Trump says he will 'immediately' deport two to three million illegal immigrants with criminal

[thoughtomator]

Trump says he will 'immediately' deport two to three million illegal immigrants with criminal records - and insists he WILL build a wall (but part of it could be a fence)

Trump says he'll deport or incarcerate 'gang members' and 'drug dealers'
The number could be up to three million, he says in 60 Minutes interview
He also insisted that he will build the wall along the US-Mexico border
But the president-elect says that it may be part-wall and 'some fencing'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3932048/Trump-says-immediately-deport-two-three-million-illegal-immigrants-criminal-records-insists-build-wall.html

[John F Kennedy III]

Well, that would be a good start. Only like 8-37mil to go after that.

[otherone]

...might wanna build that wall first.

[CPUd]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?503993-Trump-60-Minutes-Interview-quot-They-re-Going-To-Be-Gone-quot

[seapilot]

If they are undocumented then how did they document that they have criminal records?

[CPUd]

If they are undocumented then how did they document that they have criminal records?

well, someone's doing the raping

[Sola_Fide]

If they are undocumented then how did they document that they have criminal records?

Cue the SS. Let the operations begin.

[tod evans]

Hell those sonofabitches are here because they want to work even if it's sellin' dope...

Better off 'deporting' 2-3 million welfare/aid ticks and an equal number of government 'employees'...

It's not like government employees/ticks don't rape people too...

It's costing us folks who actually make things more money to support the US rapists than the foreign ones..

[CPUd]

Cue the SS. Let the operations begin.


papeles por favor

https://i.imgur.com/8nsh8n1.png
https://i.imgur.com/SDWhydx.png

[tod evans]

^^^^^^^^This ain't work^^^^^^^

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pDBAzddeix0/hqdefault.jpg

^^^^^^^ This is. ^^^^^^^^^

[presence]

^^^^^^^ This is. ^^^^^^^^^


Given the option to deport my undocumented migrant lawn guy Pablo or a random government employee: I choose the tax tick every time.

[RandallFan]

He's talking the lazy SOBs stealing SS numbers and doing ID fraud.

90% of them are lazy and refuse to be humble in Mexico working 14 hours a day. There arent 12 million illegals doing construction & ag jobs. They are doing every job that's already 50-99% done by American workers.

[thoughtomator]

He's talking the lazy SOBs stealing SS numbers and doing ID fraud.

I advocate this approach:

Start with convicted murderers, deport them all. Any objection? No?
OK, next add convicted rapists. Any objection? No?
OK, next add other types of violent felons...

etc.

and just keep going until the American people are satisfied.

We'll know, at the very least, that anyone who objects to the deportation of violent foreigners does not have the best interest of America or Americans in mind.

[donnay]

If they are undocumented then how did they document that they have criminal records?

Probably this way:

About 6.1 Million Illegals Filed Taxes in US – Many Didn't Pay, Received Refunds
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/james-agresti/about-61-million-illegals-filed-taxes-us-many-didnt-pay-received-refunds

[RandallFan]

I advocate this approach:

Start with convicted murderers, deport them all. Any objection? No?

.

No. Convicted murderers are serving decades in prison & Obama is duping all the dumb voters. How can Obama deport a murderer when the guy is serving 20 or 40 years in prison?

Obama is turning around a few people detained by border patrol and claiming to be deportation king.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You have to find them first.

[Zippyjuan]

Those who commit crimes to be deported. The rest of the "terrific people" may get to stay.


Trump said he’d decide how to handle the rest of the undocumented immigrants “after the border is secure and after everything gets normalized, we’re going to make a determination on the people that they’re talking about who are terrific people.”


But his comments Sunday echoed House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who told CNN that the Republican administration was "not looking for mass deportations."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/14/trump-repeats-vow-to-build-border-wall-but-admits-there-could-be-some-fencing.html

[helmuth_hubener]

Given the option to deport my undocumented migrant lawn guy Pablo or a random government employee: I choose the tax tick every time.

For better or worse, you do not have that choice.

Nor do I.

[helmuth_hubener]

...might wanna build that wall first.

Just deport to Antarctica.

Central Antarctica.

[69360]

Short of a kristallnacht, what are the logistics for capturing and deporting 3 million people who have no ID? It doesn't seem feasible. It also seems pointless, they will just keep coming back.

[AuH20]

Short of a kristallnacht, what are the logistics for capturing and deporting 3 million people who have no ID? It doesn't seem feasible. It also seems pointless, they will just keep coming back.

5 year prison sentence if they come back.

[69360]

5 year prison sentence if they come back.

Yeah 3 hots and a cot for 5 years is a real deterrent for somebody who is so broke hungry and desperate they leave their country and come to ours.

[RandallFan]

THey aren't broke & hungry.

They should throw Cuomo & the LAPD chief in prison as well.

Brazil & Mexico are fattest countries in the world.

They are greedy and want a higher standard of living.

Some of these hispanic activists at the rallies are a a level of horriffic fatness as Ann Coulter jokes.

[AuH20]

Yeah 3 hots and a cot for 5 years is a real deterrent for somebody who is so broke hungry and desperate they leave their country and come to ours.
5 years in the clink is a good deterrent. One mulligan is fair.

[EBounding]

Those who commit crimes to be deported. The rest of the "terrific people" may get to stay.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/14/trump-repeats-vow-to-build-border-wall-but-admits-there-could-be-some-fencing.html

"Pacing and leading" Trump is literally hypnotizing his supporters and they don't realize it. He's doing the same thing on gay rights issues. McCain had the same immigration policy as Trump of only deporting criminals (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/illegal-immigrants-who-commit-crimes-face-lesser-punishment-than-u.s.-citizens/article/2532306) and it was called amnesty. I'm not hearing anything like that from Trump supporters.

[Zippyjuan]

On many issues Trump has been vague on what his opinion is. That lets people fill in the blanks with what they would LIKE for him to have said.

[Zippyjuan]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-arent-2-to-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-with-criminal-records-for-trump-to-deport/


There Aren’t 2 To 3 Million Undocumented Immigrants With Criminal Records For Trump To Deport


Donald Trump wants to immediately deport 2 million to 3 million undocumented immigrants with criminal records. One problem: There almost certainly aren’t that many people who fit those criteria.

In a “60 Minutes” interview that aired Sunday, Trump said he would prioritize deporting or incarcerating the immigrants who are both in the country illegally and who are “gang members, drug dealers” or have other criminal convictions. He said there are “a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million.”

It isn’t clear where Trump came up with those numbers. But according to the Department of Homeland Security, there are roughly 1.9 million non-citizen immigrants who have been convicted of crimes and are subject to deportation — what the government calls “removable criminal aliens.”1 That total, however, includes both undocumented immigrants and noncitizens in the country legally.2 The Migration Policy Institute, a think tank, estimates that there are roughly 11 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally and that approximately 820,000 of them have criminal records. (The Migration Policy Institute doesn’t take positions on specific legislation but is generally seen as favoring immigration. The Pew Research Center, another think tank, comes up with a similar figure for the total number of undocumented immigrants.) Some of those immigrants are already incarcerated: A recent report from the Congressional Research Service estimated that at the end of 2013, there were more than 140,000 non-citizen immigrants in local, state and federal prisons and jails. (That figure includes people who are in the country legally, not all of whom are subject to deportation.)

Beyond the specific numbers, the policy that Trump outlined Sunday is similar to the one President Obama pursued in his first term. When Obama first took office, he prioritized deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions, in some cases even for comparatively minor violations such as traffic offenses or shoplifting, according to Randy Capps of the Migration Policy Institute. Partly as a result, deportations soared under Obama, topping 400,000 in 2012.

More recently, however, the Obama administration has changed tack, focusing instead on deporting immigrants convicted of more serious crimes or for repeat offenses. (He has also consistently deported undocumented immigrants who entered the country recently.) Deportations have fallen steadily in Obama’s second term, to below 250,000 in 2015.

http://i0.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/casselman-immigration.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1

Capps said that the Homeland Security Department still has the resources it had in Obama’s first term. From a practical standpoint, then, it wouldn’t be hard for the government to deport 400,000 or even 500,000 people per year — meaning that Trump could credibly deport 2 million people during his first term without requiring additional resources or authorization from Congress. Many, but not all, of the people deported would be convicted criminals.3

“It would not be hard to get up to 2 million in four years, and most of them would be quote-unquote criminals,” Capps said, although he added that many of those criminal convictions would be for relatively minor crimes.


What crimes would be considered "criminal" activity? Is a traffic ticket a big enough crime? Stealing a magazine from a store? Possessing one marijuana joint (now legal in a few states)? Getting into a fight (assault)?

[The Gold Standard]

Short of a kristallnacht, what are the logistics for capturing and deporting 3 million people who have no ID?

Why would you exclude this option?

[CPUd]

I guess Keene will be getting that tank after all.

[69360]

Why would you exclude this option?

Because I think Trump is full of crap and won't do it. I'm getting the feeling that everything he did and said during the election was a sham. He played the mouthbreathers just right and as president can go back to being the liberal he used to be. His time in office probably won't be a whole lot different than Obama or Bush.

[BV2]

5 year prison sentence if they come back.

5 years for crossing an imaginary line... damn. Do you wake up eager to punish?

[AuH20]

5 years for crossing an imaginary line... damn. Do you wake up eager to punish?

Only if someone commits a crime and then are expelled. Everyone gets one mulligan. I'm not keen on punishing people who did nothing wrong. But let's say some drunk Mestizo kills someone. He should be processed and deported immediately. If he comes back, no mercy. Throw away the key.

[BV2]

Only if someone commits a crime and then are expelled. Everyone gets one mulligan. I'm not keen on punishing people who did nothing wrong. But let's say some drunk Mestizo kills someone. He should be processed and deported immediately. If he comes back, no mercy. Throw away the key.

Then stop pussy footing around. If you mean kill em say kill em. Whats the diiference to the departed if it was a brown drunk or a cheeto colored drunk? Its the crime that is relevant. Not the imaginary immigration status of whomever so commits it.

[Superfluous Man]

He's talking the lazy SOBs stealing SS numbers and doing ID fraud.


So let's get rid of the requirement to provide employers with SSNs.

And, if they're doing that, then how does that make them lazy?



90% of them are lazy and refuse to be humble in Mexico working 14 hours a day.

Right. They're not like you. You would be happy to be humble and go to Mexico and work 14 hour days for 50 cents an hour I'm sure.

[Zippyjuan]

Murder- sure. After a fair trial naturally. What about other crimes? Assault? If you get into a fight with somebody is that serious enough to deport?

[AuH20]

Then stop pussy footing around. If you mean kill em say kill em. Whats the diiference to the departed if it was a brown drunk or a cheeto colored drunk?

We are not responsible for someone else's drunks.

[BV2]

We are not responsible for someone else's drunks.

There is no we. Just you's and I's.

[Superfluous Man]

I advocate this approach:

Start with convicted murderers, deport them all. Any objection? No?
OK, next add convicted rapists. Any objection? No?
OK, next add other types of violent felons...

etc.

and just keep going until the American people are satisfied.

How does the government gauge when the American people are satisfied?

[misterx]

How does the government gauge when the American people are satisfied?

When all the liberals are gone.

[AuH20]

There is no we. Just you's and I's.

No, the proper pronoun is WE. Read some Hoppe and understand the concept of common property that we are forced to support. Any threats to the common property can be physically removed. If you want to revitalize the concept of 'you' and 'I', then get rid of common property. Until then, you're out of luck.

[misterx]

Murder- sure. After a fair trial naturally. What about other crimes? Assault? If you get into a fight with somebody is that serious enough to deport?

Why should we allow criminals to stay here when we don't have to? I want the best possible society for myself and my family, and I make no apologies for it. If there is justification for getting rid of someone that detracts from the quality of our society, then I'm all for it.

[Superfluous Man]

No, the proper pronoun is WE. Read some Hoppe and understand the concept of common property that we are forced to support. Any threats to the common property can be physically removed.

Physically removed from that common property. Not physically removed from the whole country, including peoples' private property.

[BV2]

No, the proper pronoun is WE. Read some Hoppe and understand the concept of common property that we are forced to support. Any threats to the common property can be physically removed.

We can go get ice cream, but we certainly dont comprise a political entity.

[AuH20]

Physically removed from that common property. Not physically removed from the whole country, including peoples' private property.

Yes, you are correct.

[Superfluous Man]

I want the best possible society for myself and my family

That would be a society where:
Employers don't have to report to the government who they hire.
People can cross borders with no passports.
There is no wall at the border.
We don't have to have some papers to prove to the government that we have the right to be here.

[Superfluous Man]

When all the liberals are gone.

That includes Trump.

[Zippyjuan]

Why should we allow criminals to stay here when we don't have to? I want the best possible society for myself and my family, and I make no apologies for it. If there is justification for getting rid of someone that detracts from the quality of our society, then I'm all for it.

What about somebody brought here as a child and has grown up and worked only knowing this country? What country should they be sent back to if they commit a serious crime?

[BV2]

Why should we allow criminals to stay here when we don't have to? I want the best possible society for myself and my family, and I make no apologies for it. If there is justification for getting rid of someone that detracts from the quality of our society, then I'm all for it.
So lets kill the junkies? The mentally ill? "Detracts from the quality of our society?" How do you mean?

[misterx]

What about somebody brought here as a child and has grown up and worked only knowing this country? What country should they be sent back to if they commit a serious crime?

No birthright citizenship in the constitution. If you're a Ron Paul supporter, you should want to do what the Constitution says. Send them to their country of origin. Why shouldn't we get rid of criminals if we can? Do you not want a better society for your family?

[misterx]

So lets kill the junkies? The mentally ill? "Detracts from the quality of our society?" How do you mean?

Killing is not justified, deportation is as they had no right to come here in the first place.

[Zippyjuan]

Why should we allow criminals to stay here when we don't have to? I want the best possible society for myself and my family, and I make no apologies for it. If there is justification for getting rid of someone that detracts from the quality of our society, then I'm all for it.

Maybe we should deport US idiots too if the goal is to increase the quality of society. But who decides what is improving or hurting the quality of society? Maybe all criminals should be deported. If you get a traffic ticket, we can send even you away.

[Superfluous Man]

So lets kill the junkies? The mentally ill? "Detracts from the quality of our society?" How do you mean?

And misterx gets to be the judge of who the undesirables are. He has the right to decide what kind of society he wants, and to engineer it to meet his criteria, or delegate that societal engineering to a government to do on his behalf.

[BV2]

Killing is not justified, deportation is as they had no right to come here in the first place.

No right? Being born is all the right they need to wander wheresoever they will so long as they do not stray and stay on private property. Human beings have the right to go wherever the hell they please, for any reason that doesnt involve aggression.

[misterx]

That would be a society where:
Employers don't have to report to the government who they hire.
People can cross borders with no passports.
There is no wall at the border.
We don't have to have some papers to prove to the government that we have the right to be here.

In your fantasy land, America would be more crowded than India, and filled with the same slums. No thanks, but I'll pass on your Marxist utopian vision.

[TheCount]

5 years in the clink is a good deterrent. One mulligan is fair.Cost of keeping an inmate in prison averages $31,286 per year times 3 million... $96 billion to keep Juan from doing landscaping. Seems like a winning plan.

[misterx]

And misterx gets to be the judge of who the undesirables are. He has the right to decide what kind of society he wants, and to engineer it to meet his criteria, or delegate that societal engineering to a government to do on his behalf.

It's a Republic, we vote on people to decide that. We voted for Trump because he believes these people should be gone. You don't get to decide for the rest of us that we have to lose our country and live in a globalist, polyglot slum.

[Zippyjuan]

Not to mention the costs of their trial. Can't convict somebody without a trial. This is supposed to be America.

[Superfluous Man]

Killing is not justified, deportation is as they had no right to come here in the first place.

Sure they do.

If I own property and they and I enter an agreement where they rent it from me, then they've paid be the amount that I decided was appropriate as the owner, and they now have a right to be there. Nobody else outside these two parties has any right to interfere. It's not the government's property, or society's, it's mine.

This is why immigration regulation is, and always has been, a hallmark of socialism, whereas advocacy for the free movement of goods and labor is and always has been a hallmark of free market economics.

[Zippyjuan]

It's a Republic, we vote on people to decide that. We voted for Trump because he believes these people should be gone. You don't get to decide for the rest of us that we have to lose our country and live in a globalist, polyglot slum.

Even Trump isn't saying they all must go. For now it is just "criminals" and he will decide on the rest after the wall is finished (twenty years?) and things "settle down" meaning it will be a long time.

[TheCount]

So let's get rid of the requirement to provide employers with SSNs.

And, if they're doing that, then how does that make them lazy?He doesn't understand that they're "doing ID fraud" to get jobs.

[misterx]

No right? Being born is all the right they need to wander wheresoever they will so long as they do not stray and stay on private property. Human beings have the right to go wherever the hell they please, for any reason that doesnt involve aggression.

And therein lies the problem, the warped belief that a people do not have the right to claim a territory, organize a government, and protect their way off life by keeping people who don't share their vision out.

[Superfluous Man]

It's a Republic, we vote on people to decide that. We voted for Trump because he believes these people should be gone. You don't get to decide for the rest of us that we have to lose our country and live in a globalist, polyglot slum.

Let's say it really is a republic.

The point of distinguishing a republic from a democracy is that in a republic the majority can't impose it's will on the minority in violation of their rights.

So no, the voters don't get to decide these things.

The majority doesn't want a society with mentally retarded people in it? Well, that's too bad for them. They can move themselves. Eugenics is not an option. And so on.

[Zippyjuan]

No birthright citizenship in the constitution. If you're a Ron Paul supporter, you should want to do what the Constitution says. Send them to their country of origin. Why shouldn't we get rid of criminals if we can? Do you not want a better society for your family?

What does the Constitution say about immigration? Is there a limit? Should it be restricted or banned? Who decides? What is that limit? What- it doesn't say anything? Are you sure about that?

[TheCount]

Only if someone commits a crime and then are expelled. Everyone gets one mulligan. I'm not keen on punishing people who did nothing wrong. But let's say some drunk Mestizo kills someone. He should be processed and deported immediately.Are you honestly pretending that illegal immigrants who commit crimes are not tried and deported following their prison sentences?

[oyarde]

I read this thread and I feel confused . You guys are not trying to deport Zippy are you ?

[AuH20]

Are you honestly pretending that illegal immigrants who commit crimes are not tried and deported following their prison sentences?

Many walk freely because the local authorities refuse to process and contact the feds. I'm talking about repeat offenders.

[Zippyjuan]

Putin will protect me!

[BV2]

And therein lies the problem, the warped belief that a people do not have the right to claim a territory, organize a government, and protect their way off life by keeping people who don't share their vision out.

More of that collectivist thought. As superflousman pointed out its none of your business who I welcome onto my land. And if the land is not in use, it isnt for you to decide who can use it and who cant. You are not a feudal lord. No human has that right. Your way of life, thats all well and good, but you do not get to use "preserving my way of life" as a rationale for controlling my or anyone elses interactions with others.

[misterx]

Sure they do.

If I own property and they and I enter an agreement where they rent it from me, then they've paid be the amount that I decided was appropriate as the owner, and they now have a right to be there. Nobody else outside these two parties has any right to interfere. It's not the government's property, or society's, it's mine.

This is why immigration regulation is, and always has been, a hallmark of socialism, whereas advocacy for the free movement of goods and labor is and always has been a hallmark of free market economics.

I'm not getting into an abstract, philosophical debate about it. You would lose that debate, but it doesn't even matter. Even if you could win that debate, the practical consequences of your ideas are so horrifying that you would have to be a sadomasochist to support them.

[Zippyjuan]

Many walk freely because the local authorities refuse to process.

Serious crimes? Probably not. Petty crimes? Many citizens let walk too because it can cost too much in time and money to follow up on them. If I stole $100 is it worth it to society to lock me up at a cost of $ thousands?

[misterx]

What does the Constitution say about immigration? Is there a limit? Should it be restricted or banned? Who decides? What is that limit? What- it doesn't say anything? Are you sure about that?

The Congress decides. Read your Constitution again.

[Superfluous Man]

And therein lies the problem, the warped belief that a people do not have the right to claim a territory, organize a government, and protect their way off life by keeping people who don't share their vision out.

They do, as long as the way they do this doesn't involve any wrong-doing on their parts. And this includes any delegation of wrong-doing to that government.

In essence, what it comes down to is what Nock (author of, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, btw) identified as the difference between government and state. We can't possibly not have government. But we must always be enemies of the state.

The claiming of territory you talk about can happen through home steading. And the individuals who put that land to use can make agreements with each other as individuals, and unite as a corporation to act in harmony. But participation in that corporation must be by consent, not conquest. They can't impose the rules that they all as individuals agree to live under with each other on anyone else.

Trump doesn't have the right to impose his immigration laws on me just because 60 million people voted for him.

[Superfluous Man]

The Congress decides. Read your Constitution again.

Read it yourself.

The Constitution doesn't give Congress that authority.

[misterx]

Let's say it really is a republic.

The point of distinguishing a republic from a democracy is that in a republic the majority can't impose it's will on the minority in violation of their rights.

So no, the voters don't get to decide these things.

The majority doesn't want a society with mentally retarded people in it? Well, that's too bad for them. They can move themselves. Eugenics is not an option. And so on.

No, I said the people we vote for get to decide that. Read the Constitution.

[AuH20]

Serious crimes? Probably not. Petty crimes? Many citizens let walk too because it can cost too much in time and money to follow up on them. If I stole $100 is it worth it to society to lock me up at a cost of $ thousands?

Multiples DWIs. Domestic violence. Larceny. You name it. it's called Sanctuary Cities for a reason.

[Zippyjuan]

The Congress decides. Read your Constitution again.

What has Congress decided? To kick everybody out? To allow nobody in? (actually it does not mention immigration- only Naturalization- the way to become a citizen if you are not born one- it does not say who is in charge of immigration or anything else).

[Zippyjuan]

Multiples DWIs. Domestic violence. Larceny. You name it. it's called Sanctuary Cities for a reason.

So minor crimes (though not to the victims- especially domestic violence).

[Superfluous Man]

I'm not getting into an abstract, philosophical debate about it. You would lose that debate, but it doesn't even matter. Even if you could win that debate, the practical consequences of your ideas are so horrifying that you would have to be a sadomasochist to support them.

I disagree. I think freedom will ultimately lead to the most happiness for the most people.

But even if it didn't, and I knew that doing the right thing meant suffering for myself, then you're right, I'd still do the right thing.

[AuH20]

So minor crimes (though not to the victims- especially domestic violence).

Not minor when they start to accumulate. Our country is filled with scum that abuse the sanctuary city loopholes.

[misterx]

Read it yourself.

The Constitution doesn't give Congress that authority.

Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

[Superfluous Man]

No birthright citizenship in the constitution. If you're a Ron Paul supporter, you should want to do what the Constitution says. Send them to their country of origin. Why shouldn't we get rid of criminals if we can? Do you not want a better society for your family?

Here is the root of the problem. Rank ignorance.

Get back to us when you find that part of the Constitution.

Incidentally, Ron Paul himself doesn't support deporting them. In fact, he doesn't even support giving the federal government any means of being able to figure out who they are so as to know who do deport.

[misterx]

What has Congress decided? To kick everybody out? To allow nobody in? (actually it does not mention immigration- only Naturalization- the way to become a citizen if you are not born one- it does not say who is in charge of immigration or anything else).

What is the point of citizenship if America is a free for all with no borders?

[Zippyjuan]

Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization


Naturalization is becoming a citizen- not controlling who may or may not cross your borders.

[AuH20]

Here is the root of the problem. Rank ignorance.

Get back to us when you find that part of the Constitution.

Incidentally, Ron Paul himself doesn't support deporting them. In fact, he doesn't even support giving the federal government any means of being able to figure out who they are so as to know who do deport.

Ron Paul says that the Birthright Citizenship should be nullified and all material benefits (hospital care, education, etc.) should be rescinded. Until that day, we'll be hardasses.

[Superfluous Man]

Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

That's naturalization, not immigration. That only concerns citizenship, not simple existence within the borders of the USA.

[Zippyjuan]

What is the point of citizenship if America is a free for all with no borders?

Means you too are free to cross the border if you don't like how things are here.

[Superfluous Man]

Ron Paul says that the Birthright Citizenship should be nullified and all material benefits (hospital care, education, etc.) should be rescinded. Until then, we'll be hardasses.

And I agree with him 100%.

Although, a better way to put it would be voluntarized, not rescinded.

[misterx]

Here is the root of the problem. Rank ignorance.

Get back to us when you find that part of the Constitution.

Incidentally, Ron Paul himself doesn't support deporting them. In fact, he doesn't even support giving the federal government any means of being able to figure out who they are so as to know who do deport.

Incidentally, Ron Paul is not on your side of the argument or mine, but he is closer to mine.

Also, nice try bolding two sentences together as if to say that I claimed the Constitution says to specifically deport them. Two distinct sentences, two distinct thoughts, not connected.

[Zippyjuan]

Ron Paul says that the Birthright Citizenship should be nullified and all material benefits (hospital care, education, etc.) should be rescinded. Until that day, we'll be hardasses.

Ron is also against deportation.http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm


Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011



It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

[BV2]

And I agree with him 100%.

Although, a better way to put it would be voluntarized, not rescinded.

Hear hear.

[misterx]

And I agree with him 100%.

Although, a better way to put it would be voluntarized, not rescinded.

No you don't. You don't even believe in citizenship. You think everyone on the planet has the same rights as American citizens. If that's the case then citizenship is meaningless.

[misterx]

Ron is also against deportation.

I actually haven't seen him come out strongly against deportation. I've seen him waffle on it, saying it's not really necessary, we should just take away their benefits and they will leave on their own. Something else you Soros actors seem to disagree with.

[misterx]

Means you too are free to cross the border if you don't like how things are here.

And go where, if it's just one big world with no borders? The whole world will be exactly the same. HELL.

[misterx]

I disagree. I think freedom will ultimately lead to the most happiness for the most people.

But even if it didn't, and I knew that doing the right thing meant suffering for myself, then you're right, I'd still do the right thing.

The right thing is doing what's best for yourself and your family. That is how positive societies are built.

[Zippyjuan]

I actually haven't seen him come out strongly against deportation. I've seen him waffle on it, saying it's not really necessary, we should just take away their benefits and they will leave on their own. Something else you Soros actors seem to disagree with.

He goes with a "halfway measure". http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm


Give illegals limbo status: a green card with an asterisk

Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.

[Zippyjuan]

The right thing is doing what's best for yourself and your family. That is how positive societies are built.

And that is why most immigrants come here. To improve their own lives. People working to improve their lives should be of a benefit to everybody. It is how positive societies are built.

[misterx]

He goes with a "halfway measure". http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

Ok, but you don't believe in that. Your whole argument is that our government has no authority whatsoever.

[misterx]

And that is why most immigrants come here. To improve their own lives. People working to improve their lives should be of a benefit to everybody. It is how positive societies are built.

It doesn't improve the life of my family to allow them to improve their lives at our expense. It improves my life to keep their backwards way of life on the other side of the border.

[Superfluous Man]

What is the point of citizenship if America is a free for all with no borders?

For one thing, citizens can vote.

Being free to cross borders doesn't mean having no borders.

For 100 years from the founding of the USA the federal government didn't regulate people crossing its borders or put any limits on noncitizens being able to live and work here.

Nobody ever thought that meant that there was no point of citizenship or that America had no borders.

[Superfluous Man]

It doesn't improve the life of my family to allow them to improve their lives at our expense. It improves my life to keep their backwards way of life on the other side of the border.

That's not your call. If you want to keep yourself and your family from people who you think have backward ways of life that's up to you. But you don't get to stop your neighbors from hiring them or selling their property to them.

[Zippyjuan]

Ok, but you don't believe in that. Your whole argument is that our government has no authority whatsoever.

I never say that. I do say that spending billions to build a bigger wall along our southern border won't improve things for us and neither would spending more billions to try to find and get rid of people living in the country but committing no serious crimes will not make us better- only poorer and it will take away more of our liberties.

[BV2]

It doesn't improve the life of my family to allow them to improve their lives at our expense. It improves my life to keep their backwards way of life on the other side of the border.

Its the .gov that makes that scenario possible, and even so its rare. Okay, so your son wont be a.landscaper or a roofer. Boohoo. Maybe he can be a orthopaedic surgeon cause Jose the landscaper and Stash the roofer are both gonna need one.

Backward way of life? Do you think muslims or mexicans come here because they want to bring the cultural circumstances they are fleeing with them. Does that make any sense?

[Superfluous Man]

Ok, but you don't believe in that. Your whole argument is that our government has no authority whatsoever.

I doubt that's Zippy's argument.

I'll come pretty close to saying that though. It's definitely true that our government has no authority that we ourselves don't already have without it.

[misterx]

For one thing, citizens can vote.

Being free to cross borders doesn't mean having no borders.

For 100 years from the founding of the USA the federal government didn't regulate people crossing its borders or put any limits on noncitizens being able to live and work here.

Nobody ever thought that meant that there was no point of citizenship or that America had no borders.

Nobody ever thought that we'd be crazy enough to let the whole world come here. The only people that came here were people that the majority of Americans wanted to come here.

[Superfluous Man]

Its the .gov that makes that scenario possible, and even so its rare. Okay, so your son wont be a.landscaper or a roofer. Boohoo. Maybe he can be a orthopaedic surgeon cause Jose the landscaper and Stash the roofer are both gonna need one.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BV2 again."

[misterx]

Its the .gov that makes that scenario possible, and even so its rare. Okay, so your son wont be a.landscaper or a roofer. Boohoo. Maybe he can be a orthopaedic surgeon cause Jose the landscaper and Stash the roofer are both gonna need one.

Backward way of life? Do you think muslims or mexicans come here because they want to bring the cultural circumstances they are fleeing with them. Does that make any sense?

Maybe my son will have his salary cut in half because of Indians taking all the tech jobs. Maybe my son will be killed by some Guatemalan with an IQ of 80.

[Zippyjuan]

It doesn't improve the life of my family to allow them to improve their lives at our expense. It improves my life to keep their backwards way of life on the other side of the border.

You are right. Foreigners don't improve the country. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#d9d3c0e7a229


40 Percent of Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children

We know about immigrant founders at large technology companies, such as Intel, Google and eBay. Less well known is how many immigrants and children of immigrants have founded other successful American companies.

A new report from the Partnership for a New American Economy found more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Eighteen percent (or 90) of the 500 companies had immigrant founders. The children of immigrants started another 114 companies.

One reason these figures are remarkable is that, according to the report, the foreign-born population of the United States has averaged 10.5 percent since 1850. That means immigrant entrepreneurs are overrepresented on the list of founders of Fortune 500 companies. As the report notes, “The revenue generated by Fortune 500 companies founded by immigrants of children of immigrants is greater than the GDP (gross domestic product) of every country in the world outside the U.S., except China and Japan.” These Fortune 500 companies had combined revenues of $4.2 trillion in 2010, $1.7 trillion which from immigrant-founded companies.

The report also notes,” Many of America’s greatest brands – Apple, Google, AT&T Budweiser, Colgate, eBay, General Electric, IBM, and McDonalds to name just a few – owe their origin to a founder who was an immigrant or the child of an immigrant.”

[misterx]

That's not your call. If you want to keep yourself and your family from people who you think have backward ways of life that's up to you. But you don't get to stop your neighbors from hiring them or selling their property to them.

It's not your call either. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. Trump won, the border wall is being built, and the deportations are happening. Get used to it. You lost.

[BV2]

Maybe my son will have his salary cut in half because of Indians taking all the tech jobs. Maybe my son will be killed by some Guatemalan with an IQ of 80.

Maybe the clouds are made of cotton candy. Oh, and why not consider the rules involving h1 visas and sponsorships as having something to do with depressed wages in specific fields ie here on a visa? You a serf, bitch, now go write some code.

And what org establishes those rules in direct conflict with voluntary action?

Maybe my mick great great grandfather raped my danish great great grandmother. You sayin i shouldnt exist?

[misterx]

You are right. Foreigners don't improve the country. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#d9d3c0e7a229

How many of those were founded by the children of British immigrants over 100 years ago? My point isn't that we shouldn't have immigration, it's that we should only allow desirable people to come here. Those of high intelligence and moral character.

[Superfluous Man]

Nobody ever thought that we'd be crazy enough to let the whole world come here. The only people that came here were people that the majority of Americans wanted to come here.

Got any polls to back that up?

And what happened to this being a republic? Now you talk like it's majority rule.

[misterx]

Maybe the clouds are made of cotton candy. Oh, and why not consider the rules involving h1 visas and sponsorships as having something to do with depressed wages in specific fields ie here on a visa? You a serf, bitch, now go write some code.

And what org establishes those rules in direct conflict with voluntary action?

Maybe my mick great great grandfather raped my danish great great grandmother. You sayin i shouldnt exist?

Do you really think just having open borders would depress wages any less? It would make the problem even worse.

[BV2]

How many of those were founded by the children of British immigrants over 100 years ago? My point isn't that we shouldn't have immigration, it's that we should only allow desirable people to come here. Those of high intelligence and moral character.

But those of high intelligence will take better jobs, thereby decreasing the standard of life of a native born american... cant have that. The unicorn must be protected.

[misterx]

Got any polls to back that up?

And what happened to this being a republic? Now you talk like it's majority rule.

You really think the founders envisioned America being a multicultural country to which the whole world would come?

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/20/majority-of-1b-tech-companies-started-by-immigrants/


Majority of $1B Tech Companies Started by Immigrants

Immigrants have founded 51% of all U.S.-based startups currently worth over one billion dollars, a new study shows. The Wall Street Journal reports:

The study from the National Foundation for American Policy, a non-partisan think tank based in Arlington, Va., shows that immigrants started more than half of the current crop of U.S.-based startups valued at $1 billion or more.

These 44 companies, the study says, are collectively valued at $168 billion and create an average of roughly 760 jobs per company in the U.S.


The three highest valued U.S. companies with immigrant founders include car-hailing service Uber Technologies Inc., data-software company Palantir Technologies Inc. and rocket maker Space Exploration Technologies Inc

[misterx]

But those of high intelligence will take better jobs, thereby decreasing the standard of life of a native born american... cant have that. The unicorn must be protected.

People of high intelligence contribute to society. We don't need immigrants to build houses. Our houses were better when they were built by Americans. Houses today are garbage.

[misterx]

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/20/majority-of-1b-tech-companies-started-by-immigrants/

Non-partisan? Really? What exactly is their purpose for existing then?

[BV2]

Do you really think just having open borders would depress wages any less? It would make the problem even worse.

Certainly would be less noxious. Beneficial actually. From a utilitarian perspective. But i dont really care about that, i approach these things from a natural rightz perspective, bordering on emotivist.

[BV2]

People of high intelligence contribute to society. We don't need immigrants to build houses. Our houses were better when they were built by Americans. Houses today are garbage.

Youve never been on a jobsite. The material is garbage, and the material dictates the job.more than anything.

[misterx]

Certainly would be less noxious. Beneficial actually. From a utilitarian perspective. But i dont really care about that, i approach these things from a natural rightz perspective, bordering on emotivist.

Well, I'm glad you won't be getting your wish anytime soon.

[Zippyjuan]

How many of those were founded by the children of British immigrants over 100 years ago? My point isn't that we shouldn't have immigration, it's that we should only allow desirable people to come here. Those of high intelligence and moral character.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201502/adam-bluestein/the-most-entrepreneurial-group-in-america-wasnt-born-in-america.html


The Most Entrepreneurial Group in America Wasn't Born in America

Immigrants now launch more than a quarter of U.S. businesses. All entrepreneurs should welcome reform that would make it easier for this class of strivers to stay--and succeed.

Risky? Yes. But increasingly, it is immigrant entrepreneurs like Cha who are most willing to take the risk of starting a business--and without the growth of immigrant-owned businesses like Cha's, the recession would have been much worse. From 1996 to 2011, the business startup rate of immigrants increased by more than 50 percent, while the native-born startup rate declined by 10 percent, to a 30-year low. Immigrants today are more than twice as likely to start a business as native-born citizens.

Despite accounting for only about 13 percent of the population, immigrants now start more than a quarter of new businesses in this country. Fast-growing ones, too--more than 20 percent of the 2014 Inc. 500 CEOs are immigrants. Immigrant-owned businesses pay an estimated $126 billion in wages per year, employing 1 in 10 Americans who work for private companies. In 2010, immigrant-owned businesses generated more than $775 billion in sales. If immigrant America were a stock, you'd be an idiot not to buy it.

[AuH20]

You really think the founders envisioned America being a multicultural country to which the whole world would come?

The founders escaped the madness of that world. They didn't want this chaos following them home. America was a Masonic experiment built to defy the monarchies of the day.

[misterx]

Youve never been on a jobsite. The material is garbage, and the material dictates the job.more than anything.

Actually I worked construction as a teenager. The material is garbage and the quality of the immigrant work is garbage too.

[BV2]

Well, I'm glad you won't be getting your wish anytime soon.

Nah, man, your just feeling someone else's glad.

[misterx]

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201502/adam-bluestein/the-most-entrepreneurial-group-in-america-wasnt-born-in-america.html

Don't mention how it's easier for immigrants to get loans from the SBA.

[BV2]

Actually I worked construction as a teenager. The material is garbage and the quality of the immigrant work is garbage too.

You are SO FULL of it. If that were true, they wouldnt have sich success in the trades. Or are americans just too stupid to realize their roof is leaking?

[misterx]

You are SO FULL of it.

Ok. Go take a look at a house in one of these cookie cutter subdivisions that's going up.

[Zippyjuan]

At least you are finally recognizing that they have been productive and making positive contributions to the country and its economy meaning more jobs for more people. However, many are doing it with their own money: http://www.mbda.gov/pressroom/news-and-announcements/immigrant-businesses-start-more-capital-others-do


Nearly 20 percent of immigrant-owned businesses started with $50,000 or more in startup capital, compared to 15.9 percent for non-immigrant-owned business. The study uses data from the 2007 U.S. Survey of Business Owners and the 1996-2010 Current Population Survey.

“Immigrant entrepreneurs are essential to our nation’s growth and economic prosperity,” said Chief Counsel for Advocacy Winslow Sargeant. “Immigrant entrepreneurs make our nation more competitive and serve as reminders of the American dream.”

The most common source of startup capital for immigrant-owned businesses is personal or family savings, with roughly two-thirds of businesses reporting this source of startup capital. Other commonly reported sources of startup capital by immigrant-owned businesses are credit cards, bank loans, personal or family assets, and home equity loans. Overall, the sources of startup capital used by immigrant-owned businesses do not differ substantially from those used by non-immigrant-owned firms.

More startup capital means a business has a better chance of surviving. It takes drive to give up your old life and move to a new country. And that same drive can be directed to creating jobs and businesses which they do- at higher rates than citizens who have fewer incentives to do so.

[Superfluous Man]

You really think the founders envisioned America being a multicultural country to which the whole world would come?

Who are "the founders"*? And what happened to the majority you mentioned in the post I was replying to?

For a century the US had free immigration, and there was no interference by "the majority," saying, "We do want people from this group, but we don't from that group."

That started happening in the 1880's IIRC, with the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was crlearly wrong.


*There's no group of "Founders" who all thought alike. But Jefferson definitely believed that the government should stay out of the way and allow different cultures to exist in the USA with equal rights.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html

[misterx]

Who are "the founders"*? And what happened to the majority you mentioned in the post I was replying to?

For a century the US had free immigration, and there was no interference by "the majority," saying, "We do want people from this group, but we don't from that group."

That started happening in the 1880's IIRC, with the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was crlearly wrong.


*There's no group of "Founders" who all thought alike. But Jefferson definitely believed that the government should stay out of the way and allow different cultures to exist in the USA with equal rights.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html

You're misconstruing my words again. For a century the US had immigration almost exclusively from Europe. Are you arguing we should go back to that?

[misterx]

At least you are finally recognizing that they have been productive and making positive contributions to the country and its economy meaning more jobs for more people. However, many are doing it with their own money: http://www.mbda.gov/pressroom/news-and-announcements/immigrant-businesses-start-more-capital-others-do


More startup capital means a business has a better chance of surviving. It takes drive to give up your old life and move to a new country. And that same drive can be directed to creating jobs and businesses which they do- at higher rates than citizens who have fewer incentives to do so.

What is your point? Indians are more resourceful than Americans? Go live in India then.

[Zippyjuan]

Nah- lets send back all the Europeans and all their descendants as well. Might as well clean everybody out and start over. All foreign groups were considered invaders destroying the country at one point or another. The French. The British. The Irish. The Germans. The Italians. The Chinese. We always have been able to find some group we can blame our own mess on.

[Zippyjuan]

What is your point? Indians are more resourceful than Americans? Go live in India then.

White Europeans great? Go live in Europe then!

[misterx]

White Europeans great? Go live in Europe then!

I plan to retire to Lithuania.

[AuH20]

Who are "the founders"*? And what happened to the majority you mentioned in the post I was replying to?

For a century the US had free immigration, and there was no interference by "the majority," saying, "We do want people from this group, but we don't from that group."

That started happening in the 1880's IIRC, with the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was crlearly wrong.


*There's no group of "Founders" who all thought alike. But Jefferson definitely believed that the government should stay out of the way and allow different cultures to exist in the USA with equal rights.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html

Not exactly. He actually warned everyone of what was coming.

https://captainjamesdavis.net/2014/09/04/thomas-jefferson-concerning-immigration-and-immigrants/


I have taken the term of four million and a half of inhabitants for example’s sake only. Yet I am persuaded it is a greater number than the country spoken of, considering how much inarable land it contains, can clothe and feed without a material change in the quality of their diet. But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?

It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants.

They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth ; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogenous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable ? Is it not safer to wait with patience twenty-seven years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable?

Suppose twenty millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship ; but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements. I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of useful artificers. The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expense in obtaining them. They will after a while go to the plough and the hoe; but, in the mean time, they will teach us something we do not know.

It is not so in agriculture. The indifferent state of that among us does not proceed from a want of knowledge merely ; it is from our having such quantities of land to waste as we please. In Europe the object is to make the most of their land, labor being abundant; here it is to make the most of our labor, land being abundant.

Reference: Notes on Virginia: Query VIII by Thomas Jefferson

[Zippyjuan]

I plan to retire to Lithuania.

Good for you! Then you will be a foreigner. Hope they treat you better than some here treat foreigners.

[misterx]

Nah- lets send back all the Europeans and all their descendants as well. Might as well clean everybody out and start over. All foreign groups were considered invaders destroying the country at one point or another. The French. The British. The Irish. The Germans. The Italians. The Chinese. We always have been able to find some group we can blame our own mess on.

I'm not saying there isn't a certain subset of desirable immigrants. I'm saying that those are the only ones we should allow into the country, and the only ones among those already here that we should allow to stay. And as far as those desirable immigrants go, we should only allow them in as needed to fill jobs. It is a myth that we don't have enough Americans to fill tech jobs. Currently we don't need more Indians, or anyone else, coming in to depress wages.

[misterx]

Good for you! Then you will be a foreigner. Hope they treat you better than some here treat foreigners.

Considering my grandparents were nobility there, I share the same culture, and can contribute positively to their society - I think I'll be ok.

[Schifference]

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

[tod evans]

I'm not saying there isn't a certain subset of desirable immigrants. I'm saying that those are the only ones we should allow into the country, and the only ones among those already here that we should allow to stay. And as far as those desirable immigrants go, we should only allow them in as needed to fill jobs. It is a myth that we don't have enough Americans to fill tech jobs. Currently we don't need more Indians, or anyone else, coming in to depress wages.

Seems as though the people paying those wages would disagree with you, as would their stockholders.

You'd be well advised to steer clear of democratic talking points and stick to either logic or law. (The two do not always coincide)

[Superfluous Man]

Not exactly. He actually warned everyone of what was coming.

https://captainjamesdavis.net/2014/09/04/thomas-jefferson-concerning-immigration-and-immigrants/

This was taken right from your quote:

If they come of themselves they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship ; but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements.

[Superfluous Man]

You're misconstruing my words again. For a century the US had immigration almost exclusively from Europe. Are you arguing we should go back to that?

I'm arguing that we should go back to the government having a hands off approach, and letting the chips fall where they may.

[misterx]

Seems as though the people paying those wages would disagree with you, as would their stockholders.

You'd be well advised to steer clear of democratic talking points and stick to either logic or law. (The two do not always coincide)

Obviously they would. The person shooting someone in the head would disagree with me about the need to shoot someone in the head, doesn't mean the government should let them do it.

[misterx]

I'm arguing that we should go back to the government having a hands off approach, and letting the chips fall where they may.

Yes, we all know what you want. A USA that is minority white, and filled with low-IQ savages.

[Superfluous Man]

Yes, we all know what you want. A USA that is minority white, and filled with low-IQ savages.

No, not specifically. But I see no reason to assign the government a role of resisting that either.

Somebody else's IQ won't have any affect on me. Nor will the color of their skin. So I don't see why I should care about it. I don't see why those things bother you so much.

[misterx]

No, not specifically. But I see no reason to assign the government a role of resisting that either.

Somebody else's IQ won't have any affect on me. Nor will the color of their skin. So I don't see why I should care about it. I don't see why those things bother you so much.

If you really don't think it has an effect on you, then perhaps you should move to Zimbabwe. You aren't a country of one, your quality of life is largely dependent on those around you. And when you know that would be the result of the policies you advocate, then you do advocate for that.

[tod evans]

Obviously they would. The person shooting someone in the head would disagree with me about the need to shoot someone in the head, doesn't mean the government should let them do it.

You've not ever seen me advocate for giving government the authority to "let" anybody do anything.

My position will remain that government fucks up more than it fixes and it costs too damn much for what ya' get.

As far as your cheap labor dilemma, government protection has permitted it...A smart person won't support such a government.

[misterx]

You've not ever seen me advocate for giving government the authority to "let" anybody do anything.

My position will remain that government $#@!s up more than it fixes and it costs too damn much for what ya' get.

As far as your cheap labor dilemma, government protection has permitted it...A smart person won't support such a government.

So your position is anarchy? When did the libertarian movement become just a bunch of anarchists?

[tod evans]

So your position is anarchy? When did the libertarian movement become just a bunch of anarchists?

And where did I type that?

Where have you found me claiming to be a libertarian for that matter?

If you want to advocate for more government XYZ then step up and justify your advocacy without trying to ascribe labels to me.

Copsuckery by any other name is still copsuckery...............Copsucker.

[misterx]

And where did I type that?

Where have you found me claiming to be a libertarian for that matter?

If you want to advocate for more government XYZ then step up and justify your advocacy without trying to ascribe labels to me.

Copsuckery by any other name is still copsuckery...............Copsucker.

Yeah, I like cops. They keep the streets safe. Get over it.

[tod evans]

Here's your rule of law copsucker;

http://tomburke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/gun-barrel-close-up.jpg

If you aren't comfortable on this end of the barrel then don't ask others to wield it in your stead.

[misterx]

Here's your rule of law copsucker;

http://tomburke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/gun-barrel-close-up.jpg

If you aren't comfortable on this end of the barrel then don't ask others to wield it in your stead.

So if I'm not comfortable having a gun pointed at me, then I should support banning guns? You're not making sense.

ETA: Care to say how many times you've been arrested?

[tod evans]

So if I'm not comfortable having a gun pointed at me, then I should support banning guns? You're not making sense.

No where did I mention banning guns, you seem to be having comprehension issues...

If you aren't comfortable with a kop pointing guns at you then don't advocate for kops......

See, there's absolutely nothing about banning guns, there's nothing about banning anything in what I type but that doesn't seem to stop you from ad libbing...


ETA: Care to say how many times you've been arrested?

Why is this relevant?

Do you want an accounting of traffic violations, I've been arrested for them.....Bar fights? Been arrested for them too..

Never been arrested for murder or theft.

I'm also a veteran and a licenced paramedic, since such silly thing as arrest records give a person credibility with folks of your ilk ....Whoopie-do-da

What are your credentials to where you believe yourself entitled to inquire about mine?

Have you accomplished anything in life yet?

Do you only eat by way of government largess? Something tells me you do....

What event in your life made you feel you need others to protect you? And how do you justify wanting me to pay for it?

[misterx]

No where did I mention banning guns, you seem to be having comprehension issues...

If you aren't comfortable with a kop pointing guns at you then don't advocate for kops......

See, there's absolutely nothing about banning guns, there's nothing about banning anything in what I type but that doesn't seem to stop you from ad libbing...



Why is this relevant?

Do you want an accounting of traffic violations, I've been arrested for them.....Bar fights? Been arrested for them too..

Never been arrested for murder or theft.

I'm also a veteran and a licenced paramedic, since such silly thing as arrest records give a person credibility with folks of your ilk ....Whoopie-do-da

What are your credentials to where you believe yourself entitled to inquire about mine?

Have you accomplished anything in life yet?

Do you only eat by way of government largess? Something tells me you do....

What event in your life made you feel you need others to protect you? And how do you justify wanting me to pay for it?

I don't mind a cop pointing a gun at me if I've done something to warrant it. I accept responsibility for my actions.

It's relevant because I've noticed it's usually criminals who hate those who protect decent people from criminals. When police aren't doing that, I won't defend them, but when they act within the confines of "serve and protect", they provide a great service.

I have no record, I know how to conduct myself in a civilized society. I have never hit anyone who didn't hit me first(or try to hit me). No, I've never collected any form of welfare. Sorry to disappoint you.

I don't need anyone to protect me. I'm fully capable of protecting myself, with or without a weapon. Most people can't though, I'm glad you don't have any family that you care about, but I do. I can't be around them 24/7 to protect them.

[tod evans]

I don't mind a cop pointing a gun at me if I've done something to warrant it. I accept responsibility for my actions.

It's relevant because I've noticed it's usually criminals who hate those who protect decent people from criminals. When police aren't doing that, I won't defend them, but when they act within the confines of "serve and protect", they provide a great service.

I have no record, I know how to conduct myself in a civilized society. I have never hit anyone who didn't hit me first(or try to hit me). No, I've never collected any form of welfare. Sorry to disappoint you.

I don't need anyone to protect me. I'm fully capable of protecting myself, with or without a weapon. Most people can't though, I'm glad you don't have any family that you care about, but I do. I can't be around them 24/7 to protect them.

Nice sidestep and additional ad lib...

Which branch of government do you "work" ha-ha for? I've known many of your type who suck tax monies and claim they're employed and not on 'welfare'...

As far as "my family" goes, I'd much rather any of them fended for themselves than have the armed cadre operating within our borders within a country mile of them, at least my family can shoot straight and use common sense before doing so.

It's a real shame you haven't taught your family how to take care of themselves. Just so you know........Your failure is part of the reason this country is so fucked up..

Even my mother who's in her 80's won't call the kops unless it's to file a report and have a body hauled off.

[misterx]

Nice sidestep and additional ad lib...

Which branch of government do you "work" ha-ha for? I've known many of your type who suck tax monies and claim they're employed and not on 'welfare'...

As far as "my family" goes, I'd much rather any of them fended for themselves than have the armed cadre operating within our borders within a country mile of them, at least my family can shoot straight and use common sense before doing so.

It's a real shame you haven't taught your family how to take care of themselves. Just so you know........Your failure is part of the reason this country is so $#@!ed up..

Even my mother who's in her 80's won't call the kops unless it's to file a report and have a body hauled off.

Never had a government job. I work for myself. Nice try. Yeah, I should've taught my arthritic grandmother how to fend of thugs. Some people just can't defend themselves young, healthy men. You seem to be the type who thinks all disputes should be settled at the barrel of a gun. Sorry, I'm a little more sophisticated and civilized than that. I only use violence when absolutely necessary. Given the choice, I'd prefer not to physically harm people. If my neighbors are causing a disturbance at all hours of the night(just an example, my neighbors wouldn't do this), then I would ask them politely to stop, and if they didn't, yes I would call the law, I wouldn't resort to throwing punches or shooting people. That's for savages. Now, if a savage like you comes to me looking for trouble, he will find himself in lying a puddle of his own blood. That's not the way you want to handle things though if you're a civilized person.

[Superfluous Man]

If you really don't think it has an effect on you, then perhaps you should move to Zimbabwe. You aren't a country of one, your quality of life is largely dependent on those around you. And when you know that would be the result of the policies you advocate, then you do advocate for that.

Why do you believe this?

Having someone across town eat tacos isn't going to make that any harder for you to eat hot dogs. And forcing them to go eat their tacos 1,000 miles away won't improve your life any.

[Superfluous Man]

Yeah, I like cops. They keep the streets safe. Get over it.

How did humanity survive all that time without cops?

[misterx]

Why do you believe this?

Having someone across town eat tacos isn't going to make that any harder for you to eat hot dogs. And forcing them to go eat their tacos 1,000 miles away won't improve your life any.

Says a man who has probably never lived in a minority-majority neighborhood. There's a reason Europe and Asia are more successful than Africa and South America. Hint: it has nothing to do with guns, germs, and steel, and everything to do with brain size.

[misterx]

How did humanity survive all that time without cops?

Who says society didn't have cops? Just because they weren't called cops? Perhaps you'd like to go back to the days before law and order, I would not. I like civilization.

[Superfluous Man]

Who says society didn't have cops? Just because they weren't called cops? Perhaps you'd like to go back to the days before law and order, I would not. I like civilization.

Civilization did just fine without cops. Cops don't give us law and order.

[Superfluous Man]

Says a man who has probably never lived in a minority-majority neighborhood.

I do now.

[Superfluous Man]

Says a man who has probably never lived in a minority-majority neighborhood. There's a reason Europe and Asia are more successful than Africa and South America. Hint: it has nothing to do with guns, germs, and steel, and everything to do with brain size.

Those large-brained Europeans won't suffer brain shrinkage just because a small-brained African gets too close to them.

[PierzStyx]

Probably this way:

About 6.1 Million Illegals Filed Taxes in US – Many Didn't Pay, Received Refunds
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/james-agresti/about-61-million-illegals-filed-taxes-us-many-didnt-pay-received-refunds

You're going to need a better source than a right wing conservative rag if you want to be taken seriously. Trying to get me to take that at value is like trying to get me to believe CNN honestly reported on Clinton.

[PierzStyx]

Who says society didn't have cops? Just because they weren't called cops? Perhaps you'd like to go back to the days before law and order, I would not. I like civilization.

History. Professional police are a development only a few hundred years old. In the past the military would be used for riots and such, but for all othe rissues people took care of their stuff themselves, through social action and common law.

[misterx]

History. Professional police are a development only a few hundred years old. In the past the military would be used for riots and such, but for all othe rissues people took care of their stuff themselves, through social action and common law.

No, there have always been enforcers of the law, no matter what you call them.

[PierzStyx]

We'll know, at the very least, that anyone who objects to the deportation of violent foreigners does not have the best interest of America or Americans in mind.

And we know that anyone advocating the expansion of government to using military levels of violence against civilians in order to kidnap, assault, steal from, and exile others has no love for liberty.

[misterx]

Those large-brained Europeans won't suffer brain shrinkage just because a small-brained African gets too close to them.

You are the most disingenuous person on this forum. More so than CPUd.

[tod evans]

Never had a government job. I work for myself. Nice try. Yeah, I should've taught my arthritic grandmother how to fend of thugs. Some people just can't defend themselves young, healthy men. You seem to be the type who thinks all disputes should be settled at the barrel of a gun. Sorry, I'm a little more sophisticated and civilized than that. I only use violence when absolutely necessary. Given the choice, I'd prefer not to physically harm people. If my neighbors are causing a disturbance at all hours of the night(just an example, my neighbors wouldn't do this), then I would ask them politely to stop, and if they didn't, yes I would call the law, I wouldn't resort to throwing punches or shooting people. That's for savages. Now, if a savage like you comes to me looking for trouble, he will find himself in lying a puddle of his own blood. That's not the way you want to handle things though if you're a civilized person.

So now you're trying to take the high road and at the same time insult me...Then you go so far as to threaten to leave an old gray-beard "lying in a puddle of his own blood"...:rolleyes: When was the last time you felt threatened by an old guy? Do you have these phobias often? Would my mother constitute a threat to you too? My child? Your world must really be frightful what with the need for kops and threats...

Very telling.

I'm pretty sure given your age (guessing 30's) that you almost certainly live in a much lower class environment than I do.

Given your self proclaimed proclivity to want to "call the cops" I'm betting you live in some metro-type area, again decidedly lower-class and quite likely home to those you refer to as 'savage'....

Then you pass judgement by assuming that I settle disputes with a gun..........That too is telling, more about you and your environment than about me and mine... Knowing when and how to use a gun is one of the hallmarks of a polite society, calling kops isn't, that's what common low-class people do instead of taking care of interpersonal issues like neighbors do. And again you try to deflect by saying "not in my neighborhood" or some such...

You might do yourself a favor if you stopped typing.....

[phill4paul]

Never had a government job. I work for myself. Nice try. Yeah, I should've taught my arthritic grandmother how to fend of thugs. Some people just can't defend themselves young, healthy men. You seem to be the type who thinks all disputes should be settled at the barrel of a gun. Sorry, I'm a little more sophisticated and civilized than that. I only use violence when absolutely necessary. Given the choice, I'd prefer not to physically harm people. If my neighbors are causing a disturbance at all hours of the night(just an example, my neighbors wouldn't do this), then I would ask them politely to stop, and if they didn't, yes I would call the law, I wouldn't resort to throwing punches or shooting people. That's for savages. Now, if a savage like you comes to me looking for trouble, he will find himself in lying a puddle of his own blood. That's not the way you want to handle things though if you're a civilized person.

In other words your just another pussy that feels he needs to hide behind government to do that which he is incapable of. Let me guess? Trump supporter? I'm right? Yes? Yes? Just another skinny leg jean, safety pin wearing, pussy wanting to hide behind authoritarian force as long as that force keeps them from getting their hands dirty. This is becoming a trend among the Trump supporters here. Skinny legged jean, safety pin wearing pussies. SMDH. No wonder you need an alpha male in your life.

[phill4paul]

So now you're trying to take the high road and at the same time insult me...Then you go so far as to threaten to leave an old gray-beard "lying in a puddle of his own blood"...:rolleyes: When was the last time you felt threatened by an old guy? Do you have these phobias often? Would my mother constitute a threat to you too? My child? Your world must really be frightful what with the need for kops and threats...

Very telling.

I'm pretty sure given your age (guessing 30's) that you almost certainly live in a much lower class environment than I do.

Given your self proclaimed proclivity to want to "call the cops" I'm betting you live in some metro-type area, again decidedly lower-class and quite likely home to those you refer to as 'savage'....

Then you pass judgement by assuming that I settle disputes with a gun..........That too is telling, more about you and your environment than about me and mine... Knowing when and how to use a gun is one of the hallmarks of a polite society, calling kops isn't, that's what common low-class people do instead of taking care of interpersonal issues like neighbors do. And again you try to deflect by saying "not in my neighborhood" or some such...

You might do yourself a favor if you stopped typing.....

Skinny legged jean, safety pin wearing children. No different than Bernie supporters.

[PierzStyx]

No, there have always been enforcers of the law, no matter what you call them.

Which law?

The problem with your argument is you're falling into the trap of presentism. You're trying to argue that there have always been cops. But that simply is not true. Modern policing developed in the 19th century. And by trying to project modern ideas of law enforcement into the past you're conflating everything from cops to soldiers to nightwatchman to tribal guards to local selectmen and more all into one thing. But even if a soldier puts down a local riot (and thus "enforces the law") they aren't cops, they aren't police.

Police are a modern phenomena, merely a few hundred years old. For almost all of history we haven't had police and it wasn't a problem. Law and order were well taken care of without police.

[PierzStyx]

No, the proper pronoun is WE. Read some Hoppe and understand the concept of common property that we are forced to support. Any threats to the common property can be physically removed. If you want to revitalize the concept of 'you' and 'I', then get rid of common property. Until then, you're out of luck.

It is quite simple: Hoppe is wrong. There is no such thing as common property. That is socialism. There is only private property. And just because you buy into socialism and want to enforce it at the end of a gun doesn't make you right. It makes you an enemy of liberty.

[misterx]

So now you're trying to take the high road and at the same time insult me...Then you go so far as to threaten to leave an old gray-beard "lying in a puddle of his own blood"...:rolleyes: When was the last time you felt threatened by an old guy? Do you have these phobias often? Would my mother constitute a threat to you too? My child? Your world must really be frightful what with the need for kops and threats...

Very telling.

I'm pretty sure given your age (guessing 30's) that you almost certainly live in a much lower class environment than I do.

Given your self proclaimed proclivity to want to "call the cops" I'm betting you live in some metro-type area, again decidedly lower-class and quite likely home to those you refer to as 'savage'....

Then you pass judgement by assuming that I settle disputes with a gun..........That too is telling, more about you and your environment than about me and mine... Knowing when and how to use a gun is one of the hallmarks of a polite society, calling kops isn't, that's what common low-class people do instead of taking care of interpersonal issues like neighbors do. And again you try to deflect by saying "not in my neighborhood" or some such...

You might do yourself a favor if you stopped typing.....

Oh, you poor victim. Do you need your mommy? You insulted me with your very first reply. I said, a savage, like, you. You probably don't live anywhere near me, and I have no idea how old you are, nor do I care.

No, I stay away from areas with hillbillies. Yes, low-class people handle disputes through the law, and high-class people settle things with fisticuffs and pistols at dawn. You're so much more sophisticated than I am, I shouldn't even be talking to you. I'm sure you have an Ivy League education with that attitude, while I'm just a country bumpkin who barely graduated Kindergarten. Have a nice day, your worshipfulness.

[misterx]

It is quite simple: Hoppe is wrong. There is no such thing as common property. That is socialism. There is only private property. And just because you buy into socialism and want to enforce it at the end of a gun doesn't make you right. It makes you an enemy of liberty.

:rolleyes: The Hoppe is a moron crowd again. It's a waste of time talking to these people.

[misterx]

Which law?

The problem with your argument is you're falling into the trap of presentism. You're trying to argue that there have always been cops. But that simply is not true. Modern policing developed in the 19th century. And by trying to project modern ideas of law enforcement into the past you're conflating everything from cops to soldiers to nightwatchman to tribal guards to local selectmen and more all into one thing. But even if a soldier puts down a local riot (and thus "enforces the law") they aren't cops, they aren't police.

Police are a modern phenomena, merely a few hundred years old. For almost all of history we haven't had police and it wasn't a problem. Law and order were well taken care of without police.

Policing has always been done, whether it be by police, sheriffs, military, deputies. It's nothing new.

[PierzStyx]

Why should we allow criminals to stay here when we don't have to? I want the best possible society for myself and my family, and I make no apologies for it. If there is justification for getting rid of someone that detracts from the quality of our society, then I'm all for it.

People, I give the exact problem with society.

Let me make this simple.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

All men. Unalienable rights. Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness.

Doesn't matter if you're a criminal. Doesn't matter what country you're from. Doesn't matter what the color of your skin or or what gods you worship or what accent you have. All people have the same rights. Because they are human beings.

You have a right to live how you choose. You do not have a right to violently attack someone else because they are different than you.

Your beliefs are making the world worse for your children. You're making the State larger and more powerful. You're encouraging protectionism and regulating the free market, making your children poorer. You're teaching them to abuse those around them just because they are different.

You're essentially training them to be Leftists and socialists.

All people have the same rights. If you do not understand this then you are not just an enemy of liberty, you're part of the problem.

[PierzStyx]

:rolleyes: The Hoppe is a moron crowd again. It's a waste of time talking to these people.

Straw man, straw man, la la la la la!


If you don't have the ability to defend your belief, just say so.

[PierzStyx]

Policing has always been done, whether it be by police, sheriffs, military, deputies. It's nothing new.

Just because you double down on being wrong doesn't make you right, kemosabe.

[misterx]

Straw man, straw man, la la la la la!


If you don't have the ability to defend your belief, just say so.

I don't have time for intellectually dishonest debates with people who pretend the Declaration of Independence is the law of the land, and that policing didn't exist until 100 years ago.

[tod evans]

Oh, you poor victim. Do you need your mommy? You insulted me with your very first reply. I said, a savage, like, you. You probably don't live anywhere near me, and I have no idea how old you are, nor do I care.

No, I stay away from areas with hillbillies. Yes, low-class people handle disputes through the law, and high-class people settle things with fisticuffs and pistols at dawn. You're so much more sophisticated than I am, I shouldn't even be talking to you. I'm sure you have an Ivy League education with that attitude, while I'm just a country bumpkin who barely graduated Kindergarten. Have a nice day, your worshipfulness.

I didn't ask for your adulation, save it for Trump or a kop or some other swinging dick you look up to.

I don't know about your education, nor you mine, but I'll tell you I'm certainly not Ivy league but have several family members who are and they live in the type of 'neighborhoods' city dwellers aspire to reside in...I fit in there just as well as the local biker bar or Church on Sunday..

I choose to live in the country, it limits my exposure to idiots... Maybe if you age you'll try it some time, it'll certainly help that sour outlook you have about life in general.

[misterx]

Just because you double down on being wrong doesn't make you right, kemosabe.

Just because you choose to ignore that every civilization from the time of Ancient Babylon had police in some form or another, doesn't mean they didn't, kemosabe.

[Ender]

Says a man who has probably never lived in a minority-majority neighborhood. There's a reason Europe and Asia are more successful than Africa and South America. Hint: it has nothing to do with guns, germs, and steel, and everything to do with brain size.

WRONG.

It has to do with who is or isn't interfering with other nations and grabbing resources. Asians used to be considered the scourge of the earth and were forbidden in immigrating to the US.

The ME was very successful when Europe was in the Dark Ages. Suleman, of the Ottomans, was one of the greatest leader of all time.

S America was very advanced, as well.

Africa did fine on it's own, until Europe decided they wanted it's riches.

Here's a link to the history of one of the known large Indian cities in America.
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/american-indians/essays/cahokia-pre-columbian-american-city

It's always the guys in power who think they are the smartest- but all things change, sooner or later.

[misterx]

I didn't ask for your adulation, save it for Trump or a kop or some other swinging dick you look up to.

I don't know about your education, nor you mine, but I'll tell you I'm certainly not Ivy league but have several family members who are and they live in the type of 'neighborhoods' city dwellers aspire to reside in...I fit in there just as well as the local biker bar or Church on Sunday..

I choose to live in the country, it limits my exposure to idiots... Maybe if you age you'll try it some time, it'll certainly help that sour outlook you have about life in general.

I don't have a sour outlook about life at all. You are the one who seems to be angry with the police. They've never bothered me beyond traffic violations. I'm all for police reform, but to get rid of them entirely is just silly.

[misterx]

WRONG.

It has to do with who is or isn't interfering with other nations and grabbing resources. Asians used to be considered the scourge of the earth and were forbidden in immigrating to the US.

The ME was very successful when Europe was in the Dark Ages. Suleman, of the Ottomans, was one of the greatest leader of all time.

S America was very advanced, as well.

Africa did fine on it's own, until Europe decided they wanted it's riches.

Here's a link to the history of one of the known Indian cities in America.
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/american-indians/essays/cahokia-pre-columbian-american-city

:rolleyes: I don't care about the left's revisionist history. During the "dark ages", science and mathematics in the ME was kept alive by Christian slaves.

[Ender]

:rolleyes: I don't care about the left's revisionist history. During the "dark ages", science and mathematics in the ME was kept alive by Christian slaves.

Talk about revisionist history- that would be YOU.

I have studied real history all of my life and most everything you think is true is not.

Welcome to The Matrix.

[thoughtomator]

People, I give the exact problem with society.

Let me make this simple.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

All men. Unalienable rights. Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness.

Doesn't matter if you're a criminal. Doesn't matter what country you're from. Doesn't matter what the color of your skin or or what gods you worship or what accent you have. All people have the same rights. Because they are human beings.

You have a right to live how you choose. You do not have a right to violently attack someone else because they are different than you.

Your beliefs are making the world worse for your children. You're making the State larger and more powerful. You're encouraging protectionism and regulating the free market, making your children poorer. You're teaching them to abuse those around them just because they are different.

You're essentially training them to be Leftists and socialists.

All people have the same rights. If you do not understand this then you are not just an enemy of liberty, you're part of the problem.

Doesn't attacking a strawman of motive get tiresome eventually?

At what point do the legitimate grievances of a majority of citizens get voice, in your world?

[TheCount]

Doesn't attacking a strawman of motive get tiresome eventually?

Doesn't ignoring the content of a post to address it only indirectly get tiresome eventually?

[otherone]

At what point do the legitimate grievances of a majority of citizens get voice, in your world?
Cheez. I might have read that at the DU. Afterall, Hilly DID get the majority of votes.
Does the legitimate grievances of a majority of citizens justify alienating someone from his rights?

[thoughtomator]

Cheez. I might have read that on the DU. Afterall, Hilly DID get the majority of votes.
Does the legitimate grievances of a majority of citizens justify alienating someone from his rights?

Illegal aliens don't have the right to be here here, and if you're going to be suicidally anti-nationalist I'll treat you the same as the rest of the globalists.

Ron Paul certainly said nothing of the kind of what's being talked about here, that anyone in the world can come on in and there's not a damn thing we the people should have to say about it. It's civilizational suicide, and he knew it, if you do not.

I guess we've finally ended up at the logical end of the faux-libertarian version of globalism - a complete rejection of the idea of representative government.

[otherone]

Illegal aliens don't have the right to be here here, and if you're going to be suicidally anti-nationalist I'll treat you the same as the rest of the globalists.

Ron Paul certainly said nothing of the kind of what's being talked about here, that anyone in the world can come on in and there's not a damn thing we the people should have to say about it. It's civilizational suicide, and he knew it, if you do not.

I guess we've finally ended up at the logical end of the faux-libertarian version of globalism - a complete rejection of the idea of representative government.

I'm inferring your answer is 'yes'?

[TheCount]

I guess we've finally ended up at the logical end of the faux-libertarian version of globalism - a complete rejection of the idea of representative government.

Illegal aliens are not represented. What do they have to do with representative government?

[thoughtomator]

I'm inferring your answer is 'yes'?

The answer is that your mockery of the idea of rights is the problem here.

[otherone]

The answer is that your mockery of the idea of rights is the problem here.

I'm still kinda gettin' a 'yes' vibe. As in "the individual is dead in Oceania, Winston".

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/374/750/c3c.jpg

[thoughtomator]

I'm still kinda gettin' a 'yes' vibe. As in "the individual is dead in Oceania, Winston".

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/374/750/c3c.jpg

You're getting a "recognized as an enemy of the Republic" vibe.

Sad place for a former liberty movement member to be.

Guess all that Constitution stuff (you know, Ron Paul's touchstone... remember that thing?) was just you pretending all along.

[otherone]

You're getting a "recognized as an enemy of the Republic" vibe.



Enemy of the Republic?
I'm getting a "national socialist" vibe.

[alucard13mm]

Whats the point of deporting them if they can come right back in a week. As much as I would like to deport them, it is a waste of time until there is a deterrent to keep them out.

[Danke]

You are right. Foreigners don't improve the country. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#d9d3c0e7a229

"40 Percent of Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children"


Their Children, you mean US Citizens?

How many of these Immigrants came here illegally, crossing the southern border?

[Danke]

Whats the point of deporting them if they can come right back in a week. As much as I would like to deport them, it is a waste of time until there is a deterrent to keep them out.

Tag them, and a shock collar for crossing the southern border.

[Danke]

Talk about revisionist history- that would be YOU.

I have studied real history all of my life and most everything you think is true is not.

Welcome to The Matrix.

Listen to this guy, he is smart, real smart. He has a very high IQ.

[oyarde]

Just because you choose to ignore that every civilization from the time of Ancient Babylon had police in some form or another, doesn't mean they didn't, kemosabe.

Kemo Sabe is a made up word that originates from the Ojibwe word gimoozaabi .

[oyarde]

Tonto was supposed to be a Comanche but is named an Apache name .

[RandallFan]

The problem is a bunch of cuckservatives and beltway libertarians dressed fat Mexican illegals up as something other than a turd sandwich. Trump was the guy with kudos for saying best & brightest & talking about the rape culture.

[The Gold Standard]

I'm getting a "national socialist" vibe.

That's what it smells like, doesn't it? It's ok. Our Fuhrer's soldiers will march the streets and throw out the brown folks, jack up taxes on imports, and save us all from government intrusion into our lives. This is liberty. Enjoy it.

[AuH20]

The problem is a bunch of cuckservatives and beltway libertarians dressed fat Mexican illegals up as something other than a turd sandwich. Trump was the guy with kudos for saying best & brightest & talking about the rape culture.

They tell us that we will lose 5 trillion dollars worth of economic growth over the next ten years if we crack down on our new friends. So that begs the next question? Why hasn't Mexico and Central America become hotbeds for this entrepreneurial spirit with all these immensely talented individuals? :) Even their statistics are blatant lies.

A surplus of low skilled labor in a high regulated economy is practically useless because you are paying for their QoL in other areas. Ever wonder how the hospital can charge your insurance plan 14 thousand dollars for a few stitches? Under the EMTALA, all 'new friends' must be accommodated for.

[helmuth_hubener]

don't have time for intellectually dishonest debates. 'bout sums it up!

[TheCount]

The problem is a bunch of cuckservatives and beltway libertarians dressed fat Mexican illegals up as something other than a turd sandwich. Trump was the guy with kudos for saying best & brightest & talking about the rape culture.Mexican illegals are both less fat and less rapey than Americans. If those are the aspects that you wish to compare, it's not going to go well for you.

[misterx]

Skinny leg jeans and safety pin queens. Trump supporters are as bad as progressives.

This coming from the crazy guy who went on a neg spree, negging every Trump supporter over and over for the fun of it.

[phill4paul]

This coming from the crazy guy who went on a neg spree, negging every Trump supporter over and over for the fun of it.

Yup. Sure is. It's getting to the point I should probably start doing it again.

[misterx]

Yup. Sure is. It's getting to the point I should probably start doing it again.

Didn't you get banned for that?

[phill4paul]

Didn't you get banned for that?

Yup. It happens from time to time when Trump supporters come in to Ron Paul forums and tell it's members that Trump is the "God Emperor" of the liberty movement and I get my fill. Which, after laying off for awhile and sussing things out, I'm pretty close to getting my fill.

[TheCount]

Reported for violating site rules.As opposed to you labeling PierzStyx as intellectually dishonest? How does that align with site rules?

[phill4paul]

As opposed to you labeling PierzStyx as intellectually dishonest? How does that align with site rules?

Because he is a skinny legged jean, safety pin queen, Trump supporter. Silly you.

[CCTelander]

Because he is a skinny legged jean, safety pin queen, Trump supporter. Silly you.


A great many of them appear to need safe spaces wherein they don't have to hear any cross words or have their delusions challenged. The irony is apparently lost on them.

[TheCount]

A great many of them appear to need safe spaces wherein they don't have to hear any cross words or have their delusions challenged. The irony is apparently lost on them.It's more than irony: The alt-right is a mirror of the SJW left. One prominent example is the belief that they should be protected from the existence of people with differing cultures, of different ethnicities, other beliefs, etc. Implicit in any such request is the admissions that their own beliefs and culture are so flimsy and/or otherwise lacking in merit that they would surely fail when encountering the least bit of resistance or opposition.

[RandallFan]

Mexican illegals are both less fat and less rapey than Americans. If those are the aspects that you wish to compare, it's not going to go well for you.

Whites are less obese, less diabetic than hispanics & less rapey. If you average black crime rate & white crime rate you are an idiot.

You going to say Metro Detroit is more violent than El Paso because mostly white Trump supporters?

[Anti Federalist]

Mister X is confusing peacekeeping with law enforcement.

Two entirely different concepts and approaches.