinks she's a racist.

https://antizionistleague.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/racism.jpg

acptulsa = communist turd

[JK/SEA]

looks like someone is still TRYING to infiltrate the Liberty movement. Sorry but, white supremacists are a sketchy bunch and should join up with democrats.

[Sola_Fide]

https://antizionistleague.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/racism.jpg

acptulsa = communist turd

Aren't white supremacists nationalists? That's not liberty.

[Peace&Freedom]

Illegal immigration is an existing process. What you really mean when you say "existing process" is the process preferred by the regime. Sure, this permits the regime to consent. But this does not equate to the consent of the country itself. Nor does the regime's rejection of an immigrant equate to the country's rejection of them.


It doesn't assume that no civil government it legitimately delegated to act on behalf of people. It only assumes that about the regime in DC. Do you dispute that? Do you believe the regime actually represents us?

The fact that some current aspects of the government resembles a 'regime' does not equate to its current immigration law being a 'regime.' I concede the government is not the same as the country, but the delegating principle remains. Do you acknowledge the people can delegate consent to accept migrants to its government, or not? What do you propose as an adequate alternative to establishing consent (on both sides) for the migrant becoming an American?

[erowe1]

Do you acknowledge the people can delegate consent to accept migrants to its government[/I], or not?

People can delegate powers they themselves have already as individuals and no more. This includes control over who can come onto their own property, but not anybody else's.


What do you propose as an adequate alternative to establishing consent (on both sides) for the migrant becoming an American?

Individual private property rights and the free market.

If you don't want someone on your property, fine. Just don't try to tell me I can't have them on mine.

[Peace&Freedom]

People can delegate powers they themselves have already as individuals and no more. This includes control over who can come onto their own property, but not anybody else's.


Individual private property rights and the free market.

If you don't want someone on your property, fine. Just don't try to tell me I can't have them on mine.

This is a silent expression of a non-minarchist approach to the lawful status of immigrants and borders---namely, no lawful structure binding on people from a government is recognized. Whether said obliquely or directly, you are denying the people can delegate their individual private property rights in the free market to civil government. My minarchistic response is to affirm people can so delegate, and that our approach to immigration not be exclusively overlaid with anarchistic presuppositions. Do you affirm this delegating ability at least in theory?

Immigration involves a status change, not just inviting someone onto their property. Are tourists Americans, because we invite them to visit? How is the migrating person's citizenship status changed by individual consent or current physical location alone, in a manner that distinguishes them from tourists, those on work visas, or invading soldiers? How is the native population protected from force or fraud performed by the migrants? If your next door neighbor invited el Chapo into their property carrying a portable nuke, would you have a right to object?

[erowe1]

Whether said obliquely or directly, you are denying the people can delegate their individual private property rights in the free market to civil government.

You misread what I said. I explicitly said the exact opposite of that.

But they can't delegate powers that aren't theirs as individuals in the first place.


Immigration involves a status change, not just inviting someone onto their property.

I'm not saying anybody should be made a citizen. If you believe that people should freely be able to go into and out of the USA, and live and work here without regulations placed by the government on how many can and how long they can, and you just don't want to give citizenship out to all of them, then you agree with me.

If not, then your injection of citizenship into the conversation is just a red herring, and you're hardly a minarchist.

[Peace&Freedom]

You misread what I said. I explicitly said the exact opposite of that.

But they can't delegate powers that aren't theirs as individuals in the first place.



I'm not saying anybody should be made a citizen. If you believe that people should freely be able to go into and out of the USA, and live and work here without regulations placed by the government on how many can and how long they can, and you just don't want to give citizenship out to all of them, then you agree with me.

If not, then your injection of citizenship into the conversation is just a red herring, and you're hardly a minarchist.

Despite what you denied, the mechanics of your view fall out as anarchistic, as it refuses to accept the delegation that makes a minimal state possible under libertarian (and constitutional) thinking. I simply used another phrase (citizenship) to describe the transfer of allegiance issue from the beginning of the discussion, nothing irrelevant was injected.

It is the responsibility of the migrant to to elect to become an American, not for the receiving nation to just presume their consent to be Americans based on their current location. Otherwise, all tourists are Americans. The terms of that consent must be mutually accepted as a matter of contract to protect both sides, hence the need for regulation, so the existence of regulations in the transaction does not conflict with people freely migrating, any more than signing a lease agreement interferes with people freely seeking housing.

[AmericanSpartan]

Aren't white supremacists nationalists? That's not liberty.
Yes it is Liberty, you need a nation, soil to have a solid foundation for a culture/people.