PDA

View Full Version : Making America into a taxpayer funded maternity ward for illegal aliens




johnwk
03-31-2017, 07:27 AM
See: Pew: 275,000 Babies Born in U.S. From Illegal Alien Mothers in 2014 (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/pew-research-center-275000-babies-born-us-illegal-alien-mothers-2014)


”The report also showed that in 2014 those 275,000 births represented seven percent of the 4 million births in the U.S.


Births to illegal alien mothers accounted for about one-in-three births (32%) to foreign-born mothers in the U.S. in 2014, according to the Pew estimates.


“These estimates are based mainly on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and its American Community Survey, using the widely accepted residual methodology employed by Pew Research Center for many years,” the Pew Research Center’s stated on its website.


“These new estimates update and revise previous estimates for 2012 (310,000 previously; now 305,000) and 2013 (295,000 previously; now 290,000) based on more detailed data sources,” it stated.”



It is absolutely stunning how many illegal alien births have occurred over the past several years as reported above. But what is also stunning is American Citizens have been made into tax slaves to finance these births. See: Illegal Immigrant Births - At Your Expense (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrant-births-at-your-expense/)


”It was 5 a.m. and CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts is with a woman who is nine months pregnant. She's rushed to a south Texas hospital to undergo a C-section - a $4,700 medical procedure that won't cost her a dime. She qualifies for emergency Medicaid.


She gave birth to a healthy, 8 1/2 pound baby boy - born in America. His Mexican mother gave him an American name: Eliot.


Eliot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They're given instant citizenship because they are born on U.S. soil, which makes it easier for their parents to become U.S. citizens.”



Not only is our federal government encouraging the poverty stricken populations of other countries to flood into the United States, but our federal and state governments also use their power to make American citizens into tax-slaves to support the economic needs of millions upon millions of illegal aliens and their children!


And this raises a question: Why on earth has President Trump supported Paul Ryan’s Obamacare Bill which would not end Medicaid that illegal aliens use to give birth to their children?


Instead of attacking the “Freedom Caucus”, President Trump ought to be questioning Paul Ryan’s desire to finance the needs of illegal aliens who have flooded into the United States.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.

tod evans
03-31-2017, 08:11 AM
Government shouldn't be paying Americans to breed let alone foreigners.

timosman
03-31-2017, 11:36 AM
Where is Zippy?

BSWPaulsen
03-31-2017, 11:55 AM
Government shouldn't be paying Americans to breed let alone foreigners.

Truth.

It pisses me off that they'll tell you you're selfish for wanting to gut the welfare state, but pay nothing into it themselves and collect a large tax refund each year on account of their children.

Parasites.

timosman
03-31-2017, 12:47 PM
Truth.

It pisses me off that they'll tell you you're selfish for wanting to gut the welfare state, but pay nothing into it themselves and collect a large tax refund each year on account of their children.

Parasites.

This is simply some kind of con perpetrated on the people. I am sure it has a name, but when I searched for "compassion con" the best hit was this:

Perhaps it is about time for the politicians to practise true compassion and ... leave ... us ... alone!!

johnwk
03-31-2017, 12:56 PM
Government shouldn't be paying Americans to breed let alone foreigners.

So why are folks in government doing so when hard working American citizens, who can barely meet their own economic needs, are being taxed to finance this outrage?


JWK



There was a time not too long ago in New York when able-bodied people were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now these ticks and fleas not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs and Lotto tickets.

Superfluous Man
03-31-2017, 12:56 PM
It's actually a tax funded maternity ward for a whole lot more than immigrants. About 4 million babies a year are born in the US, and I bet most of them are funded by tax payers.

Immigration, including illegal immigration, is a separate issue that has nothing to do with this.

Superfluous Man
03-31-2017, 12:57 PM
Government shouldn't be paying Americans to breed let alone foreigners.

+ rep

PierzStyx
03-31-2017, 01:58 PM
Truth.

It pisses me off that they'll tell you you're selfish for wanting to gut the welfare state, but pay nothing into it themselves and collect a large tax refund each year on account of their children.

Parasites.

The biggest problem is that supposed minarchists, constitutionalists, and libertarians are all calling for another big government anti-liberty program - the massive bureaucracy and police state force necessary to enforce massive border regulation, immigration restriction, and hunting down anyone who might be undocumented- instead of attacking the thing they're arguing immigrants are taking advantage of, the welfare state. The hypocrisy and doublethink are astounding.

And the reality is that immigrants are no more parasites than native born Americans. Undocumented immigrants pay billions each year in income, property, sales, and excises taxes. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

And those who don't work didn't come here not to work, after all they're almost all leaving countries with LARGER welfare states than the US. No, the issue there are idiotic anti-free market nativists who literally make it illegal to employ undocumented immigrants. When they come here and are castrated of their ability to work of course they're going to be a drain on the system. They're literally being told they can't contribute and then being attacked for their inability to do so. It is ridiculous and nonsensical. Ironically immigrants, undocumented or otherwise aren't the problem. Native born Americans passing moronic laws are the problem.

Not to mention how Trump wants to tax people who are working to build his wall. There is a true parasite at work- teh parasite that is teh State.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/26/donald-trump-mexico-pay-tax-wall/

And all of it over a boogeyman. In case no one else noticed from the OP, but the number of immigrants decreases by tens of thousands every year.

BSWPaulsen
03-31-2017, 02:56 PM
The biggest problem is that supposed minarchists, constitutionalists, and libertarians are all calling for another big government anti-liberty program - the massive bureaucracy and police state force necessary to enforce massive border regulation, immigration restriction, and hunting down anyone who might be undocumented- instead of attacking the thing they're arguing immigrants are taking advantage of, the welfare state. The hypocrisy and doublethink are astounding.

The welfare state cannot be destroyed when foreigners are continually added to their rolls via citizenship, asylum, refugee programs and such. It adds to the already significant number of supporters of the welfare state that are already here, and guarantees it will persist. What in the hell do you think their children are going to vote for? Dismantling the welfare state? For God's sake man, you cannot possibly believe such nonsense.

Americans are going to have to come to blows before the welfare state is gutted. Anyone with even an inkling of understanding of the political situation knows that. And when that time comes anyone with a functioning brain will want the side with the welfare supporters on it to be as small as possible. The parasites are not going to go quietly into the night, so thinking that allowing uncontrolled immigration while the welfare state exists is a good idea makes you a traitor to liberty because it guarantees there are more people that must be fought when the time comes.

Any advocate of uncontrolled immigration at this time is also a supporter of the welfare state. Stop filling the trenches of the enemy with cannon fodder.

Using the Civil War as an example, the North made heavy use of immigrants in their war with the South. This was a huge advantage for the North. You're advocating strengthening the equivalent of the North. When principles cause you to make stupid decisions, then they are not principles worth adhering to.



And the reality is that immigrants are no more parasites than native born Americans. Undocumented immigrants pay billions each year in income, property, sales, and excises taxes. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

Beat that straw man! Beat it!



And those who don't work didn't come here not to work, after all they're almost all leaving countries with LARGER welfare states than the US. No, the issue there are idiotic anti-free market nativists who literally make it illegal to employ undocumented immigrants. When they come here and are castrated of their ability to work of course they're going to be a drain on the system. They're literally being told they can't contribute and then being attacked for their inability to do so. It is ridiculous and nonsensical. Ironically immigrants, undocumented or otherwise aren't the problem. Native born Americans passing moronic laws are the problem.

Yes, South American countries have welfare states the USA can only envy. That's sarcasm, because if you seriously believe that, then you are hopeless. We're not being inundated with immigration from Scandinavian countries for God's sake. The welfare systems in Asia (India and China) are not particularly impressive either, and certainly not keen on doling out favors to anchor babies and other assorted nonsense that this country does.

You realize the native-born passing stupid laws are the problem, then support immigration, which will add to that exact group of native-born passing stupid laws in the future?

Is your cognitive dissonance painful?



Not to mention how Trump wants to tax people who are working to build his wall. There is a true parasite at work- teh parasite that is teh State.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/26/donald-trump-mexico-pay-tax-wall/

And all of it over a boogeyman. In case no one else noticed from the OP, but the number of immigrants decreases by tens of thousands every year.

Beat that straw man! Beat it!

tod evans
03-31-2017, 03:31 PM
So why are folks in government doing so when hard working American citizens, who can barely meet their own economic needs, are being taxed to finance this outrage?


JWK



There was a time not too long ago in New York when able-bodied people were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now these ticks and fleas not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs and Lotto tickets.



Because productive Americans are too scared or too weak to hang the tyrants by their necks until they're dead.

Superfluous Man
03-31-2017, 03:39 PM
Any advocate of uncontrolled immigration at this time is also a supporter of the welfare state. Stop filling the trenches of the enemy with cannon fodder.

This is simply not true. Ron Paul is a perfect counterexample.

otherone
03-31-2017, 04:19 PM
So why are folks in government doing so when hard working American citizens, who can barely meet their own economic needs, are being taxed to finance this outrage?


I have long believed that we live in a "trickle-up" economy.
The underclass, whether native or foreign born, are consumers. The system is such that it is impossible for them to create wealth. Even for the middle class, interest rates force those wishing to create wealth to invest, rather than save. The disparity between the wealthy and poor is getting worse, by design.
Essentially, middle class tax dollars are filtered through the poor into the coffers of Pepsico, General Mills, etal. Instead of the middle class creating wealth, they subsidize
corporate interests. Removing 11 million illegal consumers is never gonna happen.

timosman
03-31-2017, 06:06 PM
I have long believed that we live in a "trickle-up" economy.
The underclass, whether native or foreign born, are consumers. The system is such that it is impossible for them to create wealth. Even for the middle class, interest rates force those wishing to create wealth to invest, rather than save. The disparity between the wealthy and poor is getting worse, by design.
Essentially, middle class tax dollars are filtered through the poor into the coffers of Pepsico, General Mills, etal. Instead of the middle class creating wealth, they subsidize
corporate interests. Removing 11 million illegal consumers is never gonna happen.

Because?:confused:

BSWPaulsen
03-31-2017, 06:59 PM
This is simply not true. Ron Paul is a perfect counterexample.

Ron Paul never ran on a platform endorsing uncontrolled immigration. What do you think he meant by enforcing the laws on the books? He also wanted to end birthright citizenship, a major source of the cannon fodder for the welfare state. You cannot seriously tell me that eliminating birthright citizenship equates to endorsing uncontrolled immigration. And while all of the anarchists will cringe at it, one of the planks of his immigration platform was a guest worker program. Guess what that entails? Government bureaucracy.

I will repeat myself: Anyone that supports uncontrolled immigration at this time is also a supporter of the welfare state. Stop filling the trenches of the enemy with cannon fodder.

Endorsing uncontrolled immigration while the welfare state exists is suicidal to liberty. And attacking only the welfare state while immigration continues unabated is stupid and tantamount to carrying water for the parasites.

otherone
03-31-2017, 06:59 PM
Because?:confused:

Because DC is not answerable to taxpayers. Or voters. It is answerable to donors, Wall Street, international banking and special interests.
Policy is written by those interests.
The way to change this is not through voting. If you want their attention, stop paying taxes.

Anti Federalist
03-31-2017, 07:01 PM
So why are folks in government doing so when hard working American citizens, who can barely meet their own economic needs, are being taxed to finance this outrage?

Because most AmeriKunts want this, and more.

Anti Federalist
03-31-2017, 07:04 PM
This is simply not true. Ron Paul is a perfect counterexample.

The OP is about "anchor babies", illegal migrants having children who are automatically citizens at the time of birth.

Ron Paul was most certainly opposed to this, and spoke out against it, often and vigorously.

Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

http://www.ronpaul.com/2006-10-02/rethinking-birthright-citizenship/

RonPaul.com October 2, 2006 Illegal Immigration, Ron Paul's Writings, Texas Straight Talk

by Ron Paul

A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation. In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem.

It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills. This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills. No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship. Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here.

America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet. Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits. Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive. I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship.

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined. Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

Anti Federalist
03-31-2017, 07:12 PM
And all of it over a boogeyman. In case no one else noticed from the OP, but the number of immigrants decreases by tens of thousands every year.

In 2015, 1.38 million foreign-born individuals moved to the United States, a 2 percent increase from 1.36 million in 2014

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states

Anti Federalist
03-31-2017, 07:16 PM
Between 1860 and 1920, the immigrant share of the overall population fluctuated between 13 percent and nearly 15 percent, peaking at 14.8 percent in 1890, mainly due to high levels of immigration from Europe.

It was this flood of immigrants, mostly poor, from places like Sicily and Ireland and Italy and the Scandinavian nations, along with woman's suffrage, that gave rise to the "Progressive Era" in the US.

Which in turn gave us the regulatory state, the IRS, the War on Drugs, Prohibition, two world wars, the Federal Reserve, federal gun control, "funny money" and the Great Depression, among many other "progressive advances" that we still slave under to this day.

Zippyjuan
03-31-2017, 07:21 PM
In 2015, 1.38 million foreign-born individuals moved to the United States, a 2 percent increase from 1.36 million in 2014

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states

ILLEGAL immigration is down.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9d608f0c84162d6b962c5187fe325f35

And they are having fewer babies too.

http://images1.phoenixnewtimes.com/imager/u/blog/7667549/unauthorized_immigrants_graph.jpg

otherone
03-31-2017, 07:23 PM
It was this flood of immigrants, mostly poor, from places like Sicily and Ireland and Italy and the Scandinavian nations, along with woman's suffrage, that gave rise to the "Progressive Era" in the US.



European immigration was a byproduct of the industrial revolution. Factories needed unskilled workers. Policy was for the benefit of those interests.

Anti Federalist
03-31-2017, 07:51 PM
If it's "illegal" then how does anybody know for sure?

Both of your charts indicate that these are nothing more than "estimates".

Basically SWAGs.

And Styx said nothing about legal or illegal.

He said:
the number of immigrants decreases by tens of thousands every year.

And that is not true, based on the number that anybody can keep decent count of.


ILLEGAL immigration is down.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9d608f0c84162d6b962c5187fe325f35

And they are having fewer babies too.

http://images1.phoenixnewtimes.com/imager/u/blog/7667549/unauthorized_immigrants_graph.jpg

Anti Federalist
03-31-2017, 07:53 PM
European immigration was a byproduct of the industrial revolution. Factories needed unskilled workers. Policy was for the benefit of those interests.

Just like now.

And, just like now, we're reaching a tipping point that will usher in a second "progressive era" and god knows what horrors that will have.

tod evans
03-31-2017, 07:54 PM
Just like now.

And, just like now, we're reaching a tipping point that will usher in a second "progressive era" and god knows what horrors that will have.

:eek: "Usher in"?

WTF have we been enduring for the last decades?

otherone
03-31-2017, 08:00 PM
Just like now.

And, just like now, we're reaching a tipping point that will usher in a second "progressive era" and god knows what horrors that will have.




:eek: "Usher in"?

WTF have we been enduring for the last decades?

The FedGov seized permanent control in 1913. As long as they control the economy, there is no hope.

BSWPaulsen
03-31-2017, 11:09 PM
:eek: "Usher in"?

WTF have we been enduring for the last decades?

The long march through the institutions.

Just wait. It will get worse. The SJWs are only getting started, and they're the next generation of progressive.

johnwk
04-01-2017, 06:53 AM
So why are folks in government doing so when hard working American citizens, who can barely meet their own economic needs, are being taxed to finance this outrage?


JWK



There was a time not too long ago in New York when able-bodied people were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now these ticks and fleas not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs and Lotto tickets.



Because productive Americans are too scared or too weak to hang the tyrants by their necks until they're dead.

I agree 100 percent!

JWK


America will not regain her honor and splendor until the blood of tyrants is made to flow in her streets.

johnwk
04-01-2017, 07:05 AM
The OP is about "anchor babies", illegal migrants having children who are automatically citizens at the time of birth.

.

To be accurate and within the documented “legislative intent” of the 14th Amendment, children born to foreigners/aliens while on American soil were never intended, by the 14th Amendment, to be granted citizenship at birth. There is a big lie being perpetrated regarding this issue which is exposed by researching the Congressional Debates of the 39th Congress.

JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

johnwk
04-01-2017, 07:14 AM
ILLEGAL immigration is down.



So freaken what? What does that have to do with the millions upon millions of illegal entrants who are here and receiving "benefits" financed by taxpaying American Citizens?

The only reason you posted that crap was to derail the subject of the thread.

JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.

johnwk
04-01-2017, 07:21 AM
The biggest problem is that supposed minarchists, constitutionalists, and libertarians are all calling for another big government anti-liberty program - the massive bureaucracy and police state force necessary to enforce massive border regulation, immigration restriction, and hunting down anyone who might be undocumented- instead of attacking the thing they're arguing immigrants are taking advantage of, the welfare state. The hypocrisy and doublethink are astounding.

.

And you don't have a lock on your front door? Additionally, stop insulting "constitutionalists". Constitutionalists are the only ones who actually support enforcing both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution which gives context to its text.


JWK




"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

AuH20
04-01-2017, 09:13 AM
It was this flood of immigrants, mostly poor, from places like Sicily and Ireland and Italy and the Scandinavian nations, along with woman's suffrage, that gave rise to the "Progressive Era" in the US.

Which in turn gave us the regulatory state, the IRS, the War on Drugs, Prohibition, two world wars, the Federal Reserve, federal gun control, "funny money" and the Great Depression, among many other "progressive advances" that we still slave under to this day.

Correct. Immigrants gave us Lincoln as well.

https://longislandwins.com/columns/immigrants-civil-war/lincoln-wins-the-1864-election-with-immigrant-votes/

PierzStyx
04-03-2017, 05:10 PM
It was this flood of immigrants, mostly poor, from places like Sicily and Ireland and Italy and the Scandinavian nations, along with woman's suffrage, that gave rise to the "Progressive Era" in the US.

Which in turn gave us the regulatory state, the IRS, the War on Drugs, Prohibition, two world wars, the Federal Reserve, federal gun control, "funny money" and the Great Depression, among many other "progressive advances" that we still slave under to this day.

Yes, and do you know HOW it gave rise to the Progressive Era?

The Progressives were those calling for eliminating free market capitalism by instituting government immigration regulation arguing that immigrants were too poor and stupid to be entering the country, that their cultures would hurt America, and using arguments of "race suicide" to justify attacking ethnically different people. To do this they demanded expansion of government power to control society. In fact almost all welfare programs were originally designed to benefit white native born Americans and drive immigrants and minorities out of the market or making it impossible for them to compete.

In short, if you are for government immigration regulation, you are advocating a Leftist Progressive agenda. The original one in fact. And you are teh cause of everything that comes with it.

For the longer argument, here is Harvard professor Dr. Thomas Leonard discussing it: https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf

If you want to learn even more his book "Illiberal reformers" is a fantastic read that will educate you about the reality of the situation as opposed to the garbage history you were taught by state ran schools.

PierzStyx
04-03-2017, 05:12 PM
In 2015, 1.38 million foreign-born individuals moved to the United States, a 2 percent increase from 1.36 million in 2014

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states

I fail to see your point. Both OP and I are talking about illegal immigrants. Which are decreasing every year.

Zippyjuan
04-03-2017, 05:14 PM
And you don't have a lock on your front door? Additionally, stop insulting "constitutionalists". Constitutionalists are the only ones who actually support enforcing both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution which gives context to its text.


JWK




"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story


What does the Constitution say about immigration? (nothing, actually)

PierzStyx
04-03-2017, 05:20 PM
And you don't have a lock on your front door? Additionally, stop insulting "constitutionalists". Constitutionalists are the only ones who actually support enforcing both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution which gives context to its text.


JWK


[size=4]
[b][I]
\

You haven't actually read The Constitution, have you?

See, I'm not insulting the Constitution. I'm insulting fake "constitutionalists" like yourself. Those who claim to want to follow the Constitution but resort immediately to a big government Progressive agenda of enforcing your cultural beliefs by violence authorized by unconstitutional powers seized by the Federal government. The Constitution never authorized the Federal government to regulate immigration in any way. If you were a constitutionalist you would therefore not be calling for the government to do something it isn't expressly empowered to do so.

And the "lock your doors" argument is stupid. It is the public vs. private fallacy. You own your house. You can do what you want. You do not own the country or its borders. Therefore you have no authority to regulate them in any way or to regulate my property by limiting what I can and can't do with it.

Now, please announce your socialism and communism by appealing to the ideal of collectivized "cmmon ownership" of the country. Please. Just reveal yourself as the unconstitutional socialist you, and those like you, are.

Ender
04-03-2017, 06:34 PM
Yes, and do you know HOW it gave rise to the Progressive Era?

The Progressives were those calling for eliminating free market capitalism by instituting government immigration regulation arguing that immigrants were too poor and stupid to be entering the country, that their cultures would hurt America, and using arguments of "race suicide" to justify attacking ethnically different people. To do this they demanded expansion of government power to control society. In fact almost all welfare programs were originally designed to benefit white native born Americans and drive immigrants and minorities out of the market or making it impossible for them to compete.

In short, if you are for government immigration regulation, you are advocating a Leftist Progressive agenda. The original one in fact. And you are teh cause of everything that comes with it.

For the longer argument, here is Harvard professor Dr. Thomas Leonard discussing it: https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf

If you want to learn even more his book "Illiberal reformers" is a fantastic read that will educate you about the reality of the situation as opposed to the garbage history you were taught by state ran schools.

Yep.

No one wanted the dirty Irish, etc here- especially if they were Catholic. Freedom of religion and all that. ;) Expansion of .gov is NOT the answer. Free markets, real capitalism, real money and real freedom is.

Also, a side note on women's suffrage- Mormon women had the vote long before Utah became a state; when the territory was taken by .gov, the vote was taken from women, along with their freedom of religion. Children were forced into public schools to make sure they were indoctrinated properly.

^^THIS^^ is what happens with more gov.

johnwk
04-04-2017, 07:18 AM
You haven't actually read The Constitution, have you?

See, I'm not insulting the Constitution. I'm insulting fake "constitutionalists" like yourself. Those who claim to want to follow the Constitution but resort immediately to a big government Progressive agenda of enforcing your cultural beliefs by violence authorized by unconstitutional powers seized by the Federal government. The Constitution never authorized the Federal government to regulate immigration in any way. If you were a constitutionalist you would therefore not be calling for the government to do something it isn't expressly empowered to do so.

And the "lock your doors" argument is stupid. It is the public vs. private fallacy. You own your house. You can do what you want. You do not own the country or its borders. Therefore you have no authority to regulate them in any way or to regulate my property by limiting what I can and can't do with it.

Now, please announce your socialism and communism by appealing to the ideal of collectivized "cmmon ownership" of the country. Please. Just reveal yourself as the unconstitutional socialist you, and those like you, are.


Your insulting remarks do not advance your argument. You have made a number of unsubstantiated insulting remarks, which is exactly what adolescent trolls do.


JWK

Ender
04-04-2017, 10:24 AM
Your insulting remarks do not advance your argument. You have made a number of unsubstantiated insulting remarks, which is exactly what adolescent trolls do.


JWK

Mirror?

pcosmar
04-04-2017, 11:03 AM
And you don't have a lock on your front door?

for a great many years.

and I prefer living that way.

helmuth_hubener
04-04-2017, 11:40 AM
Yep.

No one wanted the Irish here- especially if they were Catholic.

Why is that? Were there reasons?

Oh yeah: they didn't want their country to become Catholic. They had this irrational and crazy fear that millions upon millions of high-fertility Catholics moving into the country and commencing to have babies at a much higher rate than the natives would turn any country, even the USA, into a Catholic country.

Silly alarmists! :D


http://www.adherents.com/maps/US_denom_adh.jpg

PierzStyx
04-04-2017, 12:10 PM
Why is that? Were there reasons?

Oh yeah: they didn't want their country to become Catholic. They had this irrational and crazy fear that millions upon millions of high-fertility Catholics moving into the country and commencing to have babies at a much higher rate than the natives would turn any country, even the USA, into a Catholic country.

Silly alarmists! :D


Yes. And we can just see how Catholics have dominated American politics, electing non-stop Catholic Presidents and why Trump is really ran by the Pope. Must be why the Democrats are so afraid of the Catholics on the "Religious Right." /s

Thank you for proving how incredibly dumb the "muh culture" argument against immigrants then -and now- really is.

Here is a better map and news report on this by the way

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-religious-makeup-of-america-2015-4

PierzStyx
04-04-2017, 12:12 PM
Your insulting remarks do not advance your argument. You have made a number of unsubstantiated insulting remarks, which is exactly what adolescent trolls do.


JWK

Lol. Can't actually back up your arguments with facts so you'll just pretend to be insulted, eh Little Snowflake?

Here, I'll help. Here is a link to the US Constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992

What part of that gives explicit authorization for Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court to regulate immigration?

PierzStyx
04-04-2017, 12:17 PM
Yep.

No one wanted the dirty Irish, etc here- especially if they were Catholic. Freedom of religion and all that. ;) Expansion of .gov is NOT the answer. Free markets, real capitalism, real money and real freedom is.

Also, a side note on women's suffrage- Mormon women had the vote long before Utah became a state; when the territory was taken by .gov, the vote was taken from women, along with their freedom of religion. Children were forced into public schools to make sure they were indoctrinated properly.

^^THIS^^ is what happens with more gov.

Yep. The big project of the 1800s in the West was waging war against Mormons. The first nationwide outright ban on a religion was on Mormon immigrants coming from Europe. And it was based on race. Mormons were seen as belonging to a degraded religion, which meant that their genetics must be degraded because only genetically inferior people would follow such a religion.

The irony on H_H defending this idea when the original proponents of it would say that he is genetically inferior and a pollutant to the gene pool is not lost on me.

Ender
04-04-2017, 12:22 PM
[QUOTE=helmuth_hubener;6445983]Why is that? Were there reasons?

Oh yeah: they didn't want their country to become Catholic. They had this irrational and crazy fear that millions upon millions of high-fertility Catholics moving into the country and commencing to have babies at a much higher rate than the natives would turn any country, even the USA, into a Catholic country.

Silly alarmists! :D

Irish were also considered "black", came as "indentured servants" and treated worse than the blacks, who were considered more valuable.

A beautiful part of our American heritage.

Ender
04-04-2017, 12:24 PM
Yep. The big project of the 1800s in the West was waging war against Mormons. The first nationwide outright ban on a religion was on Mormon immigrants coming from Europe. And it was based on race. Mormons were seen as belonging to a degraded religion, which meant that their genetics must be degraded because only genetically inferior people would follow such a religion.

The irony on H_H defending this idea when the original proponents of it would say that he is genetically inferior and a pollutant to the gene pool is not lost on me.

Agree.

The Missouri Extermination Order was not canceled until 1976; until then you could legally shoot a Mormon on the streets.

Also-

Irish were also considered "black", came as "indentured servants" and treated worse than the blacks, who were considered more valuable.

A beautiful part of our American heritage.

Zippyjuan
04-04-2017, 01:05 PM
Why is that? Were there reasons?

Oh yeah: they didn't want their country to become Catholic. They had this irrational and crazy fear that millions upon millions of high-fertility Catholics moving into the country and commencing to have babies at a much higher rate than the natives would turn any country, even the USA, into a Catholic country.

Silly alarmists! :D



Mexicans are highly Catholic too. http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/christianity/81-of-mexican-adults-are-catholic-more-facts-on-religion-in-mexico


In the 1960s, the number of Catholics in Latin America was 90%. By the end of 2014, the percentage reduced to 69% of the total population, something that has been attributed to the increased conversion to Protestant Christian. However, Mexico has only experienced a slight drift from Catholicism. A Pew Research Center report from 2014 showed that 81% of Mexican adults still identify themselves as Catholics today although 90% of the population agrees that they were raised in the Catholic faith.



Newer map (yours was 1990- this is 2010):

http://media.theweek.com/img/generic/LargestReligion.jpg

helmuth_hubener
04-04-2017, 02:49 PM
The irony on H_H defending this idea when the original proponents of it..... Oh? What idea am I defending? Exactly?

otherone
04-04-2017, 03:42 PM
Why is that? Were there reasons?



meh.

No one was ascared of the Papacy once Fedgov became the state religion.

https://previews.123rf.com/images/inmlaurie/inmlaurie1312/inmlaurie131200039/24380373-American-flag-on-the-field-at-an-Iowa-football-game-Stock-Photo.jpg

devil21
04-04-2017, 03:53 PM
Just like the refugees in Europe, the bankers need more bodies for debt slavery. That is the biggest reason for allowing the illegals in and anchor babies.

helmuth_hubener
04-04-2017, 03:54 PM
Here is a better map and news report "Better." Oh, is it "better"? Thank you so much!


Thank you for proving how incredibly dumb the "muh culture" argument against immigrants then -and now- really is. You're very welcome, but I must admit I don't follow the logic. Let's take it step by step:

• Catholics moved into country en masse
• Catholics became the largest religious group in said country
• Therefore, culture doesn't matter; in fact culture is only ever even brought up by very stupid people saying "muh culture."

I think we lost a step somewhere in there. :D Eh?

Anyway, my post was not "defending" any point of view, past or present. I just try to shake things up, keep things lively. Can't have this place die!

Since you bring up culture, I think that is a very interesting topic to discuss. There is a lot to life, you know. A lot more than just The State. A lot more than just coming up with the right political policy. You think you have it all figured out, Pierz. By discovering and embracing anarchism, you have solved everything. All the world's problems. Just get rid of The State. Is that right? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to misconstrue you. But you've got it all figured out.

I think there's more to life than that. There's a broader picture. There's a whole world out there! Liberty vs. Tyranny is not the only battle going on here! It's not the only issue worth thinking about. Bringing everything back to pat libertarian answers every single time is, well, not very interesting.

Booooring!

We have to be willing to think! We have to be willing to debate! We have to be willing to push forward intellectually, not stay caught in the same boring rut our whole lives.

helmuth_hubener
04-04-2017, 03:56 PM
No one was scared of the Papacy once Fedgov became the state religion. Well, you make a good point. Are you a religious person, otherone?

Superfluous Man
04-04-2017, 03:59 PM
And you don't have a lock on your front door? Additionally, stop insulting "constitutionalists". Constitutionalists are the only ones who actually support enforcing both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution which gives context to its text.


JWK




"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story


You realize that in order to be a constitutionalist, you have to be against all federal regulation of immigration. Right?

Zippyjuan
04-04-2017, 04:00 PM
Humans have been migrating for millions of years. Everybody in this country has ancestors who migrated here and brought their own way of doing things with them.

otherone
04-04-2017, 04:10 PM
Well, you make a good point. Are you a religious person, otherone?

Not to be pedantic, but what does that mean?

otherone
04-04-2017, 04:23 PM
I think there's more to life than that. There's a broader picture. There's a whole world out there! Liberty vs. Tyranny is not the only battle going on here! It's not the only issue worth thinking about. Bringing everything back to pat libertarian answers every single time is, well, not very interesting.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/rpfs_logo16think.png

Seems to be quite a few "muh culture" plants infesting the Liberty Forest lately.

Zippyjuan
04-04-2017, 04:24 PM
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/spring-2014/who-is-responsible-for-u-s--immigration-policy-.html


Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?

Who controls the nation’s immigration laws? Although the question seems straightforward, the historical picture is mixed, and the text of the U.S. Constitution does not point clearly to the answer. While the Constitution’s text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal govern*ment has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation’s immigration laws, state and local authorities still play an important role in the regulation of immigration because they shape the conditions of daily life for immigrants in their jurisdictions.

Federal Immigration Power

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con*stitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become nat*uralized citizens of the United States. But control over naturalization does not necessarily require full control over immigration. And indeed, for the first century of the United States’ existence, many states enacted laws regulating and controlling immigration into their own borders. Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states, including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks.

It was not until the late 19th centu*ry that Congress began to actively reg*ulate immigration, in particular, with measures designed to restrict Chinese immigration. By this time, the Supreme Court had begun to articulate clear limits on state immigration powers. In 1849, with the Passenger Cases, the Supreme Court struck down efforts by New York and Massachusetts to impose a head tax on incoming immigrants. Four justices concluded that such taxes usurped congressional power to regu*late commerce under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. A unan*imous court applied the same rationale in 1876, striking down a New York state statute taxing immigrants on incoming vessels in Henderson v. Mayor of New York. A few years later, in 1884, with a decision in the Head Money Cases, the Court for the first time upheld a federal regulation of immigration, also on Com*merce Clause grounds.



More at link.

Basically saying that the power was given to the states for our first 100 or so years so if somebody is a true Constitutionalist, the Federal Government doesn't have the power to regulate immigration.

Tenth Amendment:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

devil21
04-04-2017, 04:29 PM
^^^^Yeah, once the Republic was turned into a Corporation after the Civil War, everything was changed during Reconstruction.

BSWPaulsen
04-04-2017, 05:18 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/rpfs_logo16think.png

Seems to be quite a few "muh culture" plants infesting the Liberty Forest lately.

Swap "muh culture" with "open borders" and it remains true. Funny, that.

otherone
04-04-2017, 05:36 PM
Swap "muh culture" with "open borders" and it remains true. Funny, that.

That IS funny!
after all, you can't spell "Liberty" without "I, N, S"!

https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/images/hsihistory2.jpg

BSWPaulsen
04-04-2017, 06:39 PM
That IS funny!
after all, you can't spell "Liberty" without "I, N, S"!

https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/images/hsihistory2.jpg

We're on a forum dedicated to a man that ran on an immigration platform advocating enforcing the laws on the books. That's a far cry from open borders, but yet we have plenty of those "plants" here.

Are you one of those plants?

otherone
04-04-2017, 07:04 PM
We're on a forum dedicated to a man that ran on an immigration platform advocating enforcing the laws on the books. That's a far cry from open borders, but yet we have plenty of those "plants" here.

Are you one of those plants?

I'm a "Let's not fluff the government any bigger than it already is", plant.
Are YOU one of those government fluffing plants?
And stop stealing my clever memes. .

BSWPaulsen
04-04-2017, 07:23 PM
I'm a "Let's not fluff the government any bigger than it already is", plant.
Are YOU one of those government fluffing plants?
And stop stealing my clever memes. .

Nah. Keeping others out, gaining power over those that want government to take care of them, and shrinking the government US citizens have to deal with is the name of my game. A harder version of what Ron Paul ran on, to be sure, but one with fewer teat suckers to deal with when push inevitably comes to shove.

helmuth_hubener
04-04-2017, 07:44 PM
Not to be pedantic, but what does that mean? It would generally be thought of as being a member of a religious body or association, attending religious worship services, and adhering to various standards and expectations of excellence in your private and public conduct.

But, being a native English-speaker, I think you knew that. ;)

I just thought this could be a fruitful line of thought to pursue together. If you're not comfortable doing so, that's fine.

otherone
04-04-2017, 07:57 PM
It would generally be thought of as being a member of a religious body or association, attending religious worship services, and adhering to various standards and expectations of excellence in your private and public conduct.

But, being a native English-speaker, I think you knew that. ;)

I just thought this could be a fruitful line of thought to pursue together. If you're not comfortable doing so, that's fine.

Thanks for the clarification. There are those who believe that everyone worships something. I'd prefer to avoid that debate.
I believe the foundation of moral governance is Objectivism.

helmuth_hubener
04-04-2017, 08:17 PM
Seems to be quite a few "muh culture" plants infesting the Liberty Forest lately.
Like me. OK.

Forget about immigration for a minute. Just a minute. Let's talk about culture. Is it really true that you think that "culture" is worthless, irrelevant, and unimportant in the human experience? Is that actually your sincere position? Or is it something else?

This extreme reductionism I see sometimes from my fellow libertarians is disappointing. "Freedom's the answer; what's the question?" That's true as far as political policy is concerned, but freedom is not the answer for *life*! Come on! What kind of empty, narcissistic philosophy is that?

Freedom alone is not a worthy life goal. Freedom is a blank page. Freedom to do what? What kind of society do we want, a teeming horde of drug-addled, helpless, worthless, family-less losers? Or a life rich with beauty, vision, achievement, and pleasant sociality -- one full of men who through hard work and determination are being the heroes of their own life stories? It's all freedom. But one is bad, and the other good.

Yes, bad. It's OK as a libertarian to say things are bad. It really is! Being a crack-addicted loser is bad, it really is! Deal with it! Locking up the losers is not a solution, but nowhere in the Libertarian Bible does it say that we should seek a society that maximizes this tragic waste.

The culture that our forebears built for us -- our manners, our customs, our art, our science, the things we revere, the ugliness we choose to despise (is there any of that last even left, anymore?), these things *matter*! Obviously! It's shocking one would have to even state such an opinion in adult conversation! Indeed, culture, especially the core power-aspects of culture: marriage, family, and religion, these are the things that turn out, when all is said and done and you are lying on your death-bed, to matter the very most.

otherone
04-04-2017, 08:23 PM
Like me. OK.

Forget about immigration for a minute. Just a minute. Let's talk about culture. Is it really true that you think that "culture" is worthless, irrelevant, and unimportant in the human experience? Is that actually your sincere position? Or is it something else?

This extreme reductionism I see sometimes from my fellow libertarians is disappointing. "Freedom's the answer; what's the question?" That's true as far as political policy is concerned, but freedom is not the answer for *life*! Come on! What kind of empty, narcissistic philosophy is that?

Freedom alone is not a worthy life goal. Freedom is a blank page. Freedom to do what? What kind of society do we want, a teeming horde of drug-addled, helpless, worthless, family-less losers? Or a life rich with beauty, vision, achievement, and pleasant sociality -- one full of men who through hard work and determination are being the heroes of their own life stories? It's all freedom. But one is bad, and the other good.

Yes, bad. It's OK as a libertarian to say things are bad. It really is! Being a crack-addicted loser is bad, it really is! Deal with it! Locking up the losers is not a solution, but nowhere in the Libertarian Bible does it say that we should seek a society that maximizes this tragic waste.

The culture that our forebears built for us -- our manners, our customs, our art, our science, the things we revere, the ugliness we choose to despise (is there any of that last even left, anymore?), these things *matter*! Obviously! It's shocking one would have to even state such an opinion in adult conversation! Indeed, culture, especially the core power-aspects of culture: marriage, family, and religion, these are the things that turn out, when all is said and done and you are lying on your death-bed, to matter the very most.

Very well written! I'm convinced... you can enjoy any culture you like, HH. I won't stand in your way!

Zippyjuan
04-04-2017, 08:46 PM
What is "our culture" and what of "our culture" have we borrowed from other cultures? (most of it actually).

johnwk
04-04-2017, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by johnwk
Your insulting remarks do not advance your argument. You have made a number of unsubstantiated insulting remarks, which is exactly what adolescent trolls do.


JWK


Lol. Can't actually back up your arguments with facts so you'll just pretend to be insulted, eh Little Snowflake?



You are the one who posted a number of adolescent, unsubstantiated and insulting remarks, and never challenged what I have written.


JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.

johnwk
04-04-2017, 09:42 PM
.... so if somebody is a true Constitutionalist, the Federal Government doesn't have the power to regulate immigration.



What does that have to do with American Citizens being made into tax slaves to support the economic needs of millions of aliens who have invaded our borders?

What does that have to do with America being made into a taxpayer funded maternity ward for millions of foreigners who have invaded the borders of the United States?

JWK




They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.




What does that crap have to do with

pcosmar
04-04-2017, 10:35 PM
What does that crap have to do with

aw crap, it's been the welfare breeding grounds of enough white supremacists

doesn't affect me much,,

quit welfare
quit tax

helmuth_hubener
04-05-2017, 10:02 AM
Thanks for the clarification. There are those who believe that everyone worships something. I'd prefer to avoid that debate.
I believe the foundation of moral governance is Objectivism.

Ahh, yes, you're an Objectivist! You had surely let us know this before, but I had forgotten (can't remember and keep track of everyone!). My apologies.

I have read all of Ayn's fiction and have found it excellent. I have gotten so much value from that. It's tremendous. There are, of course, very strong positions staked out regarding cultural superiorities and absolutes in her novels (heroism good, lack of ambition bad; tall, thin, blonde men good, fat slobs bad; classical music good, monkey jungle noise bad) and also in Objectivism itself, at least as taught by Ayn.

Anyway, as an Objectivist and likely (though not necessarily!) an atheist, you likely find worshiping in the framework of a traditional God-based religion just as ridiculous/unadvised as worshiping in a State-based quasi-religion. So the "oomph" factor of the Statolatry rhetorical tack isn't going to be there for you. For religious people, that "oomph" factor is the blasphemy angle: it is horribly blasphemous and a sin to worship anything other than God. So, if you can convince them that there is a significant component of their attitude towards the state which could be rightly categorized as worship, they may recoil from that and reconsider their views.

Of course, it will be basically impossible for you to make the case, if you're not a believer yourself. No credibility, you see.

helmuth_hubener
04-05-2017, 12:03 PM
What is "our culture"



https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/A1WWnc86vDL.jpg


http://www.mcah.columbia.edu/raphael/images/school_of_athens/raphael_athens_cartoon_top.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/34/fc/4d/34fc4d89c6725541e173bb2f8317c5e8.jpg

PierzStyx
04-05-2017, 12:04 PM
You are the one who posted a number of adolescent, unsubstantiated and insulting remarks, and never challenged what I have written.


JWK





Thank you for proving my point. I originally talked about fake constitutionalists who called for immigration regulation even though it is unconstitutional.

You responded by getting offended, as if that excused your intellectual shallowness.

I provided you a direct link and actually asked you to show me in the Constitution itself wher eit authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration.

You again completely refuse to do so.


Thank you for proving how intellectually void and completely ignorant of The Constitution so-called "constitutionalists" who call upon government to regulate immigration really are. What you are is a Leftist progressive calling for an unconstitutional big government program to force other people to think, live, and act like you while violently attacking those who do not. You are not a minarchist, libertarian, or constitutionalist.

helmuth_hubener
04-05-2017, 12:07 PM
Very well written! I'm convinced... you can enjoy any culture you like, HH. I won't stand in your way!

That's awesome, man! (I already knew that! :D)

Now what are your thoughts on culture? Don't you have any thoughts to share?

PierzStyx
04-05-2017, 12:08 PM
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/A1WWnc86vDL.jpg


http://www.mcah.columbia.edu/raphael/images/school_of_athens/raphael_athens_cartoon_top.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/34/fc/4d/34fc4d89c6725541e173bb2f8317c5e8.jpg


So your civilization is a jumped up Medieval barbarian king who used violence to enforce his absolutist rule upon other people without a single care for their rights, a painting produced by theft, and a useless big government program produced by theft. Got it.

Thank you for admitting the fact that you care nothing about liberty but instead believe in monarchy, theft, and big government.


Problem is that is your culture, not mine. And it doesn't matter what mine is or what yours is because neither of us have the right to force it on others at the end of a truncheon.

helmuth_hubener
04-05-2017, 12:16 PM
intellectual shallowness Oh yes, we would not want to be intellectually shallow. Now would we.





Your posts have brought up just one question interesting enough for me to ask:


So your civilization is a Medieval king Did you recognize the reliquary or have to look it up?

Ender
04-05-2017, 12:58 PM
That's awesome, man! (I already knew that! :D)

Now what are your thoughts on culture? Don't you have any thoughts to share?

Here's mine:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7rPOaoPL4I

tod evans
04-05-2017, 01:49 PM
Now what are your thoughts on culture?

I like to visit other cultures and then come home....

I like other cultures to visit the Ozarks and then go home..

I don't think different cultures living in close proximity to each other is good for either culture.

otherone
04-05-2017, 02:29 PM
Ahh, yes, you're an Objectivist! You had surely let us know this before, but I had forgotten (can't remember and keep track of everyone!). My apologies.

I have read all of Ayn's fiction and have found it excellent. I have gotten so much value from that. It's tremendous. There are, of course, very strong positions staked out regarding cultural superiorities and absolutes in her novels (heroism good, lack of ambition bad; tall, thin, blonde men good, fat slobs bad; classical music good, monkey jungle noise bad) and also in Objectivism itself, at least as taught by Ayn.

Anyway, as an Objectivist and likely (though not necessarily!) an atheist, you likely find worshiping in the framework of a traditional God-based religion just as ridiculous/unadvised as worshiping in a State-based quasi-religion. So the "oomph" factor of the Statolatry rhetorical tack isn't going to be there for you. For religious people, that "oomph" factor is the blasphemy angle: it is horribly blasphemous and a sin to worship anything other than God. So, if you can convince them that there is a significant component of their attitude towards the state which could be rightly categorized as worship, they may recoil from that and reconsider their views.

Of course, it will be basically impossible for you to make the case, if you're not a believer yourself. No credibility, you see.

You've made some interesting comments (complete with subtext). I'll try to address them. At least the overt ones.
My interest in Objectivism stems from the fact that commonality in society must stem from that which is tangibly accepted by everyone. The supernatural must be rejected in the social arena, as peoples' beliefs are personal, and varied. I respect anyone who's integrity causes them to act in concert with their values, religious or no, providing those values aren't forced on others. I have no interest in convincing anyone that they are idolators. It's not my place. If the clergy grows some balls and chooses God over Mammon by defying the Johnson Amendment, I'll have more respect for the institution.

In regards to culture (to combine your posts), I believe it is largely regional, as tod evans points out. In addition, it constantly changes. I don't believe it's governments' role to define, enforce, or play favorites.

pcosmar
04-05-2017, 02:44 PM
Seems to be quite a few "muh culture" plants infesting the Liberty Forest lately.

Plants? Cultures?

http://appledrains.com/drains/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Stachybotrys_culture.jpg

http://inspectapedia.com/sickhouse/Culture003DJFs.jpg

anyone know of some Red, White and Blue fungus or mold?

the entire topic is a bit cheesy.

helmuth_hubener
04-05-2017, 02:52 PM
You've made some interesting comments Thanks! :)


In regards to culture (to combine your posts), I believe it is largely regional

It was better when it was.

You see, there didn't used to be a "mainstream." That happened in maybe the 1950s, when the media finally consolidated enough power (television, etc.) to begin to displace the organic American cultures that had existed previously. Cultures with an S.

So yes: bring back regionalism. Decentralize culture. Kill "mainstream culture." End it.

You can dampen it for you and yours by eliminating television, radio, internet, and other attack vectors from your home. That will at least create a buffer zone between you and the toxic stream of the anti-civilization left's Main.

helmuth_hubener
04-05-2017, 02:54 PM
I like to visit other cultures and then come home....

I like other cultures to visit the Ozarks and then go home..

I don't think different cultures living in close proximity to each other is good for either culture.
Proximity + Diversity = ???

What? Open question

otherone
04-05-2017, 03:03 PM
Thanks! :)



It was better when it was.

You see, there didn't used to be a "mainstream." That happened in maybe the 1950s, when the media finally consolidated enough power (television, etc.) to begin to displace the organic American cultures that had existed previously. Cultures with an S.

So yes: bring back regionalism. Decentralize culture. Kill "mainstream culture." End it.

You can dampen it for you and yours by eliminating television, radio, internet, and other attack vectors from your home. That will at least create a buffer zone between you and the toxic stream of the anti-civilization left's Main.

I largely agree with you, but I don't understand who your "bring back regionalism" directive is intended for.

tod evans
04-05-2017, 03:46 PM
Proximity + Diversity = ???

What? Open question

Fuck diversity.

tod evans
04-05-2017, 05:19 PM
Plants? Cultures?

http://appledrains.com/drains/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Stachybotrys_culture.jpg

http://inspectapedia.com/sickhouse/Culture003DJFs.jpg

anyone know of some Red, White and Blue fungus or mold?

the entire topic is a bit cheesy.

Have you been digging in the vegetable drawer of my fridge? :eek:

phill4paul
04-05-2017, 07:05 PM
There's a simple way to deal with the mind fuck that happens when you feel you are funding things that you are opposed to. Stop funding those things.

helmuth_hubener
04-05-2017, 09:37 PM
I largely agree with you, but I don't understand who your "bring back regionalism" directive is intended for.

That is a great question! These are the kinds of lines I love to pursue! The kind of concrete thinking I enjoy. I'm all about actionability. "We've figured out and agree on X; so now what do we *do* about it?" That's the right attitude!

Now in a limited way, I thought I already did have some actionable advice: the creation of a buffer by decontaminating your home from mainstream media poison. And it was directed at everyone reading. This is something everyone can do, and do it immediately, unilaterally, and no one can stop you. No one has any veto power to overrule your action. That's a pretty sweet situation!

Now it's only a start, certainly, on a tiny, household level. If you agree, and it sounds like you do, maybe you have some more ideas for second and third steps to do even more and more effective things to re-regionalize this country of ours.

devil21
04-06-2017, 01:18 AM
We're on a forum dedicated to a man that ran on an immigration platform advocating enforcing the laws on the books. That's a far cry from open borders, but yet we have plenty of those "plants" here.

Are you one of those plants?

In fairness, that kinda depends on when you asked him.

Ender
04-06-2017, 01:29 AM
In fairness, that kinda depends on when you asked him.

Ron Paul, Jan 31. 2017:


The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/01/ron-paul/better-solution-wall/

My solution, as well.

merkelstan
04-06-2017, 02:12 AM
Libertarians often have several blind spots. Culture is one.

KrokHead
04-06-2017, 03:42 AM
The biggest problem is that supposed minarchists, constitutionalists, and libertarians are all calling for another big government anti-liberty program - the massive bureaucracy and police state force necessary to enforce massive border regulation, immigration restriction, and hunting down anyone who might be undocumented- instead of attacking the thing they're arguing immigrants are taking advantage of, the welfare state. The hypocrisy and doublethink are astounding.

And the reality is that immigrants are no more parasites than native born Americans. Undocumented immigrants pay billions each year in income, property, sales, and excises taxes. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

And those who don't work didn't come here not to work, after all they're almost all leaving countries with LARGER welfare states than the US. No, the issue there are idiotic anti-free market nativists who literally make it illegal to employ undocumented immigrants. When they come here and are castrated of their ability to work of course they're going to be a drain on the system. They're literally being told they can't contribute and then being attacked for their inability to do so. It is ridiculous and nonsensical. Ironically immigrants, undocumented or otherwise aren't the problem. Native born Americans passing moronic laws are the problem.

Not to mention how Trump wants to tax people who are working to build his wall. There is a true parasite at work- teh parasite that is teh State.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/26/donald-trump-mexico-pay-tax-wall/

And all of it over a boogeyman. In case no one else noticed from the OP, but the number of immigrants decreases by tens of thousands every year.
Thanks, welfare is the enemy.

johnwk
04-10-2017, 07:33 AM
Thanks, welfare is the enemy.


Welfare AND an unregulated border [meaning front door] is the enemy!


JWK




There was a time not too long ago in New York when able-bodied people were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now these ticks and fleas not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs and Lotto tickets.

johnwk
04-10-2017, 07:40 AM
Originally Posted by johnwk
You are the one who posted a number of adolescent, unsubstantiated and insulting remarks, and never challenged what I have written.


JWK


Thank you for proving my point. I originally talked about fake constitutionalists who called for immigration regulation even though it is unconstitutional.

You responded by getting offended, as if that excused your intellectual shallowness.

I provided you a direct link and actually asked you to show me in the Constitution itself wher eit authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration.

You again completely refuse to do so.


Thank you for proving how intellectually void and completely ignorant of The Constitution so-called "constitutionalists" who call upon government to regulate immigration really are. What you are is a Leftist progressive calling for an unconstitutional big government program to force other people to think, live, and act like you while violently attacking those who do not. You are not a minarchist, libertarian, or constitutionalist.


Once again you post adolescent remarks, insults and unsubstantiated assertions rather than quoting my words and then challenging them.

:rolleyes:

JWK




The American People need to rid themselves of the Washington Establishment welfare cartel which has enslaved them, and return powers to the States and people therein which are not granted to the federal government.

johnwk
04-10-2017, 08:14 AM
You realize that in order to be a constitutionalist, you have to be against all federal regulation of immigration. Right?

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. "

JWK


Why do we lock up burglars and armed robbers who steal other people’s property which is then used for the thieves’ personal needs and enjoyment when our federal government likewise confiscates the property working people have in their labor which is then transferred by our federal government to a privileged class to be used for their personal needs and enjoyment?

Superfluous Man
04-10-2017, 08:41 AM
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. "

JWK


That's talking about importing slaves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/19/why-the-migration-or-importation-clause-of-the-constitution-does-not-imply-any-general-federal-power-to-limit-immigration/?utm_term=.aa6052944f11


As John Jay – the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and coauthor of the Federalist Papers – pointed out in an 1819 letter discussing the Clause:

It will, I presume, be admitted that slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of the existing toleration of slavery and of its discordance with the principles of the Revolution, and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to the following positions in the Declaration of Independence, viz.: ‘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 them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”

James Madison similarly argued that the Clause was intended to protect the slave trade against limitation prior to 1808, and that its phrasing was due to “scruples against admitting the term ‘slaves’ into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase ‘migration or importation of persons;’ the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the same term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country.” This suggests it is likely that the term “migration” was included only in order to avoid direct reference to slavery, and did not imply any general congressional power to restrict migration. In Federalist 42, Madison decried “[a]ttempts [that] have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it…as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.”


Also, notice that, regardless of the meaning of the word "migration" there, nothing in that clause grants any additional powers to the federal government beyond what is already enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. It restricts the enumerated powers. It doesn't expand them.

johnwk
04-11-2017, 06:17 AM
That's talking about importing slaves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/19/why-the-migration-or-importation-clause-of-the-constitution-does-not-imply-any-general-federal-power-to-limit-immigration/?utm_term=.aa6052944f11



Also, notice that, regardless of the meaning of the word "migration" there, nothing in that clause grants any additional powers to the federal government beyond what is already enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. It restricts the enumerated powers. It doesn't expand them.


And? The comment was: "You realize that in order to be a constitutionalist, you have to be against all federal regulation of immigration. Right?"


The wording is crystal clear: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. "



And what does your non sequitur comment have to do with the subject of the thread which is: "Making America into a taxpayer funded maternity ward for illegal aliens"


JWK


Why do we lock up burglars and armed robbers who steal other people’s property which is then used for the thieves’ personal needs and enjoyment when our federal government likewise confiscates the property working people have in their labor which is then transferred by our federal government to a privileged class to be used for their personal needs and enjoyment?

timosman
04-11-2017, 07:51 AM
You realize that in order to be a constitutionalist, you have to be against all federal regulation of immigration. Right?

Right? Right? Why don't you GTFO and join Zippy at the kids table? :cool:

Zippyjuan
04-11-2017, 12:50 PM
And? The comment was: "You realize that in order to be a constitutionalist, you have to be against all federal regulation of immigration. Right?"


The wording is crystal clear: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. "



And what does your non sequitur comment have to do with the subject of the thread which is: "Making America into a taxpayer funded maternity ward for illegal aliens"


JWK


Why do we lock up burglars and armed robbers who steal other people’s property which is then used for the thieves’ personal needs and enjoyment when our federal government likewise confiscates the property working people have in their labor which is then transferred by our federal government to a privileged class to be used for their personal needs and enjoyment?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/19/why-the-migration-or-importation-clause-of-the-constitution-does-not-imply-any-general-federal-power-to-limit-immigration/?utm_term=.b16259b7f8a9


Why the Migration or Importation Clause of the Constitution does not imply any general federal power to restrict immigration

Some readers of my recent Reason op ed arguing that, under the original meaning of the Constitution, Congress had no general power over immigration, have written to me, pointing to the Migration or Importation Clause as evidence to the contrary. Some modern advocates of broad congressional power over immigration also cite it to support their position. But, at least under the original meaning of the Constitution, it does not.

The Migration or Importation Clause states that “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” In and of itself, the Clause does not grant Congress any additional authority. To the contrary, it is a limitation on power. However, it could be argued that the limitation on congressional power to prohibit “migration or importation” of persons until 1808 implies that Congress had such a power to begin with. The word “migration” suggests that that power extended to the prohibition of voluntary immigration, as well as the importation of slaves, which the Migration or Importation Clause was intended to protect.

But the inclusion of the term “migration” was not meant to imply a general federal power to restrict migration, but was a euphemism intended to bolster the pretense that the Constitution did not endorse slavery. As John Jay – the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and coauthor of the Federalist Papers – pointed out in an 1819 letter discussing the Clause:


It will, I presume, be admitted that slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of the existing toleration of slavery and of its discordance with the principles of the Revolution, and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to the following positions in the Declaration of Independence, viz.: ‘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 them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”

James Madison similarly argued that the Clause was intended to protect the slave trade against limitation prior to 1808, and that its phrasing was due to “scruples against admitting the term ‘slaves’ into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase ‘migration or importation of persons;’ the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the same term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country.” This suggests it is likely that the term “migration” was included only in order to avoid direct reference to slavery, and did not imply any general congressional power to restrict migration. In Federalist 42, Madison decried “[a]ttempts [that] have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it…as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.”

Even if the Clause does imply a power to limit the “migration” of some voluntary arrivals, it does not follow that Congress was assumed to have a general power to forbid immigration. In addition to the importation of slaves, indentured servants were also commonly brought into the country during the colonial era and the early republic. Unlike slaves, indentured servants came of their own free will, and therefore might not be described merely as “imported.” But their passage was paid for by employers in America, and the indentured servants were thereafter required to work for them for several years to pay off their debt. The transportation of indentured servants across the Atlantic on the basis of indenture contracts paid for by Americans was considered an international commercial transaction subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. Indeed, eighteenth century Americans often did in fact consider indentured servants to be “articles of commerce,” and therefore within the scope of the commerce power, even though their migration was voluntary.

During the Founding era, the Foreign Commerce Clause was generally interpreted to give Congress power to regulate the international shipment of articles of commerce (including slaves and indentured servants), but not to forbid mere migration, as such. Similarly, the interstate Commerce Clause was not understood to give Congress the power to forbid the migration of Americans from one state to another. The Constitution literally uses the same phrase to cover both, giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” What is true of the interstate commerce goose must also be true of the foreign commerce gander.

The migration provision of the Migration or Importation Clause therefore was likely either a euphemism intended to avoid referring to slaves, or a tool for preventing Congress from using the Foreign Commerce Clause to ban or heavily tax the in-migration of indentured servants until 1808. At the very least, its language does not require us to conclude that Congress had any general power to regulate migration, as opposed to a few subsets of migrants whose activities come within the scope of Congress’ other enumerated powers.

timosman
04-11-2017, 01:06 PM
Zippy, I said the kids table. :cool:

Zippyjuan
04-11-2017, 01:46 PM
Zippy, I said the kids table. :cool:

I would rather not sit next to you but thanks for the invitation anyways.

helmuth_hubener
04-11-2017, 01:54 PM
I would rather not sit next to you but thanks for the invitation anyways.

Ooh, burn!

johnwk
04-12-2017, 05:47 AM
:rolleyes:

And what does your post have to do with the subject of the thread which is Making America into a taxpayer funded maternity ward for illegal aliens
?

JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.

Ender
04-12-2017, 07:50 AM
:rolleyes:

And what does your post have to do with the subject of the thread which is Making America into a taxpayer funded maternity ward for illegal aliens
?

JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.



Zippyjuan wrote exactly on the subject but you didn't bother to answer.

Of course, the REAL answer is to get rid of the welfare/warfare system but we can't have that, can we?

helmuth_hubener
04-12-2017, 08:15 AM
The REAL answer is to get rid of the welfare/warfare system but we can't have that, can we?

That would help, but would not entirely solve.

Of course, it depends what problem one is trying to solve.

And a few still see, essentially, no problem whatsoever.

Their numbers (the "what's the problem?" crowd) will grow smaller and smaller as the demographics change. Nobody likes to live in South Africa.

Zippyjuan
04-12-2017, 11:12 AM
That would help, but would not entirely solve.

Of course, it depends what problem one is trying to solve.

And a few still see, essentially, no problem whatsoever.

Their numbers (the "what's the problem?" crowd) will grow smaller and smaller as the demographics change. Nobody likes to live in South Africa.

The US is not at all like South Africa.

Superfluous Man
04-12-2017, 09:40 PM
And? The comment was: "You realize that in order to be a constitutionalist, you have to be against all federal regulation of immigration. Right?"


And that comment is a true statement.

I'm not sure what you think the relevance of your post was.

Superfluous Man
04-12-2017, 09:41 PM
Their numbers (the "what's the problem?" crowd) will grow smaller and smaller as the demographics change. Nobody likes to live in South Africa.

Please do answer that question for us then, what is the problem?

helmuth_hubener
04-12-2017, 09:52 PM
Please do answer that question for us then, what is the problem?
Why would you eat to hear about problems, E.? Don't trouble your pretty little head. There's no problems!

Everything is Awesome!

Superfluous Man
04-12-2017, 10:53 PM
Why would you eat to hear about problems, E.? Don't trouble your pretty little head. There's no problems!

Everything is Awesome!

I knew you wouldn't answer. Then when people accuse you of believing what we all know you believe, you can act shocked and talk about how you never said that.

timosman
04-12-2017, 11:00 PM
Why is anybody still engaging in a discussion with open border nuts after Ron and Lew made their positions known is beyond my comprehension.:rolleyes:

afwjam
04-12-2017, 11:43 PM
End welfare and then let the free market manage it, just like Ron Paul says.

helmuth_hubener
04-13-2017, 07:47 AM
you can act shocked
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Wha!?!!!!!!!

Superfluous Man
04-13-2017, 10:24 AM
End welfare and then let the free market manage it, just like Ron Paul says.

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

BSWPaulsen
04-13-2017, 11:18 AM
End welfare and then let the free market manage it, just like Ron Paul says.

And precisely how do you think welfare will be ended?

People need to stop pretending ending the welfare state is this trivial thing when a huge percentage of the population supports the parasitic behavior and immigration is consistently adding to the number of people on the dole.

The left will actually fight for welfare, and if their numbers are large enough they will win that fight. It's delusional nonsense to propose solutions that do not work until after our current situation is dramatically altered.

afwjam
04-13-2017, 11:23 AM
And precisely how do you think welfare will be ended?

People need to stop pretending ending the welfare state is this trivial thing when a huge percentage of the population supports the parasitic behavior and immigration is consistently adding to the number of people on the dole.

The left will actually fight for welfare, and if their numbers are large enough they will win that fight. It's delusional nonsense to propose solutions that do not work until after our current situation is dramatically altered.

Honestly? I have the same belief as Dr. Paul, it will come to an end, in bankruptcy.

timosman
04-13-2017, 11:24 AM
It's delusional nonsense to propose solutions that do not work until after our current situation is dramatically altered.

Au contraire! This is a great way drive a wedge in the liberty movement, which is what these assholes have been doing for a while quite successfully. :cool:

timosman
04-13-2017, 11:25 AM
Honestly? I have the same belief as Dr. Paul, it will come to an end, in bankruptcy.

Ron was not trying to accelerate the process. Btw, you and "honestly"? :rolleyes:

afwjam
04-13-2017, 11:28 AM
Ron was not trying to accelerate the process. Btw, you and "honestly"? :rolleyes:


Did I do something to offend you? You think I've been telling lies?

timosman
04-13-2017, 11:31 AM
Did I do something to offend you? You think I've been telling lies?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1AzBP30UIA

afwjam
04-13-2017, 11:35 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1AzBP30UIA

Thats a great movie, I saw it in super panavision. However, if you would like to point out what you think I've been lying about, let's see it, I'll be happy to hash it out as I pride myself on honesty.

BSWPaulsen
04-13-2017, 11:48 AM
Honestly? I have the same belief as Dr. Paul, it will come to an end, in bankruptcy.

Great. Current immigration policy continues unabated until bankruptcy (whenever the hell that finally happens), and guarantees more supporters of the welfare state will be here when the system comes crashing down. Somehow open borders libertarians view this as a positive thing.

Now here's the part you need to get through your skull: if the system crashes, the one that follows is not guaranteed to be favorable to liberty if a significant enough percentage of the population demand welfare and/or communism. What in the hell do you think those endorsers of parasitic behavior are going to opt for? A free market?

The fight against the welfare state does not end with the bankruptcy of the current state, and it is a delusional fantasy to think it does. People that hate free markets, hate meritocracy, and believe they have positive rights will not suddenly develop a liking for free markets in the chaos that follows bankruptcy.

Those that understand the fight ahead want the numbers of those parasites as small as possible for when the attempt to end the welfare state is made in earnest. Any approach that allows for the increase in the number of parasites, including open borders policies, is suicidal and detrimental to the liberty of those that do not want to be shackled by the welfare state.

afwjam
04-13-2017, 11:52 AM
Great. Current immigration policy continues unabated until bankruptcy (whenever the hell that finally happens), and guarantees more supporters of the welfare state will be here when the system comes crashing down. Somehow open borders libertarians view this as a positive thing.

Now here's the part you need to get through your skull: if the system crashes, the one that follows is not guaranteed to be favorable to liberty if a significant enough percentage of the population demand welfare and/or communism. What in the hell do you think those endorsers of parasitic behavior are going to opt for? A free market?

The fight against the welfare state does not end with the bankruptcy of the current state, and it is a delusional fantasy to think it does. People that hate free markets, hate meritocracy, and believe they have positive rights will not suddenly develop a liking for free markets in the chaos that follows bankruptcy.

Those that understand the fight ahead want the numbers of those parasites as small as possible for when the attempt to end the welfare state is made in earnest. Any approach that allows for the increase in the number of parasites, including open borders policies, is suicidal and detrimental to the liberty of those that do not want to be shackled by the welfare state.


The solution to welfare is not a political one. We must teach people how to live their own lives, how to support themselves, this can't happen politically. It will take education, more importantly it will take the education of families, tribes and culture. True morality and principles. This is not something that can be approached politically. I'll vote for anyone serious in cutting it off, but it won't happen that way will it?

timosman
04-13-2017, 11:54 AM
The solution to welfare is not a political one. We must teach people how to live their own lives, how to support themselves, this can't happen politically. It will take education, more importantly it will take the education of families, tribes and culture. True morality and principles. This is not something that can be approached politically. I'll vote for anyone serious in cutting it off, but it won't happen that way will it?

I am so full of good intentions nobody can accuse me of being full of shit. There would be no space left!:D

BSWPaulsen
04-13-2017, 12:04 PM
The solution to welfare is not a political one. We must teach people how to live their own lives, how to support themselves, this can't happen politically. It will take education, more importantly it will take the education of families, tribes and culture. This is not something that can be approached politically. I'll vote for anyone serious in cutting it off, but it won't happen that way will it?

Educating people has little effect when the welfare state meets their needs. In order for that education to matter there must be a need for that education in their lives. As it stands there is no need for said education due to the welfare state.

Understanding this, and that the welfare state is not going away any time soon, efforts must be made to limit the number of new people receiving succor from it. Failure to do so only further marginalizes those that would see it end.

Every shade of libertarian understands there is no political solution to this absent a demonstrable show of force to see it through. And in order for the success of that endeavor to be possible the numbers of the parasites must be as small as possible.

Zippyjuan
04-13-2017, 12:06 PM
Great. Current immigration policy continues unabated until bankruptcy (whenever the hell that finally happens), and guarantees more supporters of the welfare state will be here when the system comes crashing down. Somehow open borders libertarians view this as a positive thing.

Now here's the part you need to get through your skull: if the system crashes, the one that follows is not guaranteed to be favorable to liberty if a significant enough percentage of the population demand welfare and/or communism. What in the hell do you think those endorsers of parasitic behavior are going to opt for? A free market?

The fight against the welfare state does not end with the bankruptcy of the current state, and it is a delusional fantasy to think it does. People that hate free markets, hate meritocracy, and believe they have positive rights will not suddenly develop a liking for free markets in the chaos that follows bankruptcy.

Those that understand the fight ahead want the numbers of those parasites as small as possible for when the attempt to end the welfare state is made in earnest. Any approach that allows for the increase in the number of parasites, including open borders policies, is suicidal and detrimental to the liberty of those that do not want to be shackled by the welfare state.

So we should reduce liberties (expand the military/ security apparatus and the taxes needed to pay for them- to deal with immigration) in order to preserve liberties. May we see your papers please? You might be one of "them".

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/news/la-pn-ron-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201


"I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they're the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state," Paul told the group. "In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.

"Now there's a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants," he continued. "You say, no not immigrants, it's just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy."

Paul said he's not one of those politicians who believes that "barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems." That's not, he said, the American way. And he doesn't think that a national identification card is the way to go.

What the country does need, he said, is "a much better immigration service" fed by more resources. Not that he'd "vote for extra money." But he does, he told the crowd, have a plan.

afwjam
04-13-2017, 12:06 PM
I am so full of good intentions nobody can accuse me of being full of shit. There would be no space left!:D

You sound like you need a vacation in Hawaii, I'm not offering.


http://i.imgur.com/zA0rl6P.jpg

timosman
04-13-2017, 12:08 PM
You sound like you need a vacation in Hawaii, I'm not offering.


http://i.imgur.com/zA0rl6P.jpg

Going to Oahu next month. Two weeks. :cool:

afwjam
04-13-2017, 12:09 PM
Educating people has little effect when the welfare state meets their needs. In order for that education to matter there must be a need for that education in their lives. As it stands there is no need for said education due to the welfare state.

Understanding this, and that the welfare state is not going away any time soon, efforts must be made to limit the number of new people receiving succor from it. Failure to do so only further marginalizes those that would see it end.

Every shade of libertarian understands there is no political solution to this absent a demonstrable show of force to see it through. And in order for the success of that endeavor to be possible the numbers of the parasites must be as small as possible.

I disagree, I think there is a need, life wants to live. If what you say is true then communism would keep going, it always ends.
Do you realistically see the welfare being cut off politically before we go bankrupt? They will keep it going until it's to late, unfortunately.

afwjam
04-13-2017, 12:10 PM
Going to Oahu next month. Two weeks. :cool:


Thats not Hawaii lol.

http://i.imgur.com/Jh5uhTj.jpg

Zippyjuan
04-13-2017, 12:12 PM
Thats not Hawaii lol.

Not Hawaii the island but part of Hawaii the state. lol.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BF4LziViLyA/USQyHOVWAiI/AAAAAAAAAAk/8Was9BZclhk/s1600/Hawaii_Map.jpg

BSWPaulsen
04-13-2017, 12:12 PM
So we should reduce liberties (expand the military/ security apparatus and the taxes needed to pay for them- to deal with immigration) in order to preserve liberties. May we see your papers please? You might be one of "them".

Wow, this is one truly poor critique of my position.

There is no expansion necessary. Pull the troops back home and put them on the border, where they've always belonged (to the extent any army is necessary the defense of borders is their only legitimate purpose). The funding is already there, and would be cheaper than overseas deployment by several orders of magnitude.

No need to worry about the "Papers, please?" nonsense if they're not getting in, in the first place.

Zippyjuan
04-13-2017, 12:15 PM
Wow, this is one truly poor critique of my position.

There is no expansion necessary. Pull the troops back home and put them on the border, where they've always belonged (to the extent any army is necessary the defense of borders is their only legitimate purpose). The funding is already there, and would be cheaper than overseas deployment by several orders of magnitude.

No need to worry about the "Papers, please?" nonsense if they're not getting in, in the first place.

Most of those in the country illegally entered the country legally- work, student, tourist visas- not by sneaking across the border. More troops on the border doesn't stop them. For that you need police forces checking up on people.

And those not in the country legally can't vote and aren't eligible for federal government benefits. (Legal residents can't vote either and are not eligible for any federal benefits for at least five years). It is citizens expanding the welfare state. Even with zero illegal immigrants (and trillions spent doing that), the welfare state will still be here. Immigration is not a cause.

Papers please!

afwjam
04-13-2017, 12:17 PM
Not Hawaii the island but part of Hawaii the state. lol.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BF4LziViLyA/USQyHOVWAiI/AAAAAAAAAAk/8Was9BZclhk/s1600/Hawaii_Map.jpg


Its a military base and extension of LA in the middle of the ocean. I'm talking about the real Hawaii, its more a state of mind or kingdom depending on who you are talking to. It's not Oahu, it's not a "State"
http://i.imgur.com/AzQjsiR.jpg

afwjam
04-13-2017, 12:21 PM
This is what Hawaii the "State" looks like:
http://hawaiibeachsafety.com/sites/default/files/beach/hbaybeach3a.jpg
http://sparks-mexico.com/hawaii/2006/hanauma/slides/hanuama5.jpg
http://www.sheraton-waikiki.com/images/main_pics/ariel2.jpg
http://cdn-image.travelandleisure.com/sites/default/files/styles/tnl_redesign_article_landing_page/public/images/amexpub/0031/1694/201206-w-crowded-beaches-rockaway-beach.jpg?itok=moP2ps26
have fun.

before it became a "State":

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w9YB4sh2B_w/UhiHv9uxwBI/AAAAAAAALXU/FYnN6hslmIY/s1600/Old+Photos+of+Hawaii+from+Before+It+Became+a+State +(12).jpg

BSWPaulsen
04-13-2017, 12:22 PM
I disagree, I think there is a need, life wants to live. If what you say is true then communism would keep going, it always ends.
Do you realistically see the welfare being cut off politically before we go bankrupt? They will keep it going until it's to late, unfortunately.

Communism keeps going until it runs out of other people's money, and then the chaos is typically followed by a system that is unfavorable to liberty. The American Revolution was an aberration in this regard, but it took a specific, relatively homogenous culture to engender its outcome. Do you want to bet on liberty having a Second American Revolution when the population is so very divided? Looking at world history the betting man would look to some kind of socialist hellhole emerging out of the quagmire.

There will be no political solution to the welfare state. Whatever final solution comes will be won in blood. The parasites will fight for their right to be taken care of.

afwjam
04-13-2017, 12:25 PM
Communism keeps going until it runs out of other people's money, and then the chaos is typically followed by a system that is unfavorable to liberty. The American Revolution was an aberration in this regard, but it took a specific, relatively homogenous culture to engender its outcome. Do you want to bet on liberty having a Second American Revolution when the population is so very divided? Looking at world history the betting man would look to some kind of socialist hellhole emerging out of the quagmire.

There will be no political solution to the welfare state. Whatever final solution comes will be won in blood. The parasites will fight for their right to be taken care of.

so violence is the answer?

afwjam
04-13-2017, 12:31 PM
One more for Hank a real Hawaiian.

http://i.imgur.com/CHpdg36.jpg

live your own life, a real path to Liberty:
http://i.imgur.com/0UmUE2S.jpg

BSWPaulsen
04-13-2017, 12:38 PM
so violence is the answer?

Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes.

Advocates of the welfare state/communism make claim to your property. They do it now, and they will do it again should your desired bankruptcy ever arrive. They will not stop until they are successfully resisted and defeated.

They've won every battle so far. That's why we're at this point now. And as their numbers continue to grow, our chances of releasing our shackles lessen.

Even complete governmental collapse would not resolve us of our duty to stand and fight. Waiting on bankruptcy and thinking it will solve the problem of the welfare state is wishful thinking, the naïve hope that liberty will be achieved without putting your ass on the line.

BSWPaulsen
04-13-2017, 12:43 PM
Most of those in the country illegally entered the country legally- work, student, tourist visas- not by sneaking across the border. More troops on the border doesn't stop them. For that you need police forces checking up on people.

The responsibility for those people rests with the host that invited them. If the host failed to properly see their visitor home, then the only one that would be getting a "Papers, please?" would be them. There is no need at all to be randomly harassing the public on account of poor hosts.

Similarly, the host should be held liable for the behavior of their guest.

Lastly, there is still more than enough people that did come across the border, and as such it is worth both securing the border and having a legitimate use for the army at the same time.



And those not in the country legally can't vote and aren't eligible for federal government benefits. (Legal residents can't vote either and are not eligible for any federal benefits for at least five years). It is citizens expanding the welfare state.

Papers please!

Yes, it is citizens expanding the welfare state. That is precisely why new ones shouldn't be added easily, and anchor babies should be done away with entirely.

Zippyjuan
04-13-2017, 12:47 PM
The responsibility for those people rests with the host that invited them. If the host failed to properly see their visitor home, then the only one that would be getting a "Papers, please?" would be them. There is no need at all to be randomly harassing the public on account of poor hosts.

Similarly, the host should be held liable for the behavior of their guest.

Lastly, there is still more than enough people that did come across the border, and as such it is worth both securing the border and having a legitimate use for the army at the same time.



Yes, it is citizens expanding the welfare state. That is precisely why new ones shouldn't be added easily, and anchor babies should be done away with entirely.

They aren't coming anymore. At least as many are leaving as entering. The "threat" is mostly imaginary. And to be sure who people are, we would need to check EVERYBODY- not just "hosts". "But I am not doing anything" will not exempt you.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/


More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.

Net Loss of 140,000 from 2009 to 2014; Family Reunification Top Reason for Return

More Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here since the end of the Great Recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from both countries. The same data sources also show the overall flow of Mexican immigrants between the two countries is at its smallest since the 1990s, mostly due to a drop in the number of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.

From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families (including U.S.-born children) left the U.S. for Mexico, according to data from the 2014 Mexican National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (ENADID). U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to come to the U.S., a smaller number than the flow of families from the U.S. to Mexico.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/09/PH_2016.09.20_Unauthorized-02.png

afwjam
04-13-2017, 12:48 PM
Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes.

Advocates of the welfare state/communism make claim to your property. They do it now, and they will do it again should your desired bankruptcy ever arrive. They will not stop until they are successfully resisted and defeated.

They've won every battle so far. That's why we're at this point now. And as their numbers continue to grow, our chances of releasing our shackles lessen.

Even complete governmental collapse would not resolve us of our duty to stand and fight. Waiting on bankruptcy and thinking it will solve the problem of the welfare state is wishful thinking, the naïve hope that liberty will be achieved without putting your ass on the line.

I see what your saying, who says my ass ain't on the line?


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

timosman
04-13-2017, 12:49 PM
Zippy spewing his BS again. Yeah the Mexicans are not coming anymore, instead the rest of the South America and the rest of the world is heading this way. :cool:

BSWPaulsen
04-13-2017, 12:51 PM
I see what your saying, who says my ass ain't on the line?


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

Well met!

BSWPaulsen
04-13-2017, 02:37 PM
They aren't coming anymore. At least as many are leaving as entering. The "threat" is mostly imaginary. And to be sure who people are, we would need to check EVERYBODY- not just "hosts". "But I am not doing anything" will not exempt you.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

Mexicans are not the only border crossers, and it is disingenuous to insinuate as such by only mentioning them. The Chinese, among many others, are factors in this stance.

And, in fact, no, we would not have to check everyone. If the hosts cannot account for their guests, then it would entirely be on them. The problem you are having with this issue is that you wrongly assume these visitors have to be hunted down, when the government does not have to actively search for anyone at all. If the hosts cannot account for them, and are held financially liable for any wrongdoing they may eventually do as a result of their overstaying their visit, you will quickly find this issue resolving itself as individuals and businesses would not want to have such an outstanding liability on their hands. The liability would never disappear so long as the host has guests unaccounted for in the country.

In short, the public is not the one requesting the various visas. It is specific institutions and businesses, and therefore those should bear the associated burden. As such, the public should not bear any burden created by those entities inviting foreigners into the country to stay for a time. However, if the public should accept burdens (such as any placed on the justice system, hospitals, and so forth) as a result of the negligence of those institutions in properly seeing their guests home, then those institutions should be held financially accountable for their negligence.

Basically, your "Papers, please?" argument is categorical nonsense derived from a misbegotten sense of the proper way to approach the issue.

johnwk
04-14-2017, 10:50 AM
Originally Posted by johnwk


And what does your post have to do with the subject of the thread which is Making America into a taxpayer funded maternity ward for illegal aliens
?

JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.




Zippyjuan wrote exactly on the subject but you didn't bother to answer.




Why do you make stuff up with regard to a very serious subject? Your pal Zippyjuan did not address how America has been made into a taxpayer financed maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who have invaded our borders.

It's not nice to make fake-post assertions.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.

Ender
04-14-2017, 06:31 PM
Why do you make stuff up with regard to a very serious subject? Your pal Zippyjuan did not address how America has been made into a taxpayer financed maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who have invaded our borders.

It's not nice to make fake-post assertions.

JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.




Perhaps you should remember that.

Again:

Why the Migration or Importation Clause of the Constitution does not imply any general federal power to restrict immigration

Some readers of my recent Reason op ed arguing that, under the original meaning of the Constitution, Congress had no general power over immigration, have written to me, pointing to the Migration or Importation Clause as evidence to the contrary. Some modern advocates of broad congressional power over immigration also cite it to support their position. But, at least under the original meaning of the Constitution, it does not.

The Migration or Importation Clause states that “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” In and of itself, the Clause does not grant Congress any additional authority. To the contrary, it is a limitation on power. However, it could be argued that the limitation on congressional power to prohibit “migration or importation” of persons until 1808 implies that Congress had such a power to begin with. The word “migration” suggests that that power extended to the prohibition of voluntary immigration, as well as the importation of slaves, which the Migration or Importation Clause was intended to protect.

The ANSWER to illegal immigration is to get rid of the welfare state- NOT MORE GOVERNMENT.

SHOCKER.

timosman
04-14-2017, 07:21 PM
Perhaps you should remember that.

Again:


The ANSWER to illegal immigration is to get rid of the welfare state- NOT MORE GOVERNMENT.

SHOCKER.

Let's add abolishing the Federal Reserve, auditing the Pentagon and dissolving the CIA to the list. Anything else you would like to add to the list of tasks necessary to accomplish before we can look at the immigration problem?:rolleyes:

Ender
04-14-2017, 07:58 PM
Let's add abolishing the Federal Reserve, auditing the Pentagon and dissolving the CIA to the list. Anything else you would like to add to the list of tasks necessary to accomplish before we can look at the immigration problem?:rolleyes:

Abolishing the welfare state IS directly looking at the immigration problem. :rolleyes::cool::rolleyes::p

timosman
04-14-2017, 08:00 PM
Abolishing the welfare state IS directly looking at the immigration problem. :rolleyes::cool::rolleyes::p

In the long term. What about the short term?

Ender
04-14-2017, 08:02 PM
In the long term. What about the short term?

Leave it to the states.

johnwk
04-15-2017, 06:39 AM
Perhaps you should remember that.

Again:


The ANSWER to illegal immigration is to get rid of the welfare state- NOT MORE GOVERNMENT.

SHOCKER.

Once again you have ignored how America has been made into a taxpayer financed maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who have invaded our borders.


JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.

johnwk
04-15-2017, 07:00 AM
Abolishing the welfare state IS directly looking at the immigration problem. :rolleyes::cool::rolleyes::p



Are you suggesting when foreigners who are about to give birth and have entered our country illegally, that we should refuse to give them any medical attention? And how about those who flood our emergency rooms, should we also refuse to give them medical attention?


I think it is wise and prudent for every country to determine who and who shall not be permitted to enter their country based upon various factors which will affect their country's general welfare, just as one does when allowing people to enter their private homes.


Let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578)

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.



JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.

tod evans
04-15-2017, 07:17 AM
Are you suggesting when foreigners who are about to give birth and have entered our country illegally, that we should refuse to give them any medical attention? And how about those who flood our emergency rooms, should we also refuse to give them medical attention?


Absolutely.

American citizens who cannot pay on the spot should be refused service too.

You are not entitled to shit, especially another mans labor.

timosman
04-15-2017, 08:18 AM
Absolutely.

American citizens who cannot pay on the spot should be refused service too.

You are not entitled to shit, especially another mans labor.

WARNING: Batshit crazy talk. :cool:

Ender
04-15-2017, 08:25 AM
Are you suggesting when foreigners who are about to give birth and have entered our country illegally, that we should refuse to give them any medical attention? And how about those who flood our emergency rooms, should we also refuse to give them medical attention?


I think it is wise and prudent for every country to determine who and who shall not be permitted to enter their country based upon various factors which will affect their country's general welfare, just as one does when allowing people to enter their private homes.


Let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578)

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.



JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.



First of all quit screaming- no one wants to read your posts when you do.

2nd of all, every state can determine how they want to handle immigrants as well as every company/individual. Catholic Hospitals are among the best in the nation and they certainly give service to those who need it.

And, ironically, those horrible "convicts" poring out of British jails were probably the Irish, who were treated as slaves in Britain and America because they were dirty Catholics and were not considered "white".

The highest number of immigrants are not from Mexico any more and frankly I do not know better workers than these. They used to come freely here, work and then go home until the US made this a "crime" so .gov could control farms/land/business/you-name-it.

The answer is ALWAYS less fed government, more local involvement in law, and FREEDOM FOR ALL.

otherone
04-15-2017, 10:02 AM
Are you suggesting when foreigners who are about to give birth and have entered our country illegally, that we should refuse to give them any medical attention? And how about those who flood our emergency rooms, should we also refuse to give them medical attention?


Whenever a walnut* uses the pronoun "we", I reach for my checkbook. By "we", you mean "taxpayers". By using the appropriate term, the answer is obvious, as there should be no taxpayers.
Private individuals and organizations are free to fund whatever they wish.

* I just coined this. Anyone is free to use it, providing they acknowledge my cleverness.

johnwk
04-15-2017, 10:27 AM
Whenever a walnut* uses the pronoun "we", I reach for my checkbook. By "we", you mean "taxpayers". By using the appropriate term, the answer is obvious, as there should be no taxpayers.
Private individuals and organizations are free to fund whatever they wish.

* I just coined this. Anyone is free to use it, providing they acknowledge my cleverness.

I have no idea what you mean by walnut. With reference to the distinction "taxpayers", I agree with you completely! Government force ought not be used to confiscate the property one individual has in their labor with the intention to transfer that property to another for their personal use and enjoyment. To do so is to engage in tax tyranny!




"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." ___ See: Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=003/llac003.db&recNum=179)


JWK




Why do we lock up burglars and armed robbers who steal other people’s property which is then used for the thieves’ personal needs and enjoyment when our federal government likewise confiscates the property working people have in their labor which is then transferred by our federal government to a privileged class to be used for their personal needs and enjoyment?

otherone
04-15-2017, 10:35 AM
I have no idea what you mean by walnut.

walnut
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portmanteau)

johnwk
04-15-2017, 11:12 AM
First of all quit screaming- no one wants to read your posts when you do.

2nd of all, every state can determine how they want to handle immigrants as well as every company/individual. Catholic Hospitals are among the best in the nation and they certainly give service to those who need it.

And, ironically, those horrible "convicts" poring out of British jails were probably the Irish, who were treated as slaves in Britain and America because they were dirty Catholics and were not considered "white".

The highest number of immigrants are not from Mexico any more and frankly I do not know better workers than these. They used to come freely here, work and then go home until the US made this a "crime" so .gov could control farms/land/business/you-name-it.

The answer is ALWAYS less fed government, more local involvement in law, and FREEDOM FOR ALL.


No. I won’t change the style in which I post. And with regard to your notion that every state can determine how they want to handle immigrants, we are not talking about states handling immigrants. We are talking about foreigners entering the geographical borders of the United States unchecked and unrestrained, and as such, they can and are having an effect on the entire country.

Our federal Constitution is silent with regard to our federal government having power to regulate immigration into the United States. Having said that, I am of the opinion that such power, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. And what was the primary reason for grant this power to Congress?

Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others and upon the General Government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” Passenger Cases (1849). And Justice Taney’s statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790!


REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576)


And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)


Finally, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578)

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.


So tell me, are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?

JWK


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.

Ender
04-15-2017, 11:45 AM
So tell me, are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?

JWK



So, tell ME, are you really suggesting that our runaway Empire should keep enacting more laws, until all individual freedom is completely gone?

pcosmar
04-15-2017, 11:53 AM
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.

[/size]
Americans are tired of TAX.

Humans care about helping children live and grow.

Govt should have no money to give.
and Damn little to run on.

and any sick Phuck that would deny a mother giving birth any comforts available is not worthy of the life they have..

timosman
04-15-2017, 11:55 AM
Americans are tired of TAX.

Humans care about helping children live and grow.

Govt should have no money to give.
and Damn little to run on.

and any sick Phuck that would deny a mother giving birth any comforts available is not worthy of the life they have..

what a bunch of baloney :cool:

johnwk
04-15-2017, 01:21 PM
Originally Posted by johnwk


So tell me, are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?

JWK



So, tell ME, are you really suggesting that our runaway Empire should keep enacting more laws, until all individual freedom is completely gone?

I already expressed my opinion on the subject being discussed. I wrote: ”Our federal Constitution is silent with regard to our federal government having power to regulate immigration into the United States. Having said that, I am of the opinion that such power, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”


Now, my question to you was: ”. . . are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?”

JWK




There was a time not too long ago in New York when able-bodied people were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now we are infested with ticks and fleas who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs and Lotto tickets.

Ender
04-15-2017, 05:41 PM
I already expressed my opinion on the subject being discussed. I wrote: ”Our federal Constitution is silent with regard to our federal government having power to regulate immigration into the United States. Having said that, I am of the opinion that such power, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”


Now, my question to you was: ”. . . are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?”

JWK




There was a time not too long ago in New York when able-bodied people were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now we are infested with ticks and fleas who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs and Lotto tickets.




From the Tenth Amendment Center


In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions were adopted by the Kentucky legislature in November 1798. Although they primarily addressed the Sedition Act (a law that essentially criminalized criticism of the president or Congress), Jefferson used two sections of the resolutions to address the issue of the Alien Acts.

Jefferson emphatically asserted that while the federal government has the constitutional authority to establish the rules of naturalization – granting of citizenship status – regulating immigration and making rules relating to “Alien friends” was left to the states.

“Alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,’ the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled ‘An Act concerning aliens,’ which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.”

Jefferson also reasoned that a clause in the Constitution intended to prevent Congress from interfering with slavery for 20 years inferred the federal government was also prohibited from more generally regulating the people who states allowed within their borders.

“In addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that ‘the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808’ that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.”

Although the constitutional provision referenced in the resolution was specifically aimed at preventing the federal government from interfering with the slave trade until 1808, (keep in mind, regulation of slavery would ultimately fall under the commerce clause) Jefferson understood was rooted in a more general principle leaving states broad authority to determine whom they allowed in and whom they kept out – not only slaves – but more generally foreign alien friends.

Jefferson did not envision a uniform immigration policy. One could argue that America needs a uniform policy, because it simply can’t work with 50 states making 50 different sets of rules. But that didn’t change Jefferson’s constitutional calculus.

As with all issues, Jefferson asserted federal power does not exist where none was delegated.

In his view, the states clearly delegated the federal government authority over citizenship. The federal government was also delegated the power to exercise some power over immigration through the commerce clause and the power to “define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations” found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution.

But the states were expected to have a seat at the table as well.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/02/17/thomas-jefferson-on-the-constitution-and-immigration/

johnwk
04-17-2017, 07:43 AM
I already expressed my opinion on the subject being discussed. I wrote: ”Our federal Constitution is silent with regard to our federal government having power to regulate immigration into the United States. Having said that, I am of the opinion that such power, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”


Now, my question to you was: ”. . . are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?”

JWK




There was a time not too long ago in New York when able-bodied people were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now we are infested with ticks and fleas who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs and Lotto tickets.




From the Tenth Amendment Center



http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/02/17/thomas-jefferson-on-the-constitution-and-immigration/

Well, I see you have once again obfuscated and refuse to engage in a dialogue.



My question to you, which has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, was: ”. . . are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?”

JWK







They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

Ender
04-17-2017, 08:16 AM
Well, I see you have once again obfuscated and refuse to engage in a dialogue.



My question to you, which has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, was: ”. . . are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?”

JWK







They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create



NO.

Why should I trust anything to a congress that will not maintain that a president cannot declare war w/o their consent?

johnwk
04-17-2017, 01:22 PM
Well, I see you have once again obfuscated and refuse to engage in a dialogue.



My question to you, which has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, was: ”. . . are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?”

JWK







They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create





NO.

Why should I trust anything to a congress that will not maintain that a president cannot declare war w/o their consent?

I share your concerns about not trusting Congress. Having said that I am still of the opinion that a power to regulate immigration into the United States, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

To not regulate who may enter the geographical borders of the United States makes about as much sense as not restricting who may, or may not, enter one’s private home. But you are correct about our untrustworthy Congress, which the people of the United States seem to elect and re-elect year after year in spite of Congress’ repeated actions which violate both the text and legislative intent of our written Constitution.


JWK




80% of green energy money taxed away from hard working American Citizens WENT TO (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/80-obama-green-jobs-money-goes-obama-donors-green-energy-7-times-more-expensive-oil-and-coal-financial-numbers-are-stagge) our Washington Establishment’s donors!

Ender
04-17-2017, 02:04 PM
I share your concerns about not trusting Congress. Having said that I am still of the opinion that a power to regulate immigration into the United States, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

To not regulate who may enter the geographical borders of the United States makes about as much sense as not restricting who may, or may not, enter one’s private home. But you are correct about our untrustworthy Congress, which the people of the United States seem to elect and re-elect year after year in spite of Congress’ repeated actions which violate both the text and legislative intent of our written Constitution.


JWK




80% of green energy money taxed away from hard working American Citizens WENT TO (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/80-obama-green-jobs-money-goes-obama-donors-green-energy-7-times-more-expensive-oil-and-coal-financial-numbers-are-stagge) our Washington Establishment’s donors!



So, again, leave it to the states. Give them back the freedom they had until the "Civil" War took it all away.

johnwk
04-18-2017, 05:53 AM
So, again, leave it to the states. Give them back the freedom they had until the "Civil" War took it all away.

I disagree.

We are talking about foreigners entering the geographical borders of the United States and as such, they can and are having an effect on the entire country.

I am still of the opinion that a power to regulate immigration into the United States, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, and for the same reason Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.


Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others and upon the General Government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” Passenger Cases (1849). And Justice Taney’s statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790!


REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576)


And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)


Finally, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578)

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.



JWK


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.