Most American's say we are full and want massive cuts to legal immigration

[kahless]

Shock poll: Americans want massive cuts to legal immigration
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/22/shock-poll-us-wants-massive-cuts-legal-immigration/

Cutting chain migration even more popular than legalizing Dreamers
...
The poll found that most Americans want annual legal immigration capped at 500,000 a year or less — far lower than the current annual rate of 1.3 million.
...
A stunning 35 percent said the level should be fewer than 250,000 a year..
...
More than 60 percent of voters said current border security is inadequate, and 54 percent said they support “building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border.”

[Anti Federalist]

Shut it all down.

Country's full, and broke.

[Danke]

[http://www.ronpaulforums.com/customavatars/thumbs/avatar17293_6.gif

[kahless]

Shut it all down.

Country's full, and broke.

No doubt that is the sentiment of many. Most people are afraid to be honest to a pollster, especially in this politically charged environment. The numbers for reduce or stop immigration are probably even higher. Just like Trump's poll numbers were way off before the 2016 election.

[timosman]

No doubt that is the sentiment of many. Most people are afraid to be honest to a pollster, especially in this politically charged environment. The numbers for reduce or stop immigration are probably even higher. Just like Trump's poll numbers were way off before the 2016 election.

Judging by Damore vs. Google - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518272-Damore-Sues-Google-Discriminates-against-white-male-conservatives - most people are terrified to speak openly, which allowed the diversity agenda to be shoved down everybody's throats with no resistance. Stalin would be proud. :cool:

[timosman]

[http://www.ronpaulforums.com/customavatars/thumbs/avatar17293_6.gif

You should show more respect to mentally challenged people. What if you received a head trauma as a kid and had to go through life facing challenges at every turn?:cool:

[seapilot]

Judging by Damore vs. Google - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518272-Damore-Sues-Google-Discriminates-against-white-male-conservatives - most people are terrified to speak openly, which allowed the diversity agenda to be shoved down everybody's throats with no resistance. Stalin would be proud. :cool:

That is true, but most people never fully accept an ideology that is forced upon them. Any ideology that has to use threat or force for people to accept it rather than with reason and logic is a failed ideology to begin with.

[Ender]

I believe that the whole immigration carpe is to keep Americans scared & in compliance as more and more freedoms are lost.

From John Whitehead:



A year ago, passengers arriving in New York’s JFK Airport on a domestic flight from San Francisco were ordered to show their “documents” to border patrol agents in order to get off the plane.

With the government empowered to carry out transportation checks to question people about their immigration status within a 100-mile border zone that wraps around the country, you’re going to see a rise in these “show your papers” incidents.

That’s a problem, and I’ll tell you why.

We are not supposed to be living in a “show me your papers” society.

Despite this, the U.S. government has recently introduced measures allowing police and other law enforcement officials to stop individuals (citizens and noncitizens alike), demand they identify themselves, and subject them to patdowns, warrantless searches, and interrogations.

These actions fly in the face of longstanding constitutional safeguards forbidding such police state tactics.

Set aside the debate over illegal immigration for a moment and think long and hard about what it means when government agents start demanding that people show their papers on penalty of arrest.

The problem with allowing government agents to demand identification from anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant—the current scheme being employed by the Trump administration to ferret out and cleanse the country of illegal immigrants—is that it lays the groundwork for a society in which you are required to identify yourself to any government worker who demands it.

Such tactics quickly lead one down a slippery slope that ends with government agents empowered to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to increasingly intrusive demands that they prove not only that they are legally in the country, but also that they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books.

This flies in the face of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares that all persons have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. At a minimum, the Fourth Amendment protects the American people from undue government interference with their movement and from baseless interrogation about their identities or activities.

Read the entire article here:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/john-w-whitehead/things-are-getting-worse-not-better/

[timosman]

That is true, but most people never fully accept an ideology that is forced upon them. Any ideology that has to use threat or force for people to accept it rather than with reason and logic is a failed ideology to begin with.

This is mental gymnastics.:cool:

[Swordsmyth]

Shut it all down.

Country's full, and broke.

But if we did that The Count would have to find something else to count besides how many new socialists can vote each year.

[oyarde]

Shut it all down.

Country's full, and broke.

I have yet to see anyone make a good case against this . I have nothing against immigrants but personally I gain nothing by them being here. Nothing .Elected officials seem disconnected from spending cuts .

[Danke]

I have yet to see anyone make a good case against this . I have nothing against immigrants but personally I gain nothing by them being here. Nothing .Elected officials seem disconnected from spending cuts .


You got indoor plumbing out of it.

[Swordsmyth]

I have yet to see anyone make a good case against this . I have nothing against immigrants but personally I gain nothing by them being here. Nothing .Elected officials seem disconnected from spending cuts .

I would argue that some limited immigration is good theoretically, but we have had too much for so long that a moratorium might be required until things are back under control.

[Swordsmyth]

You got indoor plumbing out of it.

And paper money instead of glass beads.

[dean.engelhardt]

100% the intent of scaring people about immigrants to get them to surrender liberties.

If we don't consent to warrantless searches the immigrants and terrorist win.


I believe that the whole immigration carpe is to keep Americans scared & in compliance as more and more freedoms are lost.

From John Whitehead:


Read the entire article here:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/john-w-whitehead/things-are-getting-worse-not-better/

[Danke]

ICE Agents Hurl Pregnant Immigrant Over Mexican Border To Prevent Birth On U.S. Soil

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--sjdhNlOA--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/doryqqxskvuwkcmkxcqu.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

I believe that the whole immigration carpe is to keep Americans scared & in compliance as more and more freedoms are lost.

Maybe if we took charge at the border itself, there would be no justification for the authoritarians to endorse "constitution free zones" 100 miles from the border.

I would love if this wasn't an issue, but it is.

We cannot allow the entire world to traipse in whenever they feel like it, especially when most of the world is hostile to the "values" that all of us here hold dear: limited government, individual freedom, maximum property rights.

I know that sounds like a logical conundrum, it sounds that way because it is.

After how I have seen what the Bolshevik left, progressives and immigrants marching in the streets over this last year or so have had to say about me, my heart is now pretty hard.

Fuck 'em.

If you're here illegally, GTFO.

Close the borders, so we don't have to have roving cop bands demanding papers inside the country.

We're broke, utterly divided, full, and on the verge of literal "red" revolution.

We have our own, possible fatal, problems to deal with.

The rest of the world's "wretched refuse" can piss off back to wherever they came from and fix their own damn problems.

[Ender]

Maybe if we took charge at the border itself, there would be no justification for the authoritarians to endorse "constitution free zones" 100 miles from the border.

I would love if this wasn't an issue, but it is.

We cannot allow the entire world to traipse in whenever they feel like it, especially when most of the world is hostile to the "values" that all of us here hold dear: limited government, individual freedom, maximum property rights.

I know that sounds like a logical conundrum, it sounds that way because it is.

After how I have seen what the Bolshevik left, progressives and immigrants marching in the streets over this last year or so have had to say about me, my heart is now pretty hard.

$#@! 'em.

If you're here illegally, GTFO.

Close the borders, so we don't have to have roving cop bands demanding papers inside the country.

We're broke, utterly divided, full, and on the verge of literal "red" revolution.

We have our own, possible fatal, problems to deal with.

The rest of the world's "wretched refuse" can piss off back to wherever they came from and fix their own damn problems.

There's a very easy fix to all of this:

NO ENTITLEMENTS.

[Anti Federalist]

There's a very easy fix to all of this:

NO ENTITLEMENTS.

That would be a very good start and I'm all for it.

How can you convince a people of that, when we are on the verge of authorizing food stamps for dogs?

[kahless]

I have yet to see anyone make a good case against this . I have nothing against immigrants but personally I gain nothing by them being here. Nothing .Elected officials seem disconnected from spending cuts .

Less than nothing. One could say you gain depending on where you live and the concentration of certain types of tribes:

- higher taxes.

- no longer being able to understand the language spoken by the majority.

- no longer welcome in the local restaurants and stores since one is not one of them.

- no longer allowed or welcome to walk on their side of the street.

- whites relegated to specific bus seating.

- ultimately hate, crime and ostracized for not being one of their tribe.

But the left says only whites can be racist and we are supposed to accept it.

[Swordsmyth]

There's a very easy fix to all of this:

NO ENTITLEMENTS.

They will still flock here in droves for the prosperity freedom brings, and if we let too many in they will destroy that freedom and prosperity.

[timosman]

There's a very easy fix to all of this:

NO ENTITLEMENTS.

You think this will discourage immigration from shithole countries?:cool:

[Brian4Liberty]

I believe that the whole immigration carpe is to keep Americans scared & in compliance as more and more freedoms are lost.

From John Whitehead:


A year ago, passengers arriving in New York’s JFK Airport on a domestic flight from San Francisco were ordered to show their “documents” to border patrol agents in order to get off the plane.

With the government empowered to carry out transportation checks to question people about their immigration status within a 100-mile border zone that wraps around the country, you’re going to see a rise in these “show your papers” incidents.

Read the entire article here:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/john-w-whitehead/things-are-getting-worse-not-better/

Total logical failure with that example. By definition, and even by name, an "airPORT" is a port of entry. This is the appropriate place for checks. With California declaring itself a sanctuary state, any other state that wants to treat that as an international flight is within it's rights and is justifiable. This is not "100 miles" from a point of entry, it is a point of entry.

Any law can be abused, or be enforced in an oppressive or unconstitutional manner. It happens all the time, and is in no way unique to immigration or border control. Oppressive enforcement is an important issue in and of itself, and applies to all laws and law enforcement. It is not specific to immigration.

[Brian4Liberty]

Shock poll: Americans want massive cuts to legal immigration
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/22/shock-poll-us-wants-massive-cuts-legal-immigration/

Yes, most people that live in an overcrowded area would say that. And building higher stack-a-prole apartments and condo-collectives does not solve the problem of overcrowding.

[timosman]

They will still flock here in droves for the prosperity freedom brings, and if we let too many in they will destroy that freedom and prosperity.

Ender finally gets it:

http://wealthmastery.sg/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/idea-210x300.png

[Danke]

Norway is fed up with the mass illegal immigration "we're ready to abandon international law"
https://freespeechtime.blogspot.com/2017/11/norway-is-fed-up-with-mass-illegal.html?m=1

[timosman]

Yes, most people that live in an overcrowded area would say that. And building higher stack-a-prole apartments and condo-collectives does not solve the problem of overcrowding.

We should stop overpopulating our cities. It is not economically feasible - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?506174-The-Real-Reason-Your-City-Has-No-Money

[Ender]

Total logical failure with that example. By definition, and even by name, an "airPORT" is a port of entry. This is the appropriate place for checks. With California declaring itself a sanctuary state, any other state that wants to treat that as an international flight is within it's rights and is justifiable. This is not "100 miles" from a point of entry, it is a point of entry.

Any law can be abused, or be enforced in an oppressive or unconstitutional manner. It happens all the time, and is in no way unique to immigration or border control. Oppressive enforcement is an important issue in and of itself, and applies to all laws and law enforcement. It is not specific to immigration.

Read the whole article, Brian.

[euphemia]

I think we need to take about 12 months of no new admissions. That should give us time to figure out who is already here and get them deported or assimilated. Some people come here on student visas and never go to class. That's a form of illegal immigration, too, and I think it's fraud.

[tod evans]

There's a very easy fix to all of this:

NO ENTITLEMENTS.

Government "employment" is an entitlement....

Of the most costly sort.

[euphemia]

I would be in favor of all kinds of immigration if we had no nanny state. Including government schools.

[Swordsmyth]

I think we need to take about 12 months of no new admissions. That should give us time to figure out who is already here and get them deported or assimilated. Some people come here on student visas and never go to class. That's a form of illegal immigration, too, and I think it's fraud.
120 months at a minimum.

[Swordsmyth]

Ender finally gets it:

http://wealthmastery.sg/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/idea-210x300.png

Ender will never "get it", he refuses to.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Maybe if we took charge at the border itself, there would be no justification for the authoritarians to endorse "constitution free zones" 100 miles from the border.

I would love if this wasn't an issue, but it is.

We cannot allow the entire world to traipse in whenever they feel like it, especially when most of the world is hostile to the "values" that all of us here hold dear: limited government, individual freedom, maximum property rights.

I know that sounds like a logical conundrum, it sounds that way because it is.

After how I have seen what the Bolshevik left, progressives and immigrants marching in the streets over this last year or so have had to say about me, my heart is now pretty hard.

$#@! 'em.

If you're here illegally, GTFO.

Close the borders, so we don't have to have roving cop bands demanding papers inside the country.

We're broke, utterly divided, full, and on the verge of literal "red" revolution.

We have our own, possible fatal, problems to deal with.

The rest of the world's "wretched refuse" can piss off back to wherever they came from and fix their own damn problems.

The powers, funding, and manpower necessary to shut the border will become assets turned inward on the native population in time.

[Swordsmyth]

The powers, funding, and manpower necessary to shut the border will become assets turned inward on the native population in time.

The immigrants allowed to flood in unchecked will become assets turned inward on the native population in time.

Everything tends towards chaos, the trick is to delay it as long as possible.

[kpitcher]

I have yet to see anyone make a good case against this . I have nothing against immigrants but personally I gain nothing by them being here. Nothing .Elected officials seem disconnected from spending cuts .

David Stockman had an interesting 4 part post on why we need immigrants because of aging boomers and the lack of babies, we need workers. Lots of workers because our entire system was built on an ever expanding pool of labor.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/__trashed-4/

[Mach]

David Stockman had an interesting 4 part post on why we need immigrants because of aging boomers and the lack of babies, we need workers. Lots of workers because our entire system was built on an ever expanding pool of labor.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/__trashed-4/


Hmmm....hmmmhmmmm.....



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ldT3YL2Kw

Off topic..... 0:07 Illuminated Triangle

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lnujjzklNcM/UlfjM3IoaBI/AAAAAAAAAuM/5Q4GkjGEk6o/s1600/Stockholm+Storkyrkan%253Acathedral+eye+of+God.JPG

Plus, the Knob on that door.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-89uXLbVg1PY/UlfjNBfQHcI/AAAAAAAAAuU/UsZ9upL2M4E/s1600/Stockholm+Storkyrkan%253ACathedral+door+detail.JPG

[Ender]

Ender will never "get it", he refuses to.

Always thought you & timosman were the same sock puppet. ;)

[Ender]

Government "employment" is an entitlement....

Of the most costly sort.

Agreed and 99.9% is not needed.

[Ender]

The powers, funding, and manpower necessary to shut the border will become assets turned inward on the native population in time.

Exactly.

[Swordsmyth]

Always thought you & timosman were the same sock puppet. ;)

LOL

[timosman]

Always thought you & timosman were the same sock puppet. ;)

Thank you for ignoring our arguments. It seems the light did not go off for some reason.:cool:

[timosman]

Exactly.

What exactly do you envision that would be worth fretting over given the current status quo?

[Anti Federalist]

The powers, funding, and manpower necessary to shut the border will become assets turned inward on the native population in time.

They already are.

Allowing millions of people who consider that to be just another ordinary part of life, will not help solve the problem.

[Zippyjuan]

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/nuodcbr1ykyrb32af_namw.png

[r3volution 3.0]

There's a very easy fix to all of this:

NO ENTITLEMENTS.That would be a very good start and I'm all for it.

How can you convince a people of that, when we are on the verge of authorizing food stamps for dogs?

Yes, the American people are too socialistic to vote for welfare cuts.

But they'll vote to restrict immigration.

...which is great, because we don't want socialist immigrants here.

...because they wouldn't want to cut welfare.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, the American people are too socialistic to vote for welfare cuts.

But they'll vote to restrict immigration.

...which is great, because we don't want socialist immigrants here.

...because they wouldn't want to cut welfare.

Zippy makes my point:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/nuodcbr1ykyrb32af_namw.png

The more you let in, the more they vote for even more to come.

And you have a point about monarchy and democracy, I'll grant you that.

[r3volution 3.0]

The more you let in, the more they vote for even more to come.

If enough come, they might even start demanding welfare for their dogs!


And you have a point about monarchy and democracy, I'll grant you that.

Starting to sound pretty good, huh?

[Swordsmyth]

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/nuodcbr1ykyrb32af_namw.png

Fake Poll

[Swordsmyth]

If enough come, they might even start demanding welfare for their dogs!

If enough come we won't have a chance to stop the people demanding welfare for their dogs.




Starting to sound pretty good, huh?
Every form of government has advantages but monarchy has serious disadvantages (particularly the form you advocate), we could centralize power in a republic and gain most of the advantages of monarchy without most of it's drawbacks.

[r3volution 3.0]

Every form of government has advantages but monarchy has serious disadvantages (particularly the form you advocate), we could centralize power in a republic and gain most of the advantages of monarchy without most of it's drawbacks.

Let's continue this in another thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518281-What%92s-the-Cure-for-Ailing-Nations-More-Kings-and-Queens-Monarchists-Say&p=6579131&viewfull=1#post6579131) so as not to derail.

[Anti Federalist]

Starting to sound pretty good, huh?

A benevolent and freedom minded monarch would be better than demo-crazy, which I have never been a fan of.

[timosman]

A benevolent and freedom minded monarch would be better than demo-crazy, which I have never been a fan of.

A monarch would pay attention to the bottom line, something democracies are clearly incapable of.:cool:

[Ender]

What exactly do you envision that would be worth fretting over given the current status quo?

The National ID will soon be a law for all Americans and the US will finally achieve the goal of prison for it's "citizens".

[kahless]

A benevolent and freedom minded monarch would be better than demo-crazy, which I have never been a fan of.

The problem is what happens when the benevolent and freedom minded monarch dies. A problem if the monarch sons or daughters grew up brainwashed by the libtard media and entertainment complex.

[Anti Federalist]

Fake Poll

I don't think so.

Look at the spike in "Increased".

It coincides exactly with the passage of NAFTA, which killed the Mexican economy and the flood of immigrants that came in it's wake.

[Anti Federalist]

The problem is what happens when the benevolent and freedom minded monarch dies. A problem if the monarch sons or daughters grew up brainwashed by the libtard media and entertainment complex.

Oh I know.

I'm not seriously considering it, just agreeing that demo-crazy is a dead end.

[kahless]

Oh I know.

I'm not seriously considering it, just agreeing that demo-crazy is a dead end.

If things got bad enough I would if it was the only way out and if it was for a transitional period.

There may come a day we have to pick sides and if the only firm hand that is able deal with people that wish to govern like Mao in the great purge, I would take the dictator or monarch that can put these people down and stop me from being politically, religiously or ethnically cleansed.

[kahless]

The National ID will soon be a law for all Americans and the US will finally achieve the goal of prison for it's "citizens".

Congress Quietly Pushing Bill to Require National Biometric ID for 'ALL Americans'
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/national-id-hr4760-biometrics/

as Ron Paul points out, “this bill would give DACA recipients a 3-year renewable legal status while forcing a biometric National ID card on virtually everyone else.”

We need to step up our game in opposing it.

[Swordsmyth]

A benevolent and freedom minded monarch would be better than demo-crazy, which I have never been a fan of.
IF you got lucky with the birth lottery.


A monarch would pay attention to the bottom line, something democracies are clearly incapable of.:cool:
IF you got lucky with the birth lottery.

[Swordsmyth]

If things got bad enough I would if it was the only way out and if it was for a transitional period.

There may come a day we have to pick sides and if the only firm hand that is able deal with people that wish to govern like Mao in the great purge, I would take the dictator or monarch that can put these people down and stop me from being politically, religiously or ethnically cleansed.

Sometimes you need a "Dark Jedi" to bring order to the galaxy but they must create a system of limited government to leave in charge when they die.

[enhanced_deficit]

Some key demographic in Trump base seem to be turning on him and harshly:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518194-H-1B-Visas-Would-Not-Be-Extended-Under-Trump-s-Latest-Proposal-Reports-Say&p=6579279&viewfull=1#post6579279

[oyarde]

David Stockman had an interesting 4 part post on why we need immigrants because of aging boomers and the lack of babies, we need workers. Lots of workers because our entire system was built on an ever expanding pool of labor.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/__trashed-4/

While I can certainly understand a theory that the additional workers are needed , I kind of doubt it going forward . During the last downturn unemployment was actually worse than the Great Depression . The five workers for every job needed then was exceeded and there were 6 workers for every job available . We are due for a stock correction that could lead to a repeat . Without the correction , the additional workers may also not be continued to be needed because the model has changed from Mnfg to service. We are now a nation that just imports cheap shit from other countries. Only so many fast food jobs are available and they can be filled by the people already here .

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R0H4RV10EA

...

[RJB]

While I can certainly understand a theory that the additional workers are needed , I kind of doubt it going forward . During the last downturn unemployment was actually worse than the Great Depression . The five workers for every job needed then was exceeded and there were 6 workers for every job available . We are due for a stock correction that could lead to a repeat . Without the correction , the additional workers may also not be continued to be needed because the model has changed from Mnfg to service. We are now a nation that just imports cheap shit from other countries. Only so many fast food jobs are available and they can be filled by the people already here .

We still need college professors and administrators so those fast food workers have their Master's degree in Gender Studies.

[Feeding the Abscess]

They already are.

Allowing millions of people who consider that to be just another ordinary part of life, will not help solve the problem.

You're trading the chance of reduced immigration on the hopes that it will stem the tide of socialism by actually increasing the size and scope of the security state, with the possibility that said powers will metastasize into other areas beyond immigration.

Further, who will bring about the laws to be enacted in the name of immigration restrictions? The very people who have carried us into the situation we now have. With the bureaucratic class receiving a healthy dose of authority, money, and manpower, do you think that will bring about enhanced freedom, or more of the fuckery they are wont to create?

The arguments for bolstering the State for the sake of limiting immigration are strikingly similar to those used in support of the PATRIOT Act and War on Terror after 9/11. How successfully has that battle been fought? Has the government lived up to its promises and self-imposed restrictions?

[r3volution 3.0]

If things got bad enough I would if it was the only way out and if it was for a transitional period.

There may come a day we have to pick sides and if the only firm hand that is able deal with people that wish to govern like Mao in the great purge, I would take the dictator or monarch that can put these people down and stop me from being politically, religiously or ethnically cleansed.

http://www.anacyclosis.org/images/anacyclosis-1700.png

That cycle can be ended, hovering between #2 and #3.

[Gumba of Liberty]

No chain migration. No birthright citizenship for any children of foreign nationals. No welfare or entitlements for legal immigrants. Deport all foreign nationals in holding cells. Deport all foreign nationals in prisons for non-violent crimes. Institute the Death Penalty for any foreign national who commits a capital crime. Ban duel citizens from holding public office. Pass strict Voter ID Laws in all 50 States. Pass Paper Ballot Laws in all 50 States. End the Empire. Put our troops on the borders.

Constitutional and effective sans the police state.

[Swordsmyth]

http://www.anacyclosis.org/images/anacyclosis-1700.png

That cycle can be ended, hovering between #2 and #3.

An impossible task.

Fortunately Republic is outside the circle and it is possible to stay THERE.

[r3volution 3.0]

An impossible task.

Fortunately Republic is outside the circle and it is possible to stay THERE.

History says otherwise.

[undergroundrr]

You're trading the chance of reduced immigration on the hopes that it will stem the tide of socialism by actually increasing the size and scope of the security state, with the possibility that said powers will metastasize into other areas beyond immigration.

Further, who will bring about the laws to be enacted in the name of immigration restrictions? The very people who have carried us into the situation we now have. With the bureaucratic class receiving a healthy dose of authority, money, and manpower, do you think that will bring about enhanced freedom, or more of the $#@!ery they are wont to create?

The arguments for bolstering the State for the sake of limiting immigration are strikingly similar to those used in support of the PATRIOT Act and War on Terror after 9/11. How successfully has that battle been fought? Has the government lived up to its promises and self-imposed restrictions?

Well said.

[undergroundrr]

"It’s dangerous to use the existence of one abuse of government power to justify another abuse of government power. Never give government additional power as a means of reducing its power. To do so is to travel along the road to serfdom—and, in the case of immigration restrictions, to cede to the state the frightful power to select those with whom we may associate. No free people ought ever do such a thing."

https://fee.org/articles/freedom-of-association/

[TheCount]

"It’s dangerous to use the existence of one abuse of government power to justify another abuse of government power. Never give government additional power as a means of reducing its power. To do so is to travel along the road to serfdom—and, in the case of immigration restrictions, to cede to the state the frightful power to select those with whom we may associate. No free people ought ever do such a thing."

https://fee.org/articles/freedom-of-association/

This.


"In order to make you more free we first need to make you less free" has never worked.

[kahless]

This.

"In order to make you more free we first need to make you less free" has never worked.

Open borders has never worked. Limiting an invasion of peoples that demand authoritarian big government will make us more free.

[timosman]

Open borders has never worked. Limiting an invasion of peoples that demand authoritarian big government will make us more free.

Neither did arguing with trolls.:cool:

[Anti Federalist]

You're trading the chance of reduced immigration on the hopes that it will stem the tide of socialism by actually increasing the size and scope of the security state, with the possibility that said powers will metastasize into other areas beyond immigration.

Further, who will bring about the laws to be enacted in the name of immigration restrictions? The very people who have carried us into the situation we now have. With the bureaucratic class receiving a healthy dose of authority, money, and manpower, do you think that will bring about enhanced freedom, or more of the fuckery they are wont to create?

The arguments for bolstering the State for the sake of limiting immigration are strikingly similar to those used in support of the PATRIOT Act and War on Terror after 9/11. How successfully has that battle been fought? Has the government lived up to its promises and self-imposed restrictions?

Valid concerns, I understand.

I'm not sure I have any good answers, or if there are good solutions.

All I know is that you cannot let millions and millions and millions of people that are hostile to the idea of limited government, individual freedom and property rights into the country and into the voting system, and expect positive results.

If these same people are hostile to the native population as well, and who and what they are, as people, then you have a recipe for disaster.

As I've said a hundred times already, ask these guys how that worked out for them:

http://www.circleofexistence.com/quotes/redcloud_group_300.jpg

[Danke]

Valid concerns, I understand.

I'm not sure I have any good answers, or if there are good solutions.

All I know is that you cannot let millions and millions and millions of people that are hostile to the idea of limited government, individual freedom and property rights into the country and into the voting system, and expect positive results.

If these same people are hostile to the native population as well, and who and what they are, as people, then you have a recipe for disaster.

As I've said a hundred times already, ask these guys how that worked out for them:

http://www.circleofexistence.com/quotes/redcloud_group_300.jpg


Where did you get a photo of one Oyarde’s family reunions?

[TheCount]

Open borders has never worked.

Closed borders have never worked either.



Limiting an invasion of peoples that demand authoritarian big government will make us more free.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who regularly demands authoritarian big government.

[Gumba of Liberty]

Closed borders have never worked either.

Then why do my neighbors use fences? Why does my sister live in a gated community? Ever been to a Federal Reserve Building? The White House? Obama’s new DC Fortress?

Your argument is laughable on its face.

Again, read my post from above. It’s easy to restrict immigration and still support the Bill of Rights and the Natrual Law. No Police State required.

[nikcers]

Then why do my neighbors use fences?
Your neighbors also voted for Hillary does that make them right?

[Gumba of Liberty]

Your neighbors also voted for Hillary does that make them right?

What a strawman argument. First, there is nothing morally wrong with fencing in your homestead. Second, I stated that fences work, and they do. If they didn’t then property owners wouldn’t buy them. Third, my neighbors overwhelming voted, that alone proves there dumbassery.

[nikcers]

What a strawman argument. First, there is nothing morally wrong with fencing in your homestead. Second, I stated that fences work, and they do. If they didn’t then property owners wouldn’t buy them. Third, my neighbors overwhelming voted, that alone proves there dumbassery.
Yeah but lots of people don't even have fences, and they do perfectly fine without them. They never have anyone crawl into their window or beat down their door, or if they do they pull out their gun and hold their ground.

[Gumba of Liberty]

Yeah but lots of people don't even have fences, and they do perfectly fine without them. They never have anyone crawl into their window or beat down their door, or if they do they pull out their gun and hold their ground.

Some do and some don’t. Walls, fences, etc. make it harder. They work.

[nikcers]

Some do and some don’t. Walls, fences, etc. make it harder. They work.
Yeah but you are building your wall out of stupid materials have you ever heard of the three little pigs? it would make more sense to build anti ICBM along the southern border, I would prefer 40 thaad systems over a dumb wall.

[TheCount]

Then why do my neighbors use fences? Why does my sister live in a gated community? Ever been to a Federal Reserve Building? The White House? Obama’s new DC Fortress?

None of those examples are at all analogous to a closed-border nation. That gated community that your sister lives in lets people in, right? They didn't just build it and then refuse to sell any of the homes in it? To make it correct, that gated community would have to refuse to permit its homeowners to sell or rent their homes to anyone other than other homeowners. It would demolish the 'economy' of the community.


Let's make that analogy more accurate. One day your sister realizes that the HOA of her gated community is mostly full of assholes who are making decisions that she doesn't like. To solve that, she decides to 1) pen herself in with the assholes, 2) give the assholes in the HOA a bunch more authority, and 3) give the assholes the power to decide which other assholes are allowed to join.

Will this strategy will prevent there from being more assholes?



Again, read my post from above. It’s easy to restrict immigration and still support the Bill of Rights and the Natrual Law. No Police State required.

I'm not emotionally attached to birthright citizenship, but I oppose creating an underclass of permanent residents and their native-born children non-citizen children.

Ironically, the type of society that this policy emulates is a very Islamic, Middle Eastern society... precisely the type that is (supposedly) opposed by those who advocate it.

[Ender]

Valid concerns, I understand.

I'm not sure I have any good answers, or if there are good solutions.

All I know is that you cannot let millions and millions and millions of people that are hostile to the idea of limited government, individual freedom and property rights into the country and into the voting system, and expect positive results.

If these same people are hostile to the native population as well, and who and what they are, as people, then you have a recipe for disaster.

As I've said a hundred times already, ask these guys how that worked out for them:

http://www.circleofexistence.com/quotes/redcloud_group_300.jpg

I consider you one of the best, and most logical, forum members on RPF- but I do not agree on using Big Gov as a solution for a problem created by Big Gov, which got us where we are today.

Immigrants are NOT the problem- gov in every aspect of our lives is the problem. Freedom lovers should be working together to get gov out of education, medicine, business, and entitlements and a million other parts of everyday life.

[Ender]

You're trading the chance of reduced immigration on the hopes that it will stem the tide of socialism by actually increasing the size and scope of the security state, with the possibility that said powers will metastasize into other areas beyond immigration.

Further, who will bring about the laws to be enacted in the name of immigration restrictions? The very people who have carried us into the situation we now have. With the bureaucratic class receiving a healthy dose of authority, money, and manpower, do you think that will bring about enhanced freedom, or more of the $#@!ery they are wont to create?

The arguments for bolstering the State for the sake of limiting immigration are strikingly similar to those used in support of the PATRIOT Act and War on Terror after 9/11. How successfully has that battle been fought? Has the government lived up to its promises and self-imposed restrictions?

AMEN.

[Ender]

Congress Quietly Pushing Bill to Require National Biometric ID for 'ALL Americans'
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/national-id-hr4760-biometrics/


We need to step up our game in opposing it.

Exactly.

[kahless]

That's pretty rich coming from someone who regularly demands authoritarian big government.

If believing in a minarchist state that defends the borders from invasion so we have the possibility of living in a libertarian like state is now considered by you as "authoritarian big government" then so be it.

I believe these damned far left college professors and philosophers have pushed this open border crap on people like you full well knowing that it makes the said philosophy an impossibility. It divides the realists from the purists, leaving the libertarians unable to organize and further advances united supporters of big government.

[undergroundrr]

I consider you one of the best, and most logical, forum members on RPF- but I do not agree on using Big Gov as a solution for a problem created by Big Gov, which got us where we are today.

He has the clarity to at least acknowledge that there's a security/liberty choice going on here. Patriot Act and TARP thinking will not get us closer to Kahless' "libertarian like" society. Well, for myself and my children, I don't want a libertarian like society of white Europeans. I want actual liberty.


realists from the purists

Realism is recognizing that more government has always resulted in less liberty. Purism is starting with a hypothesis such as "we have too much immigration" and doing whatever it takes to bend reality to fit.

Build the biggest wall you want around your property. Encase it in an impermeable buckyball sphere for all I care. Anti-immigrationists are asking me to pay for the government to build a wall around my property that I don't want. Well they need to GET OFF MY LAWN AND OUT OF MY BUSINESS.

[nikcers]

there's a security/liberty choice going on here. Patriot Act and TARP thinking will not get us closer to Kahless' "libertarian like" society. Well, for myself and my children, I don't want a libertarian like society of white Europeans. I want actual liberty.

Anti-immigrationists are asking me to pay for the government to build a wall around my property that I don't want. Well they need to GET OFF MY LAWN AND OUT OF MY BUSINESS.
ICE is about to start tracking license plates across the US (https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/26/16932350/ice-immigration-customs-license-plate-recognition-contract-vigilant-solutions)

ICE agents would be able to query that database in two ways. A historical search would turn up every place a given license plate has been spotted in the last five years, a detailed record of the target’s movements. That data could be used to find a given subject’s residence or even identify associates if a given car is regularly spotted in a specific parking lot.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah but lots of people don't even have fences, and they do perfectly fine without them. They never have anyone crawl into their window or beat down their door, or if they do they pull out their gun and hold their ground.

And lots of people without fences have problem neighbors, some of them end up with broken ribs.

[Swordsmyth]

If we had reasonable border controls we wouldn't need police-state measures to deal with illegals.

[nikcers]

If we had reasonable border controls we wouldn't need police-state measures to deal with illegals.

Your neighbors are helping them in and giving them jobs, security starts with every citizen.

[bunklocoempire]

Most Americans will settle for a bio-metric wall and lip service to their concerns.

Good fences make for good neighbors.

Our government does not practice this when it comes to messing with the individual. I find no reason to believe that government will ever somehow correctly apply the "fences" wisdom on a larger scale from here on in.

Human nature and power, ya know.

[Anti Federalist]

I consider you one of the best, and most logical, forum members on RPF- but I do not agree on using Big Gov as a solution for a problem created by Big Gov, which got us where we are today.

Immigrants are NOT the problem- gov in every aspect of our lives is the problem. Freedom lovers should be working together to get gov out of education, medicine, business, and entitlements and a million other parts of everyday life.

And the same in return brother, we have been reading each other's thoughts for over ten years now, and I almost always find myself in solidarity with yours.

We're just at an imapsse on this.

Like I said, I'm not sure any solution is ideal, or reasonably achievable, given the current state of affairs.

The founders were very fond of the Swiss system, I have spent time there and am fond of it as well, by almost any metric out there, it is the most free and best country in the world to live in.

And they severely limit and restrict immigration.

[Danke]

https://i.imgur.com/5Us48x7.png

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jl-OJJVAEg

[Raginfridus]

I'm not afraid of getting gang-raped, and I'm not afraid for anybody. As far as I'm concerned, except in situations where the woman or girl are ambushed out of the blue, I'm willing to bet women were confronted with the facts of their situation, and either arrogantly or stupidly ignored warnings and signs of what was surely to happen. Its a Man's world, baby - try as you might to be edgy and push your own limits.

Once again, working tax-free for an employer who doesn't like blacks or Mexicans pays. If y'all are losing yer jerbs and women folk to the brown man, well... :P That said, abolish the 14th Amendment, and everybody's happy.

[undergroundrr]

I love how erstwhile liberty folks go into "Please big government save me from gang rape" mode on this issue. It's identical to neocon War on Terror and War on Drugs propaganda.

Safetytarianism has never resulted in more safety.

[kahless]

https://i.imgur.com/I4oI8Zy.png

[AuH20]

And the same in return brother, we have been reading each other's thoughts for over ten years now, and I almost always find myself in solidarity with yours.

We're just at an imapsse on this.

Like I said, I'm not sure any solution is ideal, or reasonably achievable, given the current state of affairs.

The founders were very fond of the Swiss system, I have spent time there and am fond of it as well, by almost any metric out there, it is the most free and best country in the world to live in.

And they severely limit and restrict immigration.

Mexico and Latin America are anti-liberty cesspools. This shouldn't even be an argument, in wiser libertarian circles. Once the demographic shift occurs, the lights go out permanently here and we officially transform into the banana republic the pundits scoff at.

[Anti Federalist]

Mexico and Latin America are anti-liberty cesspools. This shouldn't even be an argument, in wiser libertarian circles. Once the demographic shift occurs, the lights go out permanently here and we officially transform into the banana republic the pundits scoff at.

Yes, I agree...and I also agree that our meddling and tomfuckery for over 200 years in their affairs have gone a long way to causing that.

Regardless, the fact remains, the lights will go out once that demographic Rubicon is reached.

And of course, it's always about "race", when I could give a shit less about that in this regard.

I don't want a bunch of Caucasian German socialists invading either.

[AuH20]

Yes, I agree...and I also agree that our meddling and tomfuckery for over 200 years in their affairs have gone a long way to causing that.

Regardless, the fact remains, the lights will go out once that demographic Rubicon is reached.

And of course, it's always about "race", when I could give a $#@! less about that in this regard.

I don't want a bunch of Caucasian German socialists invading either.

If Scandinavia was displaced into the mainland US, we would turn into Greater Minnesota. We have to keep the locusts out by any means necessary.

[timosman]

I love how erstwhile liberty folks go into "Please big government save me from gang rape" mode on this issue. It's identical to neocon War on Terror and War on Drugs propaganda.

Safetytarianism has never resulted in more safety.

Please don't jump off the cliff. Yet.:cool:

[kahless]

Yes, I agree...and I also agree that our meddling and tomfuckery for over 200 years in their affairs have gone a long way to causing that.

Regardless, the fact remains, the lights will go out once that demographic Rubicon is reached.

And of course, it's always about "race", when I could give a shit less about that in this regard.

I don't want a bunch of Caucasian German socialists invading either.

Far worse than Socialism is coming to our future brought and sponsored by the Democrats, GOP-E and libertarians support of open borders.

It is so obvious that I believe the LP and many libertarians are really just scam artists using the label to promote that cause and undermine the threat of libertarian beliefs in our political system.

The legitimate libertarians are either too afraid of being called racist or are unable to think for themselves while clinging to either some textbook definition or their favorite fraudulent LP hero or LP hero afraid of being labeled a racist.

Just like the two main parties people without backbones afraid to speak the truth when it comes to their own beliefs.

[timosman]

Mexico and Latin America are anti-liberty cesspools. This shouldn't even be an argument, in wiser libertarian circles. Once the demographic shift occurs, the lights go out permanently here and we officially transform into the banana republic the pundits scoff at.

We would like to maintain an intellectual purity and keep arguing about the number of angels dancing on the top of a pin ad infinitum. Being forced to perform a fellatio twice a day on somebody I do not really like does not bother me that much. :cool:

[kahless]

https://i.imgur.com/CxU1pGk.jpg

The same people that push militarism in the media are the same pushing globalism and open borders. This includes pushing open borders in the Libertarian movement. Gary Johnson his VP and staff all closely tied to CFR, just one example.

[Ender]

Mexico and Latin America are anti-liberty cesspools. This shouldn't even be an argument, in wiser libertarian circles. Once the demographic shift occurs, the lights go out permanently here and we officially transform into the banana republic the pundits scoff at.

Mexico is NOT an anti-liberty cesspool. Most who are familiar with Mexico consider it freer than the US.

As for immigration, I agree with Judge Nap:


Immigration and Freedom
By Andrew P. Napolitano

January 31, 2013

As President Obama and Congress grapple for prominence in the debate over immigration, both have lost sight of the true nature of the issue at hand.

The issue the politicians and bureaucrats would rather avoid is the natural law. The natural law is a term used to refer to human rights that all persons possess by virtue of our humanity. These rights encompass areas of human behavior where individuals are sovereign and thus need no permission from the government before making choices in those areas. Truly, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, only God is sovereign — meaning He is the source of His own power.

Having received freedom from our Creator and, in America, thanks to the values embraced by most of the Founding Fathers, individuals are sovereign with respect to our natural rights. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that our sovereignty is a part of our human nature, and our humanity is a gift from God. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson himself recognized personal sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote about Nature's God as the Creator and thus the originator of our inalienable human rights.

The rights that Jefferson identified consist of the well-known litany of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By the time his ideological soul mate James Madison was serving as the scrivener at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the list of natural rights had been expanded to include those now encompassed by the Bill of Rights. Yet again, the authors of the Constitution and its first 10 amendments recognized that the rights being insulated from government interference had their origin in a source other than the government.

This view of the natural law is sweet to the heart and pleasing to the ear when politicians praise it at patriotic events, but it is also a bane to them when it restrains their exercise of the coercive powers of the government. Thus, since the freedom of speech, the development of personality, the right to worship or not to worship, the right to use technologically contemporary means for self-defense, the right to be left alone, and the right to own and use property all stem from our humanity, the government simply is without authority to regulate human behavior in these areas, no matter what powers it purports to give to itself and no matter what crises may occur. Among the rights in this category is the freedom of movement, which today is called the right to travel.

The right to travel is an individual personal human right, long recognized under the natural law as immune from governmental interference. Of course, governments have been interfering with this right for millennia. The Romans restricted the travel of Jews; Parliament restricted the travel of serfs; Congress restricted the travel of slaves; and starting in the late 19th century, the federal government has restricted the travel of non-Americans who want to come here and even the travel of those already here. All of these abominable restrictions of the right to travel are based not on any culpability of individuals, but rather on membership in the groups to which persons have belonged from birth.

The initial reasons for these immigration restrictions involved the different appearance and culture of those seeking to come here and the nativism of those running the government here. Somehow, the people who ran the government believed that they who were born here were superior persons and more worthy of American-style freedoms than those who sought to come here. This extols nativism.

Nativism is the arch-enemy of the freedom to travel, as its adherents believe they can use the coercive power of the government to impair the freedom of travel of persons who are unwanted not because of personal behavior, but solely on the basis of where they were born. Nativism teaches that we lack natural rights and enjoy only those rights the government permits us to exercise.

Yet, the freedom to travel is a fundamental natural right. This is not a novel view. In addition to Aquinas and Jefferson, it has been embraced by St. Augustine, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Pope John Paul II and Justice Clarence Thomas. Our fundamental human rights are not conditioned or even conditionable on the laws or traditions of the place where our mothers were physically located when we were born. They are not attenuated because our mothers were not in the United States at the moment of our births. Stated differently, we all possess natural rights, no more and no less than any others. All humans have the full panoply of freedom of choice in areas of personal behavior protected from governmental interference by the natural law, no matter where they were born.

Americans are not possessed of more natural rights than non-Americans; rather, we enjoy more opportunities to exercise those rights because the government is theoretically restrained by the Constitution, which explicitly recognizes the natural law. That recognition is articulated in the Ninth Amendment, which declares that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be used by the government as an excuse to deny or disparage other unnamed and unnamable rights retained by the people.

So, if I want to invite my cousins from Florence, Italy, to come here and live in my house and work on my farm in New Jersey, or if a multinational corporation wants the best engineers from India to work in its labs in Texas, or if my neighbor wants a friend of a friend from Mexico City to come here to work in his shop, we have the natural right to ask, they have the natural right to come here, and the government has no moral right to interfere with any of these freely made decisions.

If the government can restrain the freedom to travel on the basis of an immutable characteristic of birth, there is no limit to the restraints it can impose.

[Swordsmyth]

Mexico is NOT an anti-liberty cesspool. Most who are familiar with Mexico consider it freer than the US.

As for immigration, I agree with Judge Nap:

LOL at you and Judge Swamp.

[kahless]

LOL at you and Judge Swamp.

I am surprised by his position on immigration when you consider the problem Muslim immigration presents to his homosexual community.

He does however interpret Trump's immigration ban somewhat correctly albeit he says temporary here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIeKe0qEf50

[Swordsmyth]

I am surprised by his position on immigration when you consider the problem Muslim immigration presents to his homosexual community.

He does however interpret Trump's immigration ban somewhat correctly albeit he says temporary here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIeKe0qEf50

I didn't know Judge Swamp was a q u e e r, that makes my reasons to reject him complete.

[undergroundrr]

I didn't know Judge Swamp was a q u e e r, that makes my reasons to reject him complete.

Lol. You better reject Timosman too. He can't stop himself posting his fellatio and sodomy fantasies the last few days.

[Danke]

If Scandinavia was displaced into the mainland US, we would turn into Greater Minnesota. We have to keep the locusts out by any means necessary.


A lot of Minnesotans are reasonable.

[Ender]

LOL at you and Judge Swamp.

LOL- another Judge Nap is soooo wonderful when he supports Trump but when he does not supports my precious hate-topic, he's swamp.

How about Ron Paul? Gonna call him names too?


How to Solve the Illegal Immigration Problem
By Ron Paul

Ron Paul Institute

September 6, 2016

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s recent speech on immigration really missed the point. I understand Trump’s frustration over the US government’s inability to control the US borders and keep out those who would come to this country illegally. Trump was right that the media ignore legitimate questions we have on our immigration policy and he is right that special interests have a great interest in maintaining the status quo.

However, when it comes to really solving the immigration problem he gets it all wrong. And instead of making us more free and prosperous, his solutions will accelerate our downward slide toward authoritarianism.

First, let’s consider his idea of building a big wall between the US and Mexico. It is said that all one needs to get over an eight-foot fence is a nine-foot ladder. Or perhaps a shovel. So walls are never very good at keeping people out. But they are very good at keeping people in. Just ask the East Germans. The communist government claimed in 1961 that it had to build a wall around the portion of Berlin it controlled to keep the population safe from the evil capitalist wreckers and saboteurs. It didn’t take long for the world to realize that the real threat to the East German leaders was that the people trapped in East Berlin would try to get out. We have all seen the horrific videos of East German civilians risking – and losing – their lives to escape that prison of razor wire and cinder block.

Is this really what we want for our own future?

What a wild conspiracy theory, some may claim. The wall would never be meant to keep us from leaving. Well, ask the IRS. Under a tax enforcement provision passed in 2015, the US government claimed the right to cancel any American citizen’s passport if Washington claims it is owed money.

Trump also made E-Verify the center of his immigration speech. He said, “We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and we will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country.”

While preventing those here illegally from being able to gain employment may appeal to many who would like to protect American jobs, E-Verify is the worst possible solution. It is a police state non-solution, as it would require the rest of us legal American citizens to carry a biometric national ID card connected to a government database to prove that the government allows us to work. A false positive would result in financial disaster for millions of American families, as one would be forced to fight a faceless government bureaucracy to correct the mistake. Want to put TSA in charge of deciding if you are eligible to work?

The battle against illegal immigration is a ploy to gain more control over our lives. We are supposed to be terrified of the hoards of Mexicans streaming into our country and thus grant the government new authority over the rest of us. But in fact, a Pew study found that between 2009 and 2014 there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants from the United States. Yes, this is a government “solution” in search of a real problem.

How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.

[undergroundrr]

How about Ron Paul? Gonna call him names too?

kahless, is Ron Paul really just a scam artist undermining the threat of libertarian beliefs in our political system?

Is he a person without a backbone afraid to speak the truth when it comes to his own beliefs?

Or is he just somebody woefully misguided who hasn't thought it through?

Explain Ron Paul to me please.

[kahless]

kahless, is Ron Paul really just a scam artist undermining the threat of libertarian beliefs in our political system?

Is he a person without a backbone afraid to speak the truth when it comes to his own beliefs?

Or is he just somebody woefully misguided who hasn't thought it through?

Explain Ron Paul to me please.

I was not referring to all Libertarians just ones that worship at the altar of open borders like it is some sort of religion that supersedes everything else while denying the obvious fact it makes living in a libertarian like society absolutely impossible given the data.

I supported Ron's 2008 platform on immigration and his earlier writings. I disagree with his later writings including the virtue signaling to the media article written while his son was competing against Trump, during the height of the Republican primary, with Trump under attack by the media over this very issue.

In my opinion Ron Paul in particular moved further to the left on immigration than his son and it is damaging their brand. It is failed strategy that was obvious to everyone during the 2016 race and damaged Rand's chances in the primary. This despite Rand having a pretty solid position on immigration albeit weaker than Trump in some areas.

Ron has been more vocal on this since Trump took office which in my opinion was to appeal to the libertarian left since I assume the core of his audience has probably moved on from the Paul's to Trump and other associated personalities. Perhaps a strategic business decision to remain relevant. Regardless whether they think that was a good idea politically it is damaging their brand and could again deny any chance of Rand winning the nomination.

Ron has done a good job strategically rebranding his positions over the years on immigration which has eliminated all false accusations of racism by the left wing media but it has been a complete disaster for the Pauls politically. The rebranding will certainly be less of an obstacle when Rand runs again. However any pandering to the media will be forgotten if Rand is a threat and he will be falsely called out as a racist for his beliefs on private property rights - CRA. So whats the point.

[Swordsmyth]

I was not referring to all Libertarians just ones that worship at the altar of open borders like it is some sort of religion that supersedes everything else while denying the obvious fact it makes living in a libertarian like society absolutely impossible given the data.

I supported Ron's 2008 platform on immigration and his earlier writings. I disagree with his later writings including the virtue signaling to the media article written while his son was competing against Trump, during the height of the Republican primary, with Trump under attack by the media over this very issue.

In my opinion Ron Paul in particular moved further to the left on immigration than his son and it is damaging their brand. It is failed strategy that was obvious to everyone during the 2016 race and damaged Rand's chances in the primary. This despite Rand having a pretty solid position on immigration albeit weaker than Trump in some areas.

Ron has been more vocal on this since Trump took office which in my opinion was to appeal to the libertarian left since I assume the core of his audience has probably moved on from the Paul's to Trump and other associated personalities. Perhaps a strategic business decision to remain relevant. Regardless whether they think that was a good idea politically it is damaging their brand and could again deny any chance of Rand winning the nomination.

Ron has done a good job strategically rebranding his positions over the years on immigration which has eliminated all false accusations of racism by the left wing media but it has been a complete disaster for the Pauls politically. The rebranding will certainly be less of an obstacle when Rand runs again. However any pandering to the media will be forgotten if Rand is a threat and he will be falsely called out as a racist for his beliefs on private property rights - CRA. So whats the point.

^^^THIS^^^

Ron used to be strong on border/immigration enforcement, Ender and the open borders gang just ignore that, on this subject Ron is guilty of ideological and pragmatic errors.

[timosman]

kahless, is Ron Paul really just a scam artist undermining the threat of libertarian beliefs in our political system?

Is he a person without a backbone afraid to speak the truth when it comes to his own beliefs?

Or is he just somebody woefully misguided who hasn't thought it through?

Explain Ron Paul to me please.

Assume Yes on all questions for a second. What is your goal here anyway? Why don't you take your **** and play with it elsewhere?:cool:

[Swordsmyth]

@kahless (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=3352), is Ron Paul really just a scam artist undermining the threat of libertarian beliefs in our political system?

Is he a person without a backbone afraid to speak the truth when it comes to his own beliefs?

Or is he just somebody woefully misguided who hasn't thought it through?

Explain Ron Paul to me please.

Only someone who knows Ron personally could make an educated guess about the answers to your questions, Ron hasn't done anything that would clarify which of those is correct yet.

[undergroundrr]

Nice. Serial assaults on Ron Paul's integrity.

Ron Paul is the most consistent public figure of the 20th and 21st century in terms of policy and philosophy. You guys, I have never disagreed with Ron Paul's stance on immigration since I started watching him closely in 2007. It has never changed. Enforce our laws, bring the troops home and secure the borders with that manpower and budget. Over and over he has said the only reason we have an immigration problem is because of the welfare state. Don't subsidize immigrants. But really this is an extension of a principle - don't subsidize anything.

There's not some mythical time in the past when he shared your position. Back in the 1990s he was voting for immigrant visas and extending immigrant residency periods. He voted for a border fence once and has been saying ever since that it wasn't because of the fence part of the bill. He's never been for a wall, citizen ID cards, deportation or arresting 7-Eleven managers. He's advocated a constitutional amendment for birthright citizenship - But not an executive order or legislation, a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. It's also not an argument against immigration, it's an argument against giving immigrants citizenship, i.e. benefits in a welfare state.

Ron Paul is not your guy. Are you trying to convert infidels? Go to DailyKos or litter the NYT comment sections.

[Swordsmyth]

Nice. Serial assaults on Ron Paul's integrity.

Ron Paul is the most consistent public figure of the 20th and 21st century in terms of policy and philosophy. You guys, I have never disagreed with Ron Paul's stance on immigration since I started watching him closely in 2007. It has never changed. Enforce our laws, bring the troops home and secure the borders with that manpower and budget. Over and over he has said the only reason we have an immigration problem is because of the welfare state. Don't subsidize immigrants. But really this is an extension of a principle - don't subsidize anything.

There's not some mythical time in the past when he shared your position. Back in the 1990s he was voting for immigrant visas and extending immigrant residency periods. He voted for a border fence once and has been saying ever since that it wasn't because of the fence part of the bill. He's never been for a wall, citizen ID cards, deportation or arresting 7-Eleven managers. He's advocated a constitutional amendment for birthright citizenship - But not an executive order or legislation, a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. It's also not an argument against immigration, it's an argument against giving immigrants citizenship, i.e. benefits in a welfare state.

Ron Paul is not your guy. Are you trying to convert infidels? Go to DailyKos or litter the NYT comment sections.

Dump is in favor of wrong things and Ron is too weak, he was always a little weak and he has gotten weaker even though the immigration problem has gotten worse.

[undergroundrr]

I was not referring to all Libertarians just ones that worship at the altar of open borders like it is some sort of religion that supersedes everything else while denying the obvious fact it makes living in a libertarian like society absolutely impossible given the data.

What data?

The "data" presented on RPF about immigrant crime, etc. is not data. It's social science as preached by the radical left. Which of course is indistinguishable from the alt-right in the way it clumsily compiles out-of-context statistical "data" to fit a confirmation bias. The final product is the same kind of wonkery you'd expect from leftist social planners.

The alt-right had the great idea to use the left's tactics to combat the left in electoral politics. But they make a mistake if thinking the left's tactics will help them find truth and/or good public policy.

[timosman]

Lol. You better reject Timosman too. He can't stop himself posting his fellatio and sodomy fantasies the last few days.

What an indignation. The left used almost all alphabet letters trying to include some of the "alternative fantasies".

[Swordsmyth]

What data?

The "data" presented on RPF about immigrant crime, etc. is not data. It's social science as preached by the radical left. Which of course is indistinguishable from the alt-right in the way it clumsily compiles out-of-context statistical "data" to fit a confirmation bias. The final product is the same kind of wonkery you'd expect from leftist social planners.

The alt-right had the great idea to use the left's tactics to combat the left in electoral politics. But they make a mistake if thinking the left's tactics will help them find truth and/or good public policy.

The data about how the socialist foreigners and their children VOTE, that is the most important data, it's not a matter of race it's a matter of political culture, an anarchic society would be no better off because the immigrants would seek to impose a state on them.

[undergroundrr]

Dump is in favor of wrong things and Ron is too weak, he was always a little weak and he has gotten weaker even though the immigration problem has gotten worse.

Ron is the very paragon of political strength. He is Dr. No. You're trying to invent a Ron Paul that never existed. A weak, inconsistent, dishonest one. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Swordsmyth]

Ron is the very paragon of political strength. He is Dr. No. You're trying to invent a Ron Paul that never existed. A weak, inconsistent, dishonest one. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I'm inventing no such thing, I'm describing a man who I believe sincerely believes some incorrect things.

[timosman]

Ron is the very paragon of political strength.


When do you think this strength will be exercised or is he like Buddha?:cool:

[Swordsmyth]

When do you think this strength will be exercised or is he like Buddha?:cool:

Ron is like a Saint, his time is past and he was only nearly perfect, but your question is unfair, he exercised his strength for decades, he has earned a rest.

[undergroundrr]

Ron is like a Saint, his time is past

He's putting out hours of relevant and strong intellectual content every month that statists like you do not want to hear and therefore ignore.

[timosman]

He's putting out hours of relevant and strong intellectual content every month that statists like you do not want to hear and therefore ignore.

Ron needs to work on delivery. It was always a problem.

[Swordsmyth]

He's putting out hours of relevant and strong intellectual content every month that statists like you do not want to hear and therefore ignore.

LOL, my point was that he has a right to retire completely if he wanted, read the rest of what I said, he is going above and beyond the call of duty in his current work and I still agree with 95%+ of his positions just like I always did.

I don't care if you believe me about what I am going to say or not because it is true, I wrote Ron a letter in 2004 asking him to run for president, my faith in him is the maximum amount I will give to any mortal man that I don't know personally so your attempts to claim I am against him are quite foolish.

[Swordsmyth]

Ron needs to work on delivery. It was always a problem.

Ron is an educator, we need educators, but we also need leaders for the sheep to follow.

[timosman]

Ron is an educator, we need educators, but we also need leaders for the sheep to follow.

We also need to talk about numbers and trends. Is Ron trying to extinguish the liberty movement as a part of his deal with the devil?

[Swordsmyth]

We also need to talk about numbers and trends. Is Ron trying to extinguish the liberty movement as a part of his deal with the devil?

:confused:

Your sense of humor is warped tonight.

[timosman]

:confused:

Your sense of humor is warped tonight.

I agree with you. I will make some adjustments after I am done with the trolls.

[kahless]

What data?

The "data" presented on RPF about immigrant crime, etc. is not data. It's social science as preached by the radical left. Which of course is indistinguishable from the alt-right in the way it clumsily compiles out-of-context statistical "data" to fit a confirmation bias. The final product is the same kind of wonkery you'd expect from leftist social planners.

The alt-right had the great idea to use the left's tactics to combat the left in electoral politics. But they make a mistake if thinking the left's tactics will help them find truth and/or good public policy.

I won't rehash what others have posted since my original post since their replies were spot on other than you also ignored the data posted right in this very thread. Poll after poll after poll posted here over the years has demonstrated these people vote for big government. But you just have to have them here to ensure the destruction of liberty in favor of growing the state. Effectively people like you are denying me and my family to experience greater liberty in our life time and rather subjecting us to the tax burden of big government. You are worse than a Democrat since at least with the Dems you know exactly where you stand instead of this lie of pretending to be against statism while you advocate for it through immigration.

Then in a posting manner that in a style out of MSNBC or some Progtard think tank you turn our observations on immigration, the Pauls and the liberty movement into attacks or something that was obviously not written.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt with the original response but I'm done with you.

https://i.imgur.com/I4oI8Zy.png

[Ender]

Ron is the very paragon of political strength. He is Dr. No. You're trying to invent a Ron Paul that never existed. A weak, inconsistent, dishonest one. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Exactly.

Again Ron Paul on the immigration "problem".


Trump also made E-Verify the center of his immigration speech. He said, “We will ensure that E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and we will work with Congress to strengthen and expand its use across the country.”

While preventing those here illegally from being able to gain employment may appeal to many who would like to protect American jobs, E-Verify is the worst possible solution. It is a police state non-solution, as it would require the rest of us legal American citizens to carry a biometric national ID card connected to a government database to prove that the government allows us to work. A false positive would result in financial disaster for millions of American families, as one would be forced to fight a faceless government bureaucracy to correct the mistake. Want to put TSA in charge of deciding if you are eligible to work?

The battle against illegal immigration is a ploy to gain more control over our lives. We are supposed to be terrified of the hoards of Mexicans streaming into our country and thus grant the government new authority over the rest of us. But in fact a Pew study found that between 2009 and 2014 there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants from the United States. Yes, this is a government “solution” in search of a real problem.

How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.


http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/how-to-solve-the-illegal-immigration-problem

[TheCount]

Poll after poll after poll posted here over the years has demonstrated these people vote for big government.
https://i.imgur.com/I4oI8Zy.png

I'm having a hard time deciphering this. Can you show me on this chart which group of people did not vote for big government?

[Swordsmyth]

Exactly.

Again Ron Paul on the immigration "problem".



http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/how-to-solve-the-illegal-immigration-problem

We are more prosperous than Mexico and if we had a libertarian society we would be even more so, therefore you can't eliminate the incentives for illegals to come here.

[timosman]

Exactly.

Again Ron Paul on the immigration "problem".



http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/how-to-solve-the-illegal-immigration-problem

Do you follow the news? Have you seen the stories about cities and states becoming "sanctuary"?

[Ender]

We are more prosperous than Mexico and if we had a libertarian society we would be even more so, therefore you can't eliminate the incentives for illegals to come here.

Ron is talking about ENTITLEMENTS.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm having a hard time deciphering this. Can you show me on this chart which group of people did not vote for big government?

All but the top line, the third line and the bottom two voted for massive government, there is some hope of converting the current electorate to liberty, there won't be any if we let in the barbarian hordes.

[Swordsmyth]

Ron is talking about ENTITLEMENTS.

And he is thereby missing the point.

[timosman]

Ron is talking about ENTITLEMENTS.

Ron wants to destroy DNC. Entitlements will exist as long as there is DNC.

[Ender]

And he is thereby missing the point.

He is NOT missing the point- YOU are.

And RP is not weak- he has done much good and brought a lot of people to the cause of Liberty.

[Swordsmyth]

He is NOT missing the point- YOU are.

And RP is not weak- he has done much good and brought a lot of people to the cause of Liberty.

He is missing the point, they will come here without the entitlements, they will vote and they will have anchor babies and they will destroy us.

He is weak ON IMMIGRATION, I have the utmost respect for Dr. Paul but we need reduced LEGAL immigration and we need to put a stop to illegal immigration, we may even needs a temporary immigration freeze and/or to expel some legal immigrants/refugees.

[TheCount]

All but the top line, the third line and the bottom two voted for massive governmentThe candidates that those groups voted for, when they won, enlarged the government. That seems to contradict your claim.

[r3volution 3.0]

If we had reasonable border controls we wouldn't need police-state measures to deal with illegals.

"Reasonable border controls" = police-state measures

There will be a national ID card, internal paperchecks ala the USSR, and (of course) penalties for Americans exercising their rights.

"Hey, Jose, wanna rent my rental unit?"

"Sure Mr. American."

http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/angry-cop-800x430.jpg

#Freedom

[timosman]

He is NOT missing the point- YOU are.

And RP is not weak- he has done much good and brought a lot of people to the cause of Liberty.

Maybe it would have been better if some people stayed out of the liberty movement. Some can not see they occupy a special place on this planet. A place desired to be in by many. Some estimates put the number over double the size of the country. Ender thinks he can control all of this flow by being nice. :cool:

[Swordsmyth]

The candidates that those groups voted for, when they won, enlarged the government. That seems to contradict your claim.

No, the others voted for much bigger government.

[Swordsmyth]

"Reasonable border controls" = police-state measures

There will be a national ID card, internal paperchecks ala the USSR, and (of course) penalties for Americans exercising their rights.

"Hey, Jose, wanna rent my rental unit?"

"Sure Mr. American."

http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/angry-cop-800x430.jpg

#Freedom

Nice try but I have never advocated for national ID or paper checks.

[r3volution 3.0]

Nice try but I have never advocated for national ID or paper checks.

...and I have never said that you did.

However, this nationalism that you insist on promoting will result in national ID, paper checks, etc.

This is obvious.

[timosman]

However, this nationalism that you insist on promoting will result in national ID, paper, checks etc.

Will? How do you know that, Nostradamus?

[Ender]

No, the others voted for much bigger government.

None of that is bigger than Bush's PA that was already written and waiting for a convenient disaster.

[timosman]

None of that is bigger than Bush's PA that was already written and waiting for a convenient disaster.

All right. You win.:cool:

[TheCount]

No, the others voted for much bigger government.Do you have access to some kind of machine that you can use to view the alternate dimension in which Kerry won and determine that yes, government would have been bigger?

[Swordsmyth]

Do you have access to some kind of machine that you can use to view the alternate dimension in which Kerry won and determine that yes, government would have been bigger?

The Demoncrat platform.

[Swordsmyth]

...and I have never said that you did.

However, this nationalism that you insist on promoting will result in national ID, paper checks, etc.

This is obvious.

I doesn't have to but the internationalism you insist on promote will result in the death of liberty.

[TheCount]

The Demoncrat platform.

Oh, now you want to talk platforms? Are you including Trump's platform in that, with its largest military budget in the history of the world and $1 trillion infrastructure 'throw it against the wall and see what sticks' fund?

[timosman]

Do you have access to some kind of machine that you can use to view the alternate dimension in which Kerry won and determine that yes, government would have been bigger?

Do you have access to some kind of machine that can turn your brain off? What you are doing here is not impressive.

[Swordsmyth]

Oh, now you want to talk platforms? Are you including Trump's platform in that, with its largest military budget in the history of the world and $1 trillion infrastructure 'throw it against the wall and see what sticks' fund?

Yup, I don't agree with Dump's military budget plans but the Demoncrats always want to spend even more on other things.

[AuH20]

Like Milton Friedman eloquently once stated.......

https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/report-more-than-12-of-immigrants-on-welfare/


The Center for Immigration Studies report also found that immigrants are using 57 percent more taxpayer-funded food stamps than native-born Americans.

The study is the first in recent years to examine immigrant and native-born welfare use — including Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs — based on the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation.



CIS found that in 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant, legal or illegal, reported they used at least one welfare program during the year.

That contrasts with 30 percent of native-born households using welfare of some kind.

Steven A. Camarota, the director of research for CIS, said that if one “assumes that immigration is supposed to benefit the country, then immigrant welfare use should be much lower than natives’.”

Instead, the government’s Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that “two decades after welfare reform tried to curtail immigrant eligibility, immigrant-headed households are using welfare at much higher rates than native households for most programs.”

Camarota pointed out that most of the immigrant population is not covered by the restrictions, and numerous exceptions allow access to the welfare system.

Furthermore, he said, immigrants often receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.

“The findings of this analysis have important policy implications,” he said Camarota. “Perhaps most important, the significantly higher welfare use associated with immigrants means that it is very likely immigration is a drain on public coffers, exacerbating the nation’s fiscal deficit.”

[enhanced_deficit]

Glass is full argument may be popular but couple of more drops not going to cause overflow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/nyregion/melania-trumps-parents-become-us-citizens.html

[Swordsmyth]

Glass is full argument may be popular but couple of more drops not going to cause overflow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/nyregion/melania-trumps-parents-become-us-citizens.html

As long as the rules are the way they are her parents have as much right as anyone else to take advantage of them, if chain migration had been ended in Trump's first year as he asked Congress to do then they would not have qualified that way.