Afghan refugee wins New Hampshire statehouse primary

[Swordsmyth]

A 27-year-old Afghan refugee has ousted a four-term incumbent in the Democratic primary for a seat in the New Hampshire legislature.The Concord Monitor reports that Safiya Wazir beat District 17 State Rep. Dick Patten, who argued her refugee background would hurt her campaign. But Wazir pulled out Tuesday's primary victory by highlighting her years of community activism and dedication to education and family issues.

Wazir says she would focus on Medicaid expansion and enacting paid family leave in New Hampshire.

More at: https://columbustelegram.com/news/national/afghan-refugee-wins-new-hampshire-statehouse-primary/article_500fd261-1894-51a2-9a9b-b33fa2540042.html

[Anti Federalist]

Wazir says she would focus on Medicaid expansion and enacting paid family leave in New Hampshire.

But I was told migrants/refugees/immigrants/demographic invaders don't vote for more government.

[Anti Federalist]

Meh, we, meaning AmeriKunts, deserve what's going to happen to us.

Can't get ten thousand people to move to NH to support limited government and liberty, but can get tens of thousands to show up and support big government handouts, welfare, demographic warfare and "community activism".

[aGameOfThrones]

But Wazir pulled out Tuesday's primary victory by highlighting her years of community activism


:rolleyes:

[timosman]

:rolleyes:

Not another community organizer. :cool:

[Schifference]

Was this person endorsed by the Free State Project?

[CaptUSA]

But I was told migrants/refugees/immigrants/demographic invaders don't vote for more government.

Pretty sure you were told that they do it at the same rate as US-born citizens (subjects). Hell, we can't even get people in RPF to agree that more government is bad.

[Aratus]

Luv... A longtime political person just got trounced by a newbie.
If the voters are in quite a mood by November, expect a slew of
GOP political novices in addition to much younger Democrats. I
sense a trend, a curious mix of RED and BLUE Waves stemming
from an anti-incumbent impulse by the "centrist" apathetic voters.

[CCTelander]

Pretty sure you were told that they do it at the same rate as US-born citizens (subjects). Hell, we can't even get people in RPF to agree that more government is bad.


I know, right?

Far from opposing more government, we have many denizens of RPF actually vociferously cheering it on, and even begging for more still. A sad state of affairs to be sure.

[Ender]

Pretty sure you were told that they do it at the same rate as US-born citizens (subjects). Hell, we can't even get people in RPF to agree that more government is bad.

Yep.

We are now in Animal Farm 2018.

[Anti Federalist]

Pretty sure you were told that they do it at the same rate as US-born citizens (subjects). Hell, we can't even get people in RPF to agree that more government is bad.

I don't recall that being the case.

I recall surveys and polling data that indicate that first generation migrants vote for more government at rates twice that of native citizens.

[Anti Federalist]

I know, right?

Far from opposing more government, we have many denizens of RPF actually vociferously cheering it on, and even begging for more still. A sad state of affairs to be sure.

Right, which is why legal and illegal migration needs a halt, across the board, for at least ten years, so we can sort this mess out.

[Anti Federalist]

Luv... A longtime political person just got trounced by a newbie.
If the voters are in quite a mood by November, expect a slew of
GOP political novices in addition to much younger Democrats. I
sense a trend, a curious mix of RED and BLUE Waves stemming
from an anti-incumbent impulse by the "centrist" apathetic voters.

I see nothing but a red wave...meaning red as the USSR.

[Anti Federalist]

Yep.

We are now in Animal Farm 2018.

In that you have natives and migrants both openly calling for Stalin-esque Marxism, yes, you're right.

[jmdrake]

Right, which is why legal and illegal migration needs a halt, across the board, for at least ten years, so we can sort this mess out.

Right. We need to voter harder to keep other people from voting harder because voting harder stops harder voting and vote for big government projects that take away our liberty (constitution free zone around the U.S. already...border wall) because....ummmm....I'm confused.

[juleswin]

But I was told migrants/refugees/immigrants/demographic invaders don't vote for more government.

I was expecting u to post the of some black or brown people holding matchetes cos u probably think that is all they do.

But here u are building a tall and gorgeous strawman. It looks so beautiful that I cannot believe u decided to set it.on fire. Nobody said that immigrants dont vote for more govt. You just made that shyte up. I think the argument is that they vote for more govt at about the same rates as natives.

Even you come on this website to sing the praises of a man Trump who supported free healthcare.

[phill4paul]

Right, which is why legal and illegal migration needs a halt, across the board, for at least ten years, so we can sort this mess out.

Absolutely. And there needs to be an electronic border wall manned by U.S. troops which should be brought home from over seas for EXACTLY that purpose.

[Zippyjuan]

Right, which is why legal and illegal migration needs a halt, across the board, for at least ten years, so we can sort this mess out.

Yes, we need the government to protect certain classes of citizens. White middle class.

[bunklocoempire]

lol

And the people continued to call for the ultimate government I.D. collar, to solve a government created problem,
and government was happy to answer the call.



Friday September 14, 2018 - Ron Paul and Chris Rossini
Once Socialism is adopted, it's only a matter of time until the mass migrations begin in search for greater freedom. No one is building a do-it-yourself boat to sail to one of the few Socialist countries that remain. People are however, always trying to escape, with Venezuela being the latest example. Ron Paul discusses on The Liberty Report.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/L8B7ufU3AYqx/

[phill4paul]

Yes, we need the government to protect certain classes of citizens. White middle class.

https://i.imgflip.com/1i20mm.jpg

[CaptUSA]

But I was told migrants/refugees/immigrants/demographic invaders don't vote for more government.


Right, which is why legal and illegal migration needs a halt, across the board, for at least ten years, so we can sort this mess out.

You do realize that would require more government, right??

[Zippyjuan]

You do realize that would require more government, right??

But only immigrants want bigger government. Didn't the Republicans pass a record spending budget plan? Great job supporting smaller government there! But since it is only citizens who are allowed to vote, maybe we need to restrict them. Only allow people with government approved position to cast ballots. That will keep the riff-raff out. But what party should be the government approved one? It may turn out to not be the one you want. Then what ?

[Ender]

Absolutely. And there needs to be an electronic border wall manned by U.S. troops which should be brought home from over seas for EXACTLY that purpose.

Which will be used to keep you in.

[phill4paul]

Which will be used to keep you in.

Ron Paul said a border wall would be used to keep us in. Ron Paul said bring the troops home and put them on the border. Ron Paul believes that government is here to protect the rights of the individual. Property rights being one of these rights. Many ranchers on the border's property are inundated with illegal trespassers. Either allow these ranchers to shoot trespassers on sight, thus reducing the willingness of trespassers to do so, or use the government to protect their property. I'm fine either way.

[phill4paul]

You do realize that would require more government, right??

Nope, we have plenty of troop strength and technology within the U.S. Army and the National guard.

[CaptUSA]

Nope, we have plenty of troop strength and technology within the U.S. Army and the National guard.

Yes, I get it. But don't you see that EVERYONE wants to shrink parts of the government and grow other parts. We are supposed to be the ones that want to shrink ALL parts.

Proponents of the welfare state want us to reduce our military involvement and give the money to the poor.
Proponents of the warfare state want us to end the social programs and use the money for "defense".

The problem with that mentality is that the government keeps growing! The cuts never happen - we just build the extra parts!

Meanwhile, if we end the social programs and the drug war, the immigration problem solves itself. You don't solve a government created problem with more government.

[bunklocoempire]

Which will be used to keep you in.

keep you in

- also keep you:

"safe",
under,
down,
dumb,,
"happy",
"fed",
"watered",
and keep you dependent on ever increasing government aggression.

I'm not speaking of individuals on tthe RPFs, but rather what we've already seen happen with the growth of government power in our lifetimes.
You get sexually assaulted to use a commercial airplane of convenience, because someone amplified government, because someone amplified government, because someone amplified government, you get the picture.

Collar the government or the government (amplified proud, scared, flawed, man) WILL CONTINUE to collar the individual.

Liberty is supposed to point to the flawed man, FIRST.

I remember a brilliant mind on the RPFs that used to talk about the force continuum in the hands of men working with government, or something like that...

...on second thought, forget the lessons of history and promoting a consistent truth...

Judo politics! EEEeee-chhhaw!

Chi-com/google info/ internment camps won't happen here, we can control government... controlling government is what man does best, obviously.

SARCASM

[phill4paul]

Yes, I get it. But don't you see that EVERYONE wants to shrink parts of the government and grow other parts. We are supposed to be the ones that want to shrink ALL parts.

Proponents of the welfare state want us to reduce our military involvement and give the money to the poor.
Proponents of the warfare state want us to end the social programs and use the money for "defense".

The problem with that mentality is that the government keeps growing! The cuts never happen - we just build the extra parts!

Meanwhile, if we end the social programs and the drug war, the immigration problem solves itself. You don't solve a government created problem with more government.

But, it would actually be less government. I did the math one time and with the current N.G. personnel you could staff 2 troops per mile along the southern border 24/7 in one week increments. Now if we brought troops home from foreign bases we could easily triple that number. Troop bases over seas would be shut down ending the logistical support for those operations. Ta-Da. Less government.

[Ender]

Ron Paul said a border wall would be used to keep us in. Ron Paul said bring the troops home and put them on the border. Ron Paul believes that government is here to protect the rights of the individual. Property rights being one of these rights. Many ranchers on the border's property are inundated with illegal trespassers. Either allow these ranchers to shoot trespassers on sight, thus reducing the willingness of trespassers to do so, or use the government to protect their property. I'm fine either way.

A more modern Ron Paul POV:


How to Solve the Illegal Immigration Problem
By Ron Paul

Ron Paul Institute

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.

[jmdrake]

Yes, I get it. But don't you see that EVERYONE wants to shrink parts of the government and grow other parts. We are supposed to be the ones that want to shrink ALL parts.

Proponents of the welfare state want us to reduce our military involvement and give the money to the poor.
Proponents of the warfare state want us to end the social programs and use the money for "defense".

The problem with that mentality is that the government keeps growing! The cuts never happen - we just build the extra parts!

Meanwhile, if we end the social programs and the drug war, the immigration problem solves itself. You don't solve a government created problem with more government.

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

[phill4paul]

A more modern Ron Paul POV:


But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.

Good luck with that. I'm already told by the left that the poor illegal immigrants have to steal S.S. numbers, just so they can work, and pay into our system that they never, ever, get back from. Should be a windfall, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and neither does the belief that the welfare that illegal immigrants do receive will ever be taken away. There was a net loss of immigrants between 2009 and 2014 because there were no jobs to be had. The housing market crashed.
But, now the influx is again on the rise. Why? Because the national sentiment is for "open borders." We know which side of the left/right paradigm thoroughly endorses that. And in the mix come the traffickers. Those that bring young men and women over, children in many cases, and have them "work off" passage.
Sorry, dude, there needs to be a vetting. It's not just about welfare and drugs. Besides the sex traffickers there is the very real threat of foreign nationals from the middle east that wish to punish us for our sins abroad. Yes. Some have been arrested crossing the border. How many more have not?

[Danke]

You do realize that would require more government, right??

Just the opposite.

[jmdrake]

But, it would actually be less government. I did the math one time and with the current N.G. personnel you could staff 2 troops per mile along the southern border 24/7 in one week increments. Now if we brought troops home from foreign bases we could easily triple that number. Troop bases over seas would be shut down ending the logistical support for those operations. Ta-Da. Less government.

It's not the math that's the issue. It's the logic. What you're missing is that most of the voter base that wants the wall also wants to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." And Trump has pushed for a MASSIVE increase in military spending because the military is supposedly (can I even say this with a straight face?) starved. Didn't Nikey Haley just pledge millions for Venezuela refugees? Yep. Yep she did. And big government isn't just measured by the spending level. Or are you not aware of the "constitution free zone" around the U.S.?


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

[Danke]

Nope, we have plenty of troop strength and technology within the U.S. Army and the National guard.

Also, less dependents on government and less crime, so less government.

[phill4paul]

It's not the math that's the issue. It's the logic. What you're missing is that most of the voter base that wants the wall also wants to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." And Trump has pushed for a MASSIVE increase in military spending because the military is supposedly (can I even say this with a straight face?) starved. Didn't Nikey Haley just pledge millions for Venezuela refugees? Yep. Yep she did. And big government isn't just measured by the spending level. Or are you not aware of the "constitution free zone" around the U.S.?


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

And what you're missing is that most the voter base that believes in open borders wants welfare.
So here we are.
At least my way of thinking brings the troops home and actually results in less government.

[juleswin]

Just the opposite.

Weird, u are actually right. Militarizing the borders could result in less govt but less freedom if the govt pulls back all the troops overseas and invests a small portion of the funds into defending the border.

It would also be less govt if the govt withdrew from international engagement and put cameras on all the street corners and spied on all our phone calls and texts. Less govt doesnt always mean more freedom. Some men yern for freedom and other just want safety and prosperity. I can sympathize with both sides but I more of a freedom type of person.

What kind of person are u?

[PierzStyx]

But I was told migrants/refugees/immigrants/demographic invaders don't vote for more government.

If by voting for "more government" you mean "vote no differently than native-born Americans do when they vote Democrat or Republican."

[PierzStyx]

Right, which is why legal and illegal migration needs a halt, across the board, for at least ten years, so we can sort this mess out.

"WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION SO WE CAN STOP PEOPLE VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION!"

Great logic there, Sulla.

[phill4paul]

Weird, u are actually right. Militarizing the borders could result in less govt but less freedom if the govt pulls back all the troops overseas and invests a small portion of the funds into defending the border.

It would also be less govt if the govt withdrew from international engagement and put cameras on all the street corners and spied on all our phone calls and texts. Less govt doesnt always mean more freedom. Some men yern for freedom and other just want safety and prosperity. I can sympathize with both sides but I more of a freedom type of person.

What kind of person are u?

Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. A battalion strength military in every town.

You are some kinda special stupid, you are.

[phill4paul]

"WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION SO WE CAN STOP PEOPLE VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION!"

Great logic there, Sulla.

Stopping unfettered trespass does not violate the Constitution. Please, site me specifics for your belief.

[Ender]

And what you're missing is that most the voter base that believes in open borders wants welfare.
So here we are.
At least my way of thinking brings the troops home and actually results in less government.

Most the people I know that are fine with open borders do NOT want welfare. Helping the poor should always be local & never .gov.

I believe in freedom.


WHAT ARE LIBERTARIAN VIEWS AND BELIEFS?
Friday September 1st, 2017 Breanna Zimmer
What is libertarianism, and what values and beliefs do libertarians hold? What is the goal? The simple answer is in the name: liberty for each individual. But don’t most Americans want that, not just libertarians? Of course! We just have different ways of achieving that goal.

Most Americans would like the government to spend less money (therefore, taking less of ours) and most Americans are socially tolerant of other peoples’ lifestyles. So specifically, what do libertarians believe in terms of current political, economic, and social issues?

At the core of libertarianism is a Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP. No use of aggression or force is legitimate except in self-defense, or defense of property. All other use of force is unjust. Because of this principle, many libertarians tend to believe that the government’s use of force in terms of taxation and programs funded by taxation is illegitimate. This may seem extreme, and in our current political structure it is, so the Libertarian Party structures its platform on limiting government and giving the power back to the individual.

Larry Sharpe is a firm believer in the idea that most people have the same goals when it comes to political hot topics. Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats all want less poverty and more prosperity. We all want easy and affordable access to healthcare. We all want to live happily and peacefully. Here are some ways Libertarians want to make those goals a reality:

MARRIAGE
Goal: Anyone can consensually marry whomever they want, regardless of sexuality, religion, race, etc.

How to get there: We do not believe a certificate authenticates a relationship. The government institution of marriage should be abolished. The parties involved can agree to a law-binding contract, or a faith-based contract if they wish. While government is in the business of marriage, Libertarians do support marriage equality.

HEALTHCARE
Goal: Affordable and accessible healthcare for all.

How to get there: Larry Sharpe posted a great video saying that if you ask a libertarian if they support universal healthcare, they’ll shout “no!!!” But, if thinking about the result we want, then yes, we do support universal healthcare for everybody. We want everybody to have easy access to affordable healthcare, just not at the hands of the government. Libertarians support a free market approach to healthcare, with no government involvement, so crony capitalism would not be possible. The market would adjust prices of visits and drugs to what people are willing to pay. Insurance should no longer be based on your job, but purchased in-market, much like auto insurance, and be for unexpected illnesses.

SELF-OWNERSHIP
Goal: Ownership of our bodies back in the hands of the people, not the government.

How to get there: Each person owns their own body and have the only legitimate right to do to it what they want. Any laws restricting which substances we can ingest, which medical procedures we elect to undergo, or which profession we choose to engage in should be repealed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Goal: Reforming criminal justice to ensure fewer lives are harmed by unjust laws.

How to get there: Laws that hinder an individual’s life choices (which do not infringe on others’ rights) are unjust and should be abolished. Because of these unjust laws, the incarceration rate in the US is much larger than other nations. Libertarians call for a reform in criminal justice by ending the racist war on drugs and putting an end to the unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture laws.

ENVIRONMENT
Goal: For everyone to live in a safe and healthy environment free from pollution.

How to get there: Considering government is the worst polluter in the world (and rarely gets punished for it), they should not be the ones regulating environmental protections. Enforcing private property rights is a great way to make sure people care for our land, water, and air. If the EPA became a national organization similar to the ACLU, they could do a lot more in protecting our right to live in a healthy environment.

ECONOMY
Goal: To have a prospering and innovative economy.

How to get there: Libertarians believe in free market capitalism as the only equitable economic system. Without governmental regulations, subsidies, and arbitrary values, the good products and services that are produced and sold in the free market would flourish, and the bad would fail. Crony capitalism would be very difficult if government involvement was minimal.

IMMIGRATION
Goal: To allow any peaceful person to easily become a US citizen.

How to get there: The US, and especially New York, is a place people dream of immigrating to. We are proud of our melting pot and believe that the path to citizenship should be an extremely easy process. Any peaceful person who wants to become a citizen should have that right, regardless of which country they come from, which language they speak, or which religion they practice.

FOREIGN POLICY
Goal: To defend the US against attacks and coexist peacefully with the rest of the world.

How to get there: In adherence with the Non-Aggression Principle, Libertarians believe there is no reason to get involved in wars unless in defense of our nation. Also, the US military consumes a very large percentage of our spending budget. The US should stop policing the world and getting involved in decades-long wars that do not improve with our involvement.

ABORTION
Goal: To make abortion a family matter, not a government issue.

How to get there: The Libertarian Party is known to be the pro-choice party on every issue. The party’s view is that government should not decide what medical procedures we elect to do. Understandably so, abortion is a very personal issue, and based on this position, the government should not be involved in making that choice.

GUN RIGHTS
Goal: To allow law-abiding citizens the ability to self-defense, defense of property, and defense of liberty.

How to get there: Libertarians support the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Any obstacle from the government to restrict that right in any way is unjust and should be repealed. The more restrictions that are in place, the larger the black market for guns, and the more weapons in the hands of dangerous people.

EDUCATION
Goal: To improve education at all levels.

How to get there: The free market, as with any industry, would allow for a flourishing educational system. Great schools would succeed and underperforming schools would be replaced with better ones. Ideally, education would be placed back in the states’ hands and out of the federal government’s. While the government is in the education business, libertarians want to reform education by getting rid of location-based education and blanket regulations. We support school choice as a great stepping stone to a market-based system.

.

https://www.larrysharpe.com/2017/09/libertarian-views-beliefs/

[PierzStyx]

I don't recall that being the case.

I recall surveys and polling data that indicate that first generation migrants vote for more government at rates twice that of native citizens.

Natives and immigrants share very similar ideas about government.


Immigrants could shift public policy if their opinions differ from those of other Americans. Our earlier research found that immigrants and native-born Americans have ideological, political, and public policy opinions that differ to a statistically insignificant extent. In this report we further separate immigrant political and policy opinions by citizenship status. Noncitizen immigrants cannot vote but their political opinions are mostly similar to those of natives. However, naturalized citizen-immigrants who can vote have political opinions even closer to those of natives and are near-fully assimilated into the political mainstream.

https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/immigrants-assimilate-political-mainstream

They also cost less and consume less.


All immigrants consume 39 percent fewer welfare benefits relative to all natives, largely because they are less likely to receive Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare. Immigrants consume 27 percent fewer benefits relative to natives with similar incomes and ages. Although this brief does not count some smaller, noncash antipoverty programs, they are unlikely to alter our results even if the data were available for their inclusion. This brief provides the most recent estimates of immigrant and native welfare use.

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

In fact taxing immigrants is probably doing more to fund the welfare state than drain it.


Most legal immigrants do not have access to means-tested welfare for their first five years here with few exceptions that are mostly determined on the state level and funded with state taxes. Illegal immigrants don’t have access at all—except for emergency Medicaid.

Immigrants are less likely to use means-tested welfare benefits than similar native-born Americans. When they do use welfare, the dollar value of benefits consumed is smaller. If poor native-born Americans used Medicaid at the same rate and consumed the same value of benefits as poor immigrants, the program would be 42 percent smaller.

Immigrants also make large net contributions to Medicare and Social Security, the largest portions of the welfare state, because of their ages, ineligibility, and their greater likelihood of retiring in other countries. Far from draining the welfare state, immigrants have given the entitlement portions a few more years of operation before bankruptcy. If you’re still worried about foreign-born consumption of welfare benefits, as I am, then it is far easier and cheaper to build a higher wall around the welfare state, instead of around the country.

But I doubt facts will deter a Progressive police statist such as yourself.

[PierzStyx]

Stopping unfettered trespass does not violate the Constitution. Please, site me specifics for your belief.

You can't trespass on unowned land. And you can't regulate land you don't own.

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution lays severe limits to the powers of the government when it says that any power not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or people. Here is the text of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “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.”

This means the federal government has no authority in any area it isn't given authority in the Constitution. Anytime the federal government attempts to do so it is exceeding its legal limitations and legal powers and is committing an illegal act by exceeding the restrictions laid upon it in the supreme law of the land. It is acting in ways not simply unauthorized by the Constitution but in ways the federal government is actively forbidden to act in. One of these ways is immigration.

The US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration in any manner. Therefore any attempt by the federal government to do so is illegal. And anyone encouraging the government to do so is promoting it to act in an illegal manner.

Some people argue that Article 1, Section 8 authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration, but this is not so. First of all, the text of Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The question then becomes, what is naturalization?

Said simply, the definition of naturalization is: “to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.”

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/naturalization

So the Constitution then gives Congress the power to write laws that establish the rules by which aliens -people from other countries- can become citizens of the USA after they have arrived in the USA. It does not give them the power to regulate how, when, or where those immigrants arrive in the USA, only how they become citizens once present in the USA.

This is further confirmed by Jefferson and Madison in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 wherein they state:


That 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 and Madison held that the Constitution had no authority over immigrants and that laws made by the federal government aimed at them are totally illegal and of no force. Each state make sits own immigration policy.

To sum up: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration, in fact it actively forbids to the federal government the power to regulate immigration by forbidding it any power not given it in the Constitution. And while the Constitution does authorize Congress to make laws regulating the process by which immigrants become citizens, it in no way authorizes Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court to regulate or restrict immigration in any manner.

Therefore if you believe in supporting the US Constitution you can only support open national borders. Anything else is unconstitutional and criminal as it violates the supreme law of the land and suggests that the US is not a nation of laws but a nation of criminals masquerading as lawmakers.


Oh, and Jefferson and Madison went further, by the way. They said the President removing aliens was in fact illegal:


Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled “An Act concerning aliens” is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that “no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due progress of law”; and that another having provided that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense;” the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without heating witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force: that transferring the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior”; and that the said act is void for that reason also. And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all Legislative powers.

All of which means that attempts to deport people by the federal government are illegal violations of the Constitution. Notice also that they apply the protections of the Constitution to aliens.

[PierzStyx]

Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. A battalion strength military in every town.

You are some kinda special stupid, you are.

You want to subject each American city to occupation by the US military. Thank you for being honest about your desire to treat every city in America like Kabul and wage war against the American people.

BY the way, a standing army like you want? Also unconstitutional. Congress can raise an army. Nothing authorizes indefinitely maintaining one.

[phill4paul]

Most the people I know that are fine with open borders do NOT want welfare. Helping the poor should always be local & never .gov.

I believe in freedom.



https://www.larrysharpe.com/2017/09/libertarian-views-beliefs/

You have a very small circle. <shrug>

[Origanalist]

But, it would actually be less government. I did the math one time and with the current N.G. personnel you could staff 2 troops per mile along the southern border 24/7 in one week increments. Now if we brought troops home from foreign bases we could easily triple that number. Troop bases over seas would be shut down ending the logistical support for those operations. Ta-Da. Less government.


This is about as likely as ending welfare. Warfare/welfare is what keeps daddy gubment in business.

[phill4paul]

You can't trespass on unowned land. And you can't regulate land you don't own.

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution lays severe limits to the powers of the government when it says that any power not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or people. Here is the text of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “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.”

This means the federal government has no authority in any area it isn't given authority in the Constitution. Anytime the federal government attempts to do so it is exceeding its legal limitations and legal powers and is committing an illegal act by exceeding the restrictions laid upon it in the supreme law of the land. It is acting in ways not simply unauthorized by the Constitution but in ways the federal government is actively forbidden to act in. One of these ways is immigration.

The US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration in any manner. Therefore any attempt by the federal government to do so is illegal. And anyone encouraging the government to do so is promoting it to act in an illegal manner.

Some people argue that Article 1, Section 8 authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration, but this is not so. First of all, the text of Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The question then becomes, what is naturalization?

Said simply, the definition of naturalization is: “to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.”

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/naturalization

So the Constitution then gives Congress the power to write laws that establish the rules by which aliens -people from other countries- can become citizens of the USA after they have arrived in the USA. It does not give them the power to regulate how, when, or where those immigrants arrive in the USA, only how they become citizens once present in the USA.

This is further confirmed by Jefferson and Madison in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 wherein they state:



Jefferson and Madison held that the Constitution had no authority over immigrants and that laws made by the federal government aimed at them are totally illegal and of no force. Each state make sits own immigration policy.

To sum up: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration, in fact it actively forbids to the federal government the power to regulate immigration by forbidding it any power not given it in the Constitution. And while the Constitution does authorize Congress to make laws regulating the process by which immigrants become citizens, it in no way authorizes Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court to regulate or restrict immigration in any manner.

Therefore if you believe in supporting the US Constitution you can only support open national borders. Anything else is unconstitutional and criminal as it violates the supreme law of the land and suggests that the US is not a nation of laws but a nation of criminals masquerading as lawmakers.

O.K. Though in no way does it apply to these times we live, would you...

1) Believe that any state government may summarily authorize its militia to shoot any foreign national crossing it's border that is not a citizen of the United States if that state was so compelled?

2) Allow any individual landowner, because individual rights exceed state and Federal rights (no?), to shoot any trespassers upon their property.

[phill4paul]

You want to subject each American city to occupation by the US military. Thank you for being honest about your desire to treat every city in America like Kabul and wage war against the American people.

BY the way, a standing army like you want? Also unconstitutional. Congress can raise an army. Nothing authorizes indefinitely maintaining one.

That was sarcasm, dumbass. Anyone with any wits would have understood that from the second passage.

[Swordsmyth]

Pretty sure you were told that they do it at the same rate as US-born citizens (subjects). Hell, we can't even get people in RPF to agree that more government is bad.

Neither of those statements is true.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't recall that being the case.

I recall surveys and polling data that indicate that first generation migrants vote for more government at rates twice that of native citizens.

And their children and grandchildren are still above the average.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, we need the government to protect certain classes of citizens. White middle class.

We need government to protect all citizens.

By the way, it is poor minorities that are hurt the worst by illegal immigration.

[Swordsmyth]

You do realize that would require more government, right??

No it wouldn't.

[juleswin]

Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. A battalion strength military in every town.

You are some kinda special stupid, you are.

Drop the pipe old man. Militaralizing the border means putting military personnel aka troops on the border. Battalion strength what? I was trying help u guys form a reasonable argument but u are too head strong and too indoctrinated that u reflectively attack anyone who is not solidly in your camp.

Unlike many of the people on the opposite side of your camp. I actually believe that one can fight tyranny with more tyranny. And before u laugh it off, its similar to fight fire with more fire and when done effectively, it is more efficient than using water. In your case, using govt power against itself. I do not dismiss the possible positive potentials for such a tactic.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, I get it. But don't you see that EVERYONE wants to shrink parts of the government and grow other parts. We are supposed to be the ones that want to shrink ALL parts.

Proponents of the welfare state want us to reduce our military involvement and give the money to the poor.
Proponents of the warfare state want us to end the social programs and use the money for "defense".

The problem with that mentality is that the government keeps growing! The cuts never happen - we just build the extra parts!

Meanwhile, if we end the social programs and the drug war, the immigration problem solves itself. You don't solve a government created problem with more government.

We can reduce all parts of government to a certain degree but we can't shrink some parts until the crisis has been solved and we can only shrink some parts so far.
You would still have an illegal immigration problem without welfare and the war on drugs because America is freer and more prosperous than the rest of the world and would be even more so if you ended welfare and the war on drugs.

[phill4paul]

This is about as likely as ending welfare. Warfare/welfare is what keeps daddy gubment in business.

There's nothing likely out there, brother. In a madhouse I'm tired of advocating rationality. Because it just cannot be found. If there is a scrum in the yard then I guess I'm gonna come down on the conservative side. I just don't believe unfettered access to our borders is the way to go. For many reasons. Not the least are those that are being trafficked across for indentured sexual servitude. But, nobody cares about them. Right? Is that young girl or boy coming across the border an actual daughter or son? Or are they destined to a life of prostitution and drug addiction? Until used up, wore out and thrown away?
How about a dozen or so Jihadi's bent on retribution for our foreign policy? All well and good until it's your old lady or daughter that get's caught in the mix?
No, I'm gonna take my position on this one. May not be right, may not be wrong, but I've thought it through well enough. YMMV.

[Swordsmyth]

If by voting for "more government" you mean "vote no differently than native-born Americans do when they vote Democrat or Republican."
LOL

[Swordsmyth]

"WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION SO WE CAN STOP PEOPLE VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION!"

Great logic there, Sulla.

It doesn't violate the Constitution.

[phill4paul]

Drop the pipe old man. Militaralizing the border means putting military personnel aka troops on the border. Battalion strength what? I was trying help u guys form a reasonable argument but u are too head strong and too indoctrinated that u reflectively attack anyone who is not solidly in your camp.

Unlike many of the people on the opposite side of your camp. I actually believe that one can fight tyranny with more tyranny. And before u laugh it off, its similar to fight fire with more fire and when done effectively, it is more efficient than using water. In your case, using govt power against itself. I do not dismiss the possible positive potentials for such a tactic.

I don't need your help. I don't find it a positive. Thanks anyway.

[Swordsmyth]

Natives and immigrants share very similar ideas about government.



They also cost less and consume less.



In fact taxing immigrants is probably doing more to fund the welfare state than drain it.



But I doubt facts will deter a Progressive police statist such as yourself.

Liberal lies, truthful studies have disproved everyone of them.

[Swordsmyth]

You can't trespass on unowned land. And you can't regulate land you don't own.
But we do own it and they aren't part of us, not only is it trespassing but it is also invasion.


The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution lays severe limits to the powers of the government when it says that any power not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or people. Here is the text of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “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.”

This means the federal government has no authority in any area it isn't given authority in the Constitution. Anytime the federal government attempts to do so it is exceeding its legal limitations and legal powers and is committing an illegal act by exceeding the restrictions laid upon it in the supreme law of the land. It is acting in ways not simply unauthorized by the Constitution but in ways the federal government is actively forbidden to act in. One of these ways is immigration.

The US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration in any manner. Therefore any attempt by the federal government to do so is illegal. And anyone encouraging the government to do so is promoting it to act in an illegal manner.

Some people argue that Article 1, Section 8 authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration, but this is not so. First of all, the text of Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The question then becomes, what is naturalization?

Said simply, the definition of naturalization is: “to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.”

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/naturalization

So the Constitution then gives Congress the power to write laws that establish the rules by which aliens -people from other countries- can become citizens of the USA after they have arrived in the USA. It does not give them the power to regulate how, when, or where those immigrants arrive in the USA, only how they become citizens once present in the USA.

This is further confirmed by Jefferson and Madison in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 wherein they state:



Jefferson and Madison held that the Constitution had no authority over immigrants and that laws made by the federal government aimed at them are totally illegal and of no force. Each state make sits own immigration policy.

To sum up: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration, in fact it actively forbids to the federal government the power to regulate immigration by forbidding it any power not given it in the Constitution. And while the Constitution does authorize Congress to make laws regulating the process by which immigrants become citizens, it in no way authorizes Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court to regulate or restrict immigration in any manner.

Therefore if you believe in supporting the US Constitution you can only support open national borders. Anything else is unconstitutional and criminal as it violates the supreme law of the land and suggests that the US is not a nation of laws but a nation of criminals masquerading as lawmakers.


Oh, and Jefferson and Madison went further, by the way. They said the President removing aliens was in fact illegal:



All of which means that attempts to deport people by the federal government are illegal violations of the Constitution. Notice also that they apply the protections of the Constitution to aliens.
The Constitution does give the federal government power over immigration:
Article 1 Section 9 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513274-Article-1-Section-9)

[Swordsmyth]

You want to subject each American city to occupation by the US military. Thank you for being honest about your desire to treat every city in America like Kabul and wage war against the American people.

BY the way, a standing army like you want? Also unconstitutional. Congress can raise an army. Nothing authorizes indefinitely maintaining one.
You are extra special stupid, not only was he not serious but Congress is authorized to maintain an army for as long as it wants as long as the army is reauthorized every 2 years.

[Swordsmyth]

This is about as likely as ending welfare. Warfare/welfare is what keeps daddy gubment in business.
If none of our goals are likely to be achieved then we still need to control immigration to keep things from getting worse.

[Swordsmyth]

O.K. Though in no way does it apply to these times we live, would you...

1) Believe that any state government may summarily authorize its militia to shoot any foreign national crossing it's border that is not a citizen of the United States if that state was so compelled?

2) Allow any individual landowner, because individual rights exceed state and Federal rights (no?), to shoot any trespassers upon their property.
You would also need to allow individual states to control their own immigration, not only the immigration of foreigners but also the immigration of citizens from other states.

[Anti Globalist]

Community organizer? That sounds familiar.

[bunklocoempire]

There's nothing likely out there, brother. In a madhouse I'm tired of advocating rationality. Because it just cannot be found. If there is a scrum in the yard then I guess I'm gonna come down on the conservative side. I just don't believe unfettered access to our borders is the way to go. For many reasons. Not the least are those that are being trafficked across for indentured sexual servitude. But, nobody cares about them. Right? Is that young girl or boy coming across the border an actual daughter or son? Or are they destined to a life of prostitution and drug addiction? Until used up, wore out and thrown away?
How about a dozen or so Jihadi's bent on retribution for our foreign policy? All well and good until it's your old lady or daughter that get's caught in the mix?
No, I'm gonna take my position on this one. May not be right, may not be wrong, but I've thought it through well enough. YMMV.

A very honest and personal explanation. I don't like it or agree (vague "conservative side"), but I sure do appreciate the better understanding of where you are coming from.
Thank you for laying it out there.

+ rep

[phill4paul]

You are extra special stupid, not only was he not serious but Congress is authorized to maintain an army for as long as it wants as long as the army is reauthorized every 2 years.

No, PierzStyx, has the gist of it. Only the Navy was authorized as a full time funded entity. I'm not sure we have any wars that the Congress has approved at this time. But, we could still pull them home. Decommission and option the best to the National Guard and still defend the borders.

[Swordsmyth]

No, PierzStyx, has the gist of it. Only the Navy was authorized as a full time funded entity. I'm not sure we have any wars that the Congress has approved at this time. But, we could still pull them home. Decommission and option the best to the National Guard and still defend the borders.


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
The only limitation is on the appropriation term, nothing keeps them from renewing it every two years.
It is also necessary to keep some regulars as a backbone elite and to train the militia, some founding fathers agreed with me about that and that is why we got the two year compromise, in theory Congress could fail to renew the appropriation if the army became too powerful and began to threaten liberty but until then they could be kept for the purposes I stated.

[phill4paul]

A very honest and personal explanation. I don't like it or agree (vague "conservative side"), but I sure do appreciate the better understanding of where you are coming from.
Thank you for laying it out there.

+ rep


A very honest and personal explanation. I don't like it or agree (vague "conservative side"), but I sure do appreciate the better understanding of where you are coming from.
Thank you for laying it out there.

+ rep

It's a shit show for real. But, also please pay attention to the latter part of my post. To me it's not specifically about the welfare. I suppose it has some to do with it. It's not specifically about blanket naturalization of trespassers and the voting propensity. Though that is a major point. But, there is some nasty shit that goes on because of this endeavor. There is, absolutely, crime against individuals, children and pre-teens, coming into this country through an open border policy.
Now, I'm with you, and some others, when I say "transporting drug," so what? They only harm the individuals that choose to do them.
But, human trafficking is a very real thing. Should libertarians just say "oh, well, the greater good of freedom of movement outweighs that?" Personally, my view as a libertarian is that if I ran into individuals that did this I should just evacuate their brain pan. But, that would be against the law.
As a libertarian I believe property owners on the border should be allowed to shoot trespassers.
But, neither of those two options are allowed. So here we are.

[jmdrake]

And what you're missing is that most the voter base that believes in open borders wants welfare.
So here we are.
At least my way of thinking brings the troops home and actually results in less government.

I'm not missing that. I am saying that what you are going to get is an increase in military spending and troops on the border and a bigger police state.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not missing that. I am saying that what you are going to get is an increase in military spending and troops on the border and a bigger police state.
Not necessarily but even if you are right it is still better than turning into a communist hellhole and a province of the global government.

[phill4paul]

The only limitation is on the appropriation term, nothing keeps them from renewing it every two years.
It is also necessary to keep some regulars as a backbone elite and to train the militia, some founding fathers agreed with me about that and that is why we got the two year compromise, in theory Congress could fail to renew the appropriation if the army became too powerful and began to threaten liberty but until then they could be kept for the purposes I stated.

Fair enough. But, you and I both know that wasn't original intent. Each state had it's own militia and unless attacked would suffice. That aside, I wonder why a state, perhaps Texas or New Hampshire, hasn't created a state militia. Actually named. And demanded that the Fed gov arm and train them. I'm not talking National Guard, which it was wrapped into, but actually just declare a state militia, separate from the guard, and sue for support. That'd be a hoot.

[phill4paul]

I'm not missing that. I am saying that what you are going to get is an increase in military spending and troops on the border and a bigger police state.

No. Bringing troops home, as I've already explained, would result in a decrease of spending.

[phill4paul]

I'm not missing that. I am saying that what you are going to get is an increase in military spending and troops on the border and a bigger police state.

Are you fine with open borders? Child sex trafficking? No vetting?

[Swordsmyth]

Fair enough. But, you and I both know that wasn't original intent. Each state had it's own militia and unless attacked would suffice. That aside, I wonder why a state, perhaps Texas or New Hampshire, hasn't created a state militia. Actually named. And demanded that the Fed gov arm and train them. I'm not talking National Guard, which it was wrapped into, but actually just declare a state militia, separate from the guard, and sue for support. That'd be a hoot.
I agree that the states should be keeping a few regulars and most of the part-time militia, if they did the feds wouldn't need to keep many regulars at all, the fact that none have tried since Lincoln federalized state forces during the civil war just shows that federalism was successfully murdered as an idea and has yet to be resurrected.
We went from "the United States are" to "the United States is" and no significant portion of the population has ever looked back.

As I said some of the founders wanted a standing army and the two year limit was a compromise, those in favor of a standing army won after the adoption of the Constitution and the federal army appropriation was never allowed to lapse even once.

[jmdrake]

Are you fine with open borders? Child sex trafficking? No vetting?

:rolleyes: So I need to support a police state for the children. Got it. The child sex trafficking is actually helped by closed borders. Coyotes gotta get paid. Just like the phony war on drugs the police state only makes the problem worse. But you sound like every neocon government shill ever. "What? You don't like the body scanners at the airport and the surveillance state? Are you for terrorism?" Same song slightly different lyrics.

[jmdrake]

No. Bringing troops home, as I've already explained, would result in a decrease of spending.

Except the troops won't be brought home. More will be hired. That's what you are missing.

[jmdrake]

Not necessarily but even if you are right it is still better than turning into a communist hellhole and a province of the global government.

False choice fallacy.

[Swordsmyth]

False choice fallacy.

No it isn't, the invaders vote for communism and globalism.

[jmdrake]

Swordsmyth phil4paul According to Ron Paul you two have given in to neocon fearmonger. According to Dr. Paul.

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.

Now, for the record, I'm ambivalent about immigration. A politicians stance on the issue wouldn't sway my vote one way or the other. But the "If we don't build a giant wall and have a bunch of troops patrolling the constitution free zone we will become a communist hellhole that rife with child sex trafficking" fearmongering is just the sort of nonsense that leads to BIGGER government. Yes Ron Paul advocated bringing troops home and putting them on the border. But that's no different from Ron Paul saying "If we closed all of our military bases we could give everyone free healthcare." That doesn't make him an advocate of free healthcare either. He used illustrations to get people to see the benefit of...well...bringing the troops home. The democrats give lip service to bringing the troops home but don't deliver. The republicans don't even give lip service to that. We should advocate ending the U.S. adventurism overseas because it's the right thing to do, not because we thing somehow we will outflank the big government rightists any more than we should think we will somehow outflank the big government leftists. There are just more of them than there are of us. And frankly I don't like either camp.

[jmdrake]

No it isn't, the invaders vote for communism and globalism.

Yeah. That's why Hillary won Florida. Oh that's right. She lost it.

[Swordsmyth]

@Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299) @Phil (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=32856)4paul According to Ron Paul you two have given in to neocon fearmonger. According to Dr. Paul.

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.

Pew is lying and Ron is wrong on this issue, he isn't as bad as some people about it though.



Now, for the record, I'm ambivalent about immigration. A politicians stance on the issue wouldn't sway my vote one way or the other. But the "If we don't build a giant wall and have a bunch of troops patrolling the constitution free zone we will become a communist hellhole that rife with child sex trafficking" fearmongering is just the sort of nonsense that leads to BIGGER government. Yes Ron Paul advocated bringing troops home and putting them on the border. But that's no different from Ron Paul saying "If we closed all of our military bases we could give everyone free healthcare." That doesn't make him an advocate of free healthcare either. He used illustrations to get people to see the benefit of...well...bringing the troops home. The democrats give lip service to bringing the troops home but don't deliver. The republicans don't even give lip service to that. We should advocate ending the U.S. adventurism overseas because it's the right thing to do, not because we thing somehow we will outflank the big government rightists any more than we should think we will somehow outflank the big government leftists. There are just more of them than there are of us. And frankly I don't like either camp.
Illegals come here in hordes and they vote for Demoncrats in sufficient numbers to affect the direction of our country, the Demoncrats know this and support open borders because of it.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah. That's why Hillary won Florida. Oh that's right. She lost it.
She lost it in spite of the illegals and excessive legal immigrants voting at above average rates for her.

[jmdrake]

Pew is lying and Ron is wrong on this issue, he isn't as bad as some people about it though.

:rolleyes: Yeah. Any facts that don't fit your stupid argument is just a lie. Okay.



Illegals come here in hordes and they vote for Demoncrats in sufficient numbers to affect the direction of our country, the Demoncrats know this and support open borders because of it.

Latino and Muslim voters were largely responsible for California rejecting gay marriage. Very "democratic" vote that was. :rolleyes:

[Swordsmyth]

:rolleyes: Yeah. Any facts that don't fit your stupid argument is just a lie. Okay.
I have posted facts before that contradict Pew, they are lying.



Latino and Muslim voters were largely responsible for California rejecting gay marriage. Very "democratic" vote that was. :rolleyes:
And then they voted for Demoncrats who took it to SCOTUS to have it overturned and have continued to vote for them ever since, they care more about communism than Q ueers.

[jmdrake]

She lost it in spite of the illegals and excessive legal immigrants voting at above average rates for her.

Latinos are not the solid democratic voters that they, and apparently you, think.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/democrats-hispanics-midterm-elections-fault-lines/index.html
(CNN)Democrats have hit an unexpected speed bump in their drive to regain control of Congress: unsettling signs that the party may not generate as much turnout or support among Latino voters this fall as it expected.
Despite a procession of provocations from President Donald Trump -- from ending deportation protections for so-called "Dreamers," young immigrants brought to the country illegally by their parents, to his now-terminated policy that resulted in children being separated from their undocumented parents at the border -- a growing number of Democratic strategists are privately concerned that their candidates are not consolidating Latino support as much as they anticipated in several key races.
While cautioning that there is still time to reverse the trend, they point to signs of wavering Hispanic support and engagement in House districts in Texas, Nevada, Florida and California, and in Senate races in Texas, Nevada, Florida and Arizona.
"I still think it's a little too soon to push the panic button, but having said that, we are not seeing the types of numbers with Hispanic voters that we should be seeing with the most hostile person to ever hold public office against Hispanics as the President," said Fernand Amandi, principal at Bendixen & Amandi International, a Democratic polling firm that specializes in studying Latino voters. "And that in and of itself is a concern. I'm flabbergasted."

Private Democratic polling has found surprisingly lackluster results among Hispanics in such House races as the San Antonio-area House seat, where Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones is facing Republican Rep. Will Hurd; the exurban Los Angeles seat that Republican Rep. Steve Knight is defending against Democrat Katie Hill; and the battle in Orange County, California, for the open seat being vacated by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa.
Not all Democratic strategists see cause for alarm. Latino Decisions, another Democratic polling firm that specializes in Latino voters, and Stanley B. Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster, have each recently released separate surveys for Democratic organizations that find the party maintaining a healthy lead over Republicans when Hispanics are asked which party they intend to support in House elections.
Yet virtually everyone on both sides of this Democratic debate agrees on one point: Despite all his confrontational rhetoric and policies, Trump alone appears unlikely to reverse the usual falloff in Hispanic turnout during midterm elections, and he may not even widen the typical Democratic advantage among them in their vote preferences.
Neither public polls nor private research suggests an organic surge to the polls among Hispanic voters outraged by Trump is developing the way it appears to be coalescing among college-educated white women and African-American women. And that means Democrats face their typical challenge of energizing a community whose voter participation has remained stubbornly low.
"I think that the turnout is not guaranteed and all of the candidates and the interest groups have a lot of work to do," said Matt Barreto, co-founder and managing partner of Latino Decisions. "They don't want the anger to sit there and fester and turn into so much frustration that people don't feel that there is anything they can do."
From Florida to California
The alarms among Democrats over Hispanic intentions have been triggered partly by a series of recent public polls showing their candidates underperforming with those voters in several key races.
The findings start in Florida, where a recent Mason-Dixon survey showed Hispanics providing Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson only a narrow 44 percent to 39 percent lead over Republican Rick Scott. Republicans typically run better among Hispanics in Florida than elsewhere, because the state's large Cuban population has historically tilted right.
But Democrats have been improving because of their strength among Florida's growing Puerto Rican community, which has swelled again in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. Exit polls found that Hillary Clinton beat Trump among the state's Hispanic voters by 27 percentage points in 2016. Yet Scott's aggressive outreach to the community has raised fears among Democrats that Nelson won't nearly match that margin with Latinos.
Several Texas polls have also shown surprisingly modest advantages for Democrat Beto O'Rourke over Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. The most recent Quinnipiac Poll gave O'Rourke just a 12-percentage-point lead over Cruz among Latinos. The nonpartisan Texas Lyceum Poll gave O'Rourke a comparable 15-point lead among all registered Latinos and a wider, but still subpar, 19-point lead among the Latinos the survey deemed likely to vote.
Joshua Blank, manager of polling and research at the University of Texas at Austin's Texas Politics Project, says that while most Texas Latinos support Democrats, there's no evidence yet that Trump's agenda is prompting much defection among the significant minority of them who consistently back Republicans.
"The reality is there are about one-third of Texas Hispanics who hold relatively restrictionist attitudes on immigration, support Republican positions, support Republican candidates ... and they were doing that while (Republican) politicians in this state were spending $800 million on border security and trying to pass sanctuary city laws with 'show me your papers' provisions," Blank said. "It's not that Trump comes along and Texas Hispanics are saying: 'What's going on here?' It's what has been going on here, and they have already arrived at those opinions."
In a third key Senate race, a public poll in Arizona, from OH Predictive Insights and the local ABC channel, found Democratic Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema underperforming among Latinos against her most likely Republican opponent, Rep. Martha McSally. The survey actually found McSally leading with those voters, though few in either party consider that a possibility on Election Day, and OH Predictive Insights, which conducted the poll, cautions that the margin of error among Latino voters is high because the sample is small. Even so, some Democrats privately worry that Sinema has focused too much on convincing center-right white voters that she is concerned about border security and not enough on persuading Latinos she will defend their interests.
Also raising some eyebrows: The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll put Trump's approval among Latinos at 39 percent, well above his 28 percent share of the vote among them in 2016, according to exit polls.
Some Latino activists have long viewed public polls of their community -- including exit polls -- as unreliable and contended they tend to underrepresent respondents who speak mostly Spanish, a group that leans more toward Democrats. And other surveys show less reason for Democratic concern.
The most recent national Quinnipiac University poll, for instance, put Trump's Latino approval at 27 percent -- almost exactly equal to his vote among them -- and in Monday's weekly Gallup average, just 23 percent of Latinos approved. A recent Latino Decisions poll in 61 competitive House districts, conducted for a consortium of civil rights advocacy groups, found Democrats holding a roughly 40-percentage-point advantage among Latino voters.
Trump is 'in the strongman tradition'
Amandi says that despite these mixed signals in polling, he sees evidence that Trump and the GOP have maintained a beachhead of support among Latinos.
"My instant analysis is it's because of the economy," he says. "These are people who are not necessarily paying attention to every inning of political baseball. They are working. They are maybe getting a little bit more money."
Moreover, Amandi says, even Trump's belligerent style has found an audience among some Latinos, especially older men: "He's in the strongman tradition of the Latin American caudillo."
Yet Barreto's poll for the coalition of civil rights groups still found that about three-fourths of Latinos opposed both the border wall and Trump's now-abandoned "zero tolerance" policy and nearly 90 percent supported legal status for the "Dreamers." Barreto says the only reason Republican performance among Latinos might look relatively stronger in current surveys -- or on Election Day itself -- is if turnout among them remains low. The reason is that Latinos who lean Republican also tend to be older -- and thus more reliable voters in low-turnout elections.
"I have not seen any data that I would consider an accurate reflection of Latinos that Republicans are increasing (their share), or they will be over 25 percent of those voters," Barreto says. "The only reason it would be different is not that they are winning over more people; it would be if some Latinos who are Democratically leaning stay home."
Recent history offers evidence for that argument. In the House races during the low-turnout midterm elections of 2010 and 2014, Republicans won a higher share of Latino voters -- 38 percent and 36 percent, respectively -- than they did in House contests during the higher-turnout presidential years of 2016, 2012 and 2008 (from 30 to 32 percent), according to exit polls.
What about turnout?
That contrast highlights what remains the biggest concern about Latinos among Democratic strategists: Will they vote in sufficient numbers? In the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, Latino turnout plummeted from its levels in the presidential elections just two years earlier: While about half of eligible Latinos voted in each of those presidential elections, a low number to begin with, the figure fell to under one-third in 2010 and a little over one-fourth in 2014.
Turnout among Latinos remained essentially stagnant at just under 50 percent in 2016 despite all of Trump's harsh rhetoric at the community. Barreto says his survey found a high level of anger at Trump among Latinos, especially younger generations, and he argues that anger has been a good predictor of heightened turnout. On the other hand, public surveys measuring how closely voters are following the election and whether they are certain to vote have mostly found Latinos still lagging other groups.
Poring over such ambiguous evidence, Henry Fernandez, a principal at the African American Research Collaborative, which studies issues relating to black voters, says the direction of Latino turnout this fall is not yet clear.
He says the increased Republican reliance on racially confrontational messages in the Trump era -- such as comments about the Central American gang MS-13 during the Virginia governor's race last fall -- has clearly prompted a backlash among African-American voters, who "respond most strongly" to any political argument that targets racial divisions, even if they are not the direct subject of the attacks.
Even though the MS-13 attacks failed to lift Republican Ed Gillespie during the Virginia race, the barrage of ads in Tuesday's Ohio special House election accusing Democrat Danny O'Connor of supporting "amnesty for illegals" and "open borders" makes clear that Republicans are committed to stressing racially infused immigration themes through the fall.

Whether that provokes a surge in Latino participation, Fernandez said, may turn on how the nonpartisan groups and Democratic organizations working on turnout respond.
"If the focus of the parties and those organizations is on the predictable electorate, that would be a mistake," he said during a recent conference call with reporters to release the Latino Decisions survey. "There are many more people who are at play who could be potential voters. It's not just a question of what will those folks do on their own, but where will investments be made to encourage people to get out to vote?"

[jmdrake]

I have posted facts before that contradict Pew, they are lying.



And then they voted for Demoncrats who took it to SCOTUS to have it overturned and have continued to vote for them ever since, they care more about communism than Q ueers.

It was not democrats from California that took the case to the SCOTUS.

:rolleyes: Between January 2012 and February 2014, plaintiffs in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee filed federal district court cases that culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges.

[Swordsmyth]

Latinos are not the solid democratic voters that they, and apparently you, think.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/democrats-hispanics-midterm-elections-fault-lines/index.html
(CNN)Democrats have hit an unexpected speed bump in their drive to regain control of Congress: unsettling signs that the party may not generate as much turnout or support among Latino voters this fall as it expected.
Despite a procession of provocations from President Donald Trump -- from ending deportation protections for so-called "Dreamers," young immigrants brought to the country illegally by their parents, to his now-terminated policy that resulted in children being separated from their undocumented parents at the border -- a growing number of Democratic strategists are privately concerned that their candidates are not consolidating Latino support as much as they anticipated in several key races.
While cautioning that there is still time to reverse the trend, they point to signs of wavering Hispanic support and engagement in House districts in Texas, Nevada, Florida and California, and in Senate races in Texas, Nevada, Florida and Arizona.
"I still think it's a little too soon to push the panic button, but having said that, we are not seeing the types of numbers with Hispanic voters that we should be seeing with the most hostile person to ever hold public office against Hispanics as the President," said Fernand Amandi, principal at Bendixen & Amandi International, a Democratic polling firm that specializes in studying Latino voters. "And that in and of itself is a concern. I'm flabbergasted."

Private Democratic polling has found surprisingly lackluster results among Hispanics in such House races as the San Antonio-area House seat, where Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones is facing Republican Rep. Will Hurd; the exurban Los Angeles seat that Republican Rep. Steve Knight is defending against Democrat Katie Hill; and the battle in Orange County, California, for the open seat being vacated by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa.
Not all Democratic strategists see cause for alarm. Latino Decisions, another Democratic polling firm that specializes in Latino voters, and Stanley B. Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster, have each recently released separate surveys for Democratic organizations that find the party maintaining a healthy lead over Republicans when Hispanics are asked which party they intend to support in House elections.
Yet virtually everyone on both sides of this Democratic debate agrees on one point: Despite all his confrontational rhetoric and policies, Trump alone appears unlikely to reverse the usual falloff in Hispanic turnout during midterm elections, and he may not even widen the typical Democratic advantage among them in their vote preferences.
Neither public polls nor private research suggests an organic surge to the polls among Hispanic voters outraged by Trump is developing the way it appears to be coalescing among college-educated white women and African-American women. And that means Democrats face their typical challenge of energizing a community whose voter participation has remained stubbornly low.
"I think that the turnout is not guaranteed and all of the candidates and the interest groups have a lot of work to do," said Matt Barreto, co-founder and managing partner of Latino Decisions. "They don't want the anger to sit there and fester and turn into so much frustration that people don't feel that there is anything they can do."
From Florida to California
The alarms among Democrats over Hispanic intentions have been triggered partly by a series of recent public polls showing their candidates underperforming with those voters in several key races.
The findings start in Florida, where a recent Mason-Dixon survey showed Hispanics providing Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson only a narrow 44 percent to 39 percent lead over Republican Rick Scott. Republicans typically run better among Hispanics in Florida than elsewhere, because the state's large Cuban population has historically tilted right.
But Democrats have been improving because of their strength among Florida's growing Puerto Rican community, which has swelled again in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. Exit polls found that Hillary Clinton beat Trump among the state's Hispanic voters by 27 percentage points in 2016. Yet Scott's aggressive outreach to the community has raised fears among Democrats that Nelson won't nearly match that margin with Latinos.
Several Texas polls have also shown surprisingly modest advantages for Democrat Beto O'Rourke over Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. The most recent Quinnipiac Poll gave O'Rourke just a 12-percentage-point lead over Cruz among Latinos. The nonpartisan Texas Lyceum Poll gave O'Rourke a comparable 15-point lead among all registered Latinos and a wider, but still subpar, 19-point lead among the Latinos the survey deemed likely to vote.
Joshua Blank, manager of polling and research at the University of Texas at Austin's Texas Politics Project, says that while most Texas Latinos support Democrats, there's no evidence yet that Trump's agenda is prompting much defection among the significant minority of them who consistently back Republicans.
"The reality is there are about one-third of Texas Hispanics who hold relatively restrictionist attitudes on immigration, support Republican positions, support Republican candidates ... and they were doing that while (Republican) politicians in this state were spending $800 million on border security and trying to pass sanctuary city laws with 'show me your papers' provisions," Blank said. "It's not that Trump comes along and Texas Hispanics are saying: 'What's going on here?' It's what has been going on here, and they have already arrived at those opinions."
In a third key Senate race, a public poll in Arizona, from OH Predictive Insights and the local ABC channel, found Democratic Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema underperforming among Latinos against her most likely Republican opponent, Rep. Martha McSally. The survey actually found McSally leading with those voters, though few in either party consider that a possibility on Election Day, and OH Predictive Insights, which conducted the poll, cautions that the margin of error among Latino voters is high because the sample is small. Even so, some Democrats privately worry that Sinema has focused too much on convincing center-right white voters that she is concerned about border security and not enough on persuading Latinos she will defend their interests.
Also raising some eyebrows: The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll put Trump's approval among Latinos at 39 percent, well above his 28 percent share of the vote among them in 2016, according to exit polls.
Some Latino activists have long viewed public polls of their community -- including exit polls -- as unreliable and contended they tend to underrepresent respondents who speak mostly Spanish, a group that leans more toward Democrats. And other surveys show less reason for Democratic concern.
The most recent national Quinnipiac University poll, for instance, put Trump's Latino approval at 27 percent -- almost exactly equal to his vote among them -- and in Monday's weekly Gallup average, just 23 percent of Latinos approved. A recent Latino Decisions poll in 61 competitive House districts, conducted for a consortium of civil rights advocacy groups, found Democrats holding a roughly 40-percentage-point advantage among Latino voters.
Trump is 'in the strongman tradition'
Amandi says that despite these mixed signals in polling, he sees evidence that Trump and the GOP have maintained a beachhead of support among Latinos.
"My instant analysis is it's because of the economy," he says. "These are people who are not necessarily paying attention to every inning of political baseball. They are working. They are maybe getting a little bit more money."
Moreover, Amandi says, even Trump's belligerent style has found an audience among some Latinos, especially older men: "He's in the strongman tradition of the Latin American caudillo."
Yet Barreto's poll for the coalition of civil rights groups still found that about three-fourths of Latinos opposed both the border wall and Trump's now-abandoned "zero tolerance" policy and nearly 90 percent supported legal status for the "Dreamers." Barreto says the only reason Republican performance among Latinos might look relatively stronger in current surveys -- or on Election Day itself -- is if turnout among them remains low. The reason is that Latinos who lean Republican also tend to be older -- and thus more reliable voters in low-turnout elections.
"I have not seen any data that I would consider an accurate reflection of Latinos that Republicans are increasing (their share), or they will be over 25 percent of those voters," Barreto says. "The only reason it would be different is not that they are winning over more people; it would be if some Latinos who are Democratically leaning stay home."
Recent history offers evidence for that argument. In the House races during the low-turnout midterm elections of 2010 and 2014, Republicans won a higher share of Latino voters -- 38 percent and 36 percent, respectively -- than they did in House contests during the higher-turnout presidential years of 2016, 2012 and 2008 (from 30 to 32 percent), according to exit polls.
What about turnout?
That contrast highlights what remains the biggest concern about Latinos among Democratic strategists: Will they vote in sufficient numbers? In the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, Latino turnout plummeted from its levels in the presidential elections just two years earlier: While about half of eligible Latinos voted in each of those presidential elections, a low number to begin with, the figure fell to under one-third in 2010 and a little over one-fourth in 2014.
Turnout among Latinos remained essentially stagnant at just under 50 percent in 2016 despite all of Trump's harsh rhetoric at the community. Barreto says his survey found a high level of anger at Trump among Latinos, especially younger generations, and he argues that anger has been a good predictor of heightened turnout. On the other hand, public surveys measuring how closely voters are following the election and whether they are certain to vote have mostly found Latinos still lagging other groups.
Poring over such ambiguous evidence, Henry Fernandez, a principal at the African American Research Collaborative, which studies issues relating to black voters, says the direction of Latino turnout this fall is not yet clear.
He says the increased Republican reliance on racially confrontational messages in the Trump era -- such as comments about the Central American gang MS-13 during the Virginia governor's race last fall -- has clearly prompted a backlash among African-American voters, who "respond most strongly" to any political argument that targets racial divisions, even if they are not the direct subject of the attacks.
Even though the MS-13 attacks failed to lift Republican Ed Gillespie during the Virginia race, the barrage of ads in Tuesday's Ohio special House election accusing Democrat Danny O'Connor of supporting "amnesty for illegals" and "open borders" makes clear that Republicans are committed to stressing racially infused immigration themes through the fall.

Whether that provokes a surge in Latino participation, Fernandez said, may turn on how the nonpartisan groups and Democratic organizations working on turnout respond.
"If the focus of the parties and those organizations is on the predictable electorate, that would be a mistake," he said during a recent conference call with reporters to release the Latino Decisions survey. "There are many more people who are at play who could be potential voters. It's not just a question of what will those folks do on their own, but where will investments be made to encourage people to get out to vote?"
They still vote Demoncrat at higher than average rates and the illegals are worse than the legals.

[jmdrake]

They still vote Demoncrat at higher than average rates and the illegals are worse than the legals.

Yeah....that comes with the fact that they are illegal. Causing your own problem.

[Swordsmyth]

It was not democrats from California that took the case to the SCOTUS.

:rolleyes: Between January 2012 and February 2014, plaintiffs in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee filed federal district court cases that culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges.
:rolleyes:
They just refused to defend it and openly sided with the plaintiffs.

[jmdrake]

:rolleyes:
They just refused to defend it and openly sided with the plaintiffs.

LOL. You just can't admit you were wrong. So I'll say if for you. You were wrong. You claimed the dems from Cali brought the case. They didn't. And Cali is solidly democrat with or without the Latino vote.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah....that comes with the fact that they are illegal. Causing your own problem.
No, limiting the problem, pitiful as or immigration control is it does limit the deluge, even if a few more voted for RINOs if we just let them all in they still vote Demoncrat at higher than average rates and the massive increase in their numbers would overwhelm the slight improvement in the rate.

Letting Mexico conquer the US through immigration and voting is a recipe for turning the US into Mexico, I'll pass on that.

[phill4paul]

:rolleyes: So I need to support a police state for the children. Got it. The child sex trafficking is actually helped by closed borders. Coyotes gotta get paid. Just like the phony war on drugs the police state only makes the problem worse. But you sound like every neocon government shill ever. "What? You don't like the body scanners at the airport and the surveillance state? Are you for terrorism?" Same song slightly different lyrics.

Will you allow citizens to end it? I'm for that. Property owners or their hires? States executing none citizens for trespass? Child sex trafficking is NOT helped by closed borders. In any sense. Prove it.
I can only assume that you are fine with it. Free market and all that.
There is no free market in human trade.
But, I dunno, don't wanna assume or strawman.
You tell me. All roads from the north and south, all ports from the east and west, open, no control. Cool with you?

[jmdrake]

No, limiting the problem, pitiful as or immigration control is it does limit the deluge, even if a few more voted for RINOs if we just let them all in they still vote Demoncrat at higher than average rates and the massive increase in their numbers would overwhelm the slight improvement in the rate.

Letting Mexico conquer the US through immigration and voting is a recipe for turning the US into Mexico, I'll pass on that.

The illegals, when they get a chance, vote their own interests. And their own interests is in not being illegal.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL. You just can't admit you were wrong. So I'll say if for you. You were wrong.
You claimed the dems from Cali brought the case. They didn't.

You are wrong as well, after thinking about it I remember that the California case never made it past the state supreme court after the Dems sued, the national case was decided before it could be appealed to SCOTUS.


And Cali is solidly democrat with or without the Latino vote.
It wasn't until the illegals tipped the balance and drove swarms of conservatives out of the state.

[phill4paul]

Except the troops won't be brought home. More will be hired. That's what you are missing.

I'm calling for a logical choice. Just as Ron Paul did. It's at least worth a discussion on the national stage. No? Because he brought it up.

[Swordsmyth]

The illegals, when they get a chance, vote their own interests. And their own interests is in not being illegal.
And in turning America into a socialist hellhole like Mexico.

[jmdrake]

Will you allow citizens to end it? I'm for that. Property owners or their hires? States executing none citizens for trespass? Child sex trafficking is NOT helped by closed borders. In any sense. Prove it.
I can only assume that you are fine with it. Free market and all that.


I can only assume that means you are a total moron and dumb as hell. Do you think Ron Paul supports people overdosing on drugs? He supports ending the drug war.

Black markets are were the scum of the earth operate. And there is a black market for smuggling people that is fueled in part by the fact that it's illegal to come over even if you aren't trying to sell drugs or children. There was a time when you could get in your car and just drive over to Mexico, spend a day, and drive back without having to go through a constitution free zone. Guess what? There was not as much child sex trafficking back then. You sound like Elizabeth Warren grilling Ben Carson on why he didn't implement the Obama administration recommendations for fighting housing discrimination. After all the recommendations were SUPPOSED to fight discrimination right? Similarly your "If you don't support my idea to fight child sex trafficking you must be for child sex trafficking" nonsense is stupid beyond belief. Yes. Let's also create a federal internet filter like the Great Firewall of China because children were supposedly being sex trafficked on sites like Backpage.com and if you are opposed to that idea you must support child sex trafficking! Really, that's your argument in a nutshell.

[timosman]

The illegals, when they get a chance, vote their own interests. And their own interests is in not being illegal.

Legally, how do you move from being illegal to being legal? :confused:

[jmdrake]

And in turning America into a socialist hellhole like Mexico.

Right. Cause that's why they are leaving Mexico. :rolleyes: You know your boy Trump is welcoming refugees from socialist hellhole Venezuela right? Maybe you need to give him a call and set him straight.

[jmdrake]

Legally, how do you move from being illegal to being legal? :confused:

Trump's touchback amnesty plan?

[timosman]

Trump's touchback amnesty plan?

Point is there is no mechanism. You have to go back.

[Danke]

Weird, u are actually right. Militarizing the borders could result in less govt but less freedom if the govt pulls back all the troops overseas and invests a small portion of the funds into defending the border.

It would also be less govt if the govt withdrew from international engagement and put cameras on all the street corners and spied on all our phone calls and texts. Less govt doesnt always mean more freedom. Some men yern for freedom and other just want safety and prosperity. I can sympathize with both sides but I more of a freedom type of person.

What kind of person are u?

No with a southern wall, less patrols needed. And less crime that grows government, and less "programs" and less government schooling, that also grows government.

So net, a decrease.

[Swordsmyth]

Right. Cause that's why they are leaving Mexico. :rolleyes:
Just like Californians and Yankees do within the US, they don't believe that what they voted for caused the mess they fled, they blame it on other things and recreate it wherever they go.


You know your boy Trump is welcoming refugees from socialist hellhole Venezuela right? Maybe you need to give him a call and set him straight.
That isn't good but he is cutting down on the illegal flood across the southern border and and end TPS for other "refugees" and cutting the "refugee" limit and many other similar things.

[Swordsmyth]

There was a time when you could get in your car and just drive over to Mexico, spend a day, and drive back without having to go through a constitution free zone. Guess what? There was not as much child sex trafficking back then.
And we are just supposed to take your word for that?

[jmdrake]

And we are just supposed to take your word for that?

No. Use your own common sense. Are you old enough to remember the 1970s? Did you hear about a lot of child sex trafficking back then? If you aren't old enough to remember that, ask your parents.

[Swordsmyth]

No. Use your own common sense. Are you old enough to remember the 1970s? Did you hear about a lot of child sex trafficking back then? If you aren't old enough to remember that, ask your parents.

Not hearing about it doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

[jmdrake]

Point is there is no mechanism. You have to go back.

I'm not sure what your point is at all actually. At least not in relation to anything I said. Swordsmyth is the one talking about how illegals vote. And some who come over illegally do get asylum especially if the come from countries like Venezuela. Which is why this is all such hypocrisy. Most of the recent wave of immigrants aren't coming from Mexico. They are coming from right wing El Salvador. Surely that should be a paradise about now right? If Mexico or El Salvador really went the way of Venezuela then Republicans would welcome their people with open arms.

[phill4paul]

I can only assume that means you are a total moron and dumb as hell. Do you think Ron Paul supports people overdosing on drugs? He supports ending the drug war.

Black markets are were the scum of the earth operate. And there is a black market for smuggling people that is fueled in part by the fact that it's illegal to come over even if you aren't trying to sell drugs or children. There was a time when you could get in your car and just drive over to Mexico, spend a day, and drive back without having to go through a constitution free zone. Guess what? There was not as much child sex trafficking back then. You sound like Elizabeth Warren grilling Ben Carson on why he didn't implement the Obama administration recommendations for fighting housing discrimination. After all the recommendations were SUPPOSED to fight discrimination right? Similarly your "If you don't support my idea to fight child sex trafficking you must be for child sex trafficking" nonsense is stupid beyond belief. Yes. Let's also create a federal internet filter like the Great Firewall of China because children were supposedly being sex trafficked on sites like Backpage.com and if you are opposed to that idea you must support child sex trafficking! Really, that's your argument in a nutshell.

No. My argument in a nutshell is.... Can I hunt down and kill these individuals without government interference? Can ranchers on the border shoot individuals for crossing their property uninvited? Can states hunt down and kill these individuals as they cross their borders if the citizens of their states agree on it?
What say you? You seem to think that child sex trafficking is only popular because it's illegal. Well, duh! You don't think it should be?

[jmdrake]

I'm calling for a logical choice. Just as Ron Paul did. It's at least worth a discussion on the national stage. No? Because he brought it up.

If someone puts forward a bill that says "For the next 8 years there can be no increases in military spending. All troops will be brought home. A small number will help allowed to join the U.S. border patrol after they de-commission, and we will save billions of dollars" then I wouldn't be against that. But that ain't gonna happen.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not sure what your point is at all actually. At least not in relation to anything I said. @Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299) is the one talking about how illegals vote. And some who come over illegally do get asylum especially if the come from countries like Venezuela. Which is why this is all such hypocrisy. Most of the recent wave of immigrants aren't coming from Mexico. They are coming from right wing El Salvador. Surely that should be a paradise about now right? If Mexico or El Salvador really went the way of Venezuela then Republicans would welcome their people with open arms.
"right wing" El Salvador?

:tears:

We won't welcome any of them with open arms, they are all far more communist than the US.

[phill4paul]

If someone puts forward a bill that says "For the next 8 years there can be no increases in military spending. All troops will be brought home. A small number will help allowed to join the U.S. border patrol after they de-commission, and we will save billions of dollars" then I wouldn't be against that. But that ain't gonna happen.

Neither is an end to welfare. But, you seem to advocate for open borders regardless.

[jmdrake]

No. My argument in a nutshell is.... Can I hunt down and kill these individuals without government interference? Can ranchers on the border shoot individuals for crossing their property uninvited? Can states hunt down and kill these individuals as they cross their borders if the citizens of their states agree on it?
What say you? You seem to think that child sex trafficking is only popular because it's illegal. Well, duh! You don't think it should be?

I'm saying that smuggling people who aren't child sex slaves makes the perfect cover for smuggling child sex slaves. As for private property owners enforcing their rights, minus the killing I'm not against that.

[jmdrake]

Neither is an end to welfare. But, you seem to advocate for open borders regardless.

You can't read. I said I'm ambivelent about immigration. I just don't buy into your mindless fearmongering.

[jmdrake]

"right wing" El Salvador?

:tears:

We won't welcome any of them with open arms, they are all far more communist than the US.

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Right-Wing-ARENA-on-the-Lead-in-El-Salvador-20180305-0012.html
El Salvador: Right-Wing ARENA Set to Keep Majority in Assembly

[jmdrake]

Not hearing about it doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

I didn't say it wasn't happening at all. But it wasn't as widespread. Common sense. You seem to be lacking it.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Right-Wing-ARENA-on-the-Lead-in-El-Salvador-20180305-0012.html
El Salvador: Right-Wing ARENA Set to Keep Majority in Assembly
"right wing" is relative and is used for many socialists all over the world.

[phill4paul]

I'm saying that smuggling people who aren't child sex slaves makes the perfect cover for smuggling child sex slaves. As for private property owners enforcing their rights, minus the killing I'm not against that.

So if there is no smuggling, because of border policy, there will not be child sex slaves. If there are open borders then the sex slave smugglers simply won't do it? What kinda fucked up logic is that. Have you thought this through or are you just shooting off the hip because you think open borders solves all ills?

[jmdrake]

So if there is no smuggling, because of border policy, there will not be child sex slaves.

Seriously are your logic circuits broken? I didn't say there would be no child sex slaves. There are child sex slaves that are U.S. born. The simple point that I am making, which you are being purposely too stupid to understand (I don't think you are actually that stupid) is that the current smuggling bonanza makes great cover for sex slave smuggling. If a coyote gets caught he has a great story. "I was just trying to help this kid find a better life."

[phill4paul]

You can't read. I said I'm ambivelent about immigration. I just don't buy into your mindless fearmongering.

Fear mongering. A 13 year old girl that was smuggled over the border is being drugged up and raped tonight. Her parents were told that she could be brought through for a price. They paid it. She is most likely being passed around within the community of other foreign trespassers that live here now and can afford her pimps rate. More than likely national born degenerates. How smug are you with that?

[jmdrake]

"right wing" is relative and is used for many socialists all over the world.

Well Donald Trump supported an assault weapons ban before he was against it and he supported government healthcare and yet he is considered right wing so I guess you are right. :rolleyes:

[phill4paul]

Seriously are your logic circuits broken? I didn't say there would be no child sex slaves. There are child sex slaves that are U.S. born. The simple point that I am making, which you are being purposely too stupid to understand (I don't think you are actually that stupid) is that the current smuggling bonanza makes great cover for sex slave smuggling. If a coyote gets caught he has a great story. "I was just trying to help this kid find a better life."

And that is why you end open borders. You vet those entering the country. How the fuck can you not see that?

[jmdrake]

Fear mongering. A 13 year old girl that was smuggled over the border is being drugged up and raped tonight. Her parents were told that she could be brought through for a price. They paid it. She is most likely being passed around within the community of other foreign trespassers that live here now and can afford her pimps rate. More than likely national born degenerates. How smug are you with that?

Do you enjoy lying? Because that is not at all what I said or implied jackass. And you are the one supporting her rape. Your policies make smuggling of humans profitable because it increases the demand. It give cover for the rapists. You support child rape. Are you smug with that?

[Swordsmyth]

Well Donald Trump supported an assault weapons ban before he was against it and he supported government healthcare and yet he is considered right wing so I guess you are right. :rolleyes:
That's a nice irrelevancy you have there but I'm not interested, El Salvador is much farther to the left than the US and we don't want many of them here any more than we want many Mexicans.

[jmdrake]

And that is why you end open borders. How the $#@! can you not see that?

Can you count to 4? Do you know your days of the week? Have you learned your alphabet? Because if you are that intelligent then you should know that the black market that has been created by the policies you support is what has created the market for human smuggling. Sex trafficking has simply been mixed in with that market.

[phill4paul]

Do you enjoy lying? Because that is not at all what I said or implied jackass. And you are the one supporting her rape. Your policies make smuggling of humans profitable because it increases the demand. It give cover for the rapists. You support child rape. Are you smug with that?

I haven't lied. I gave you a chance to defend your position. I specifically mentioned that I wasn't straw manning you. You've failed to do so. I'll give you one more chance.

How would an open border policy prohibit or reduce child sex trafficking?

[jmdrake]

That's a nice irrelevancy you have there but I'm not interested, El Salvador is much farther to the left than the US and we don't want many of them here any more than we want many Mexicans.

But your boy Trump wants the Venezuelans because the are more leftists. And republicans before him welcomed Cubans. Basically the more leftist your country is, the more Republican politicians welcome you. Why is that?

[phill4paul]

Oh...my. My first neg rep from JMDrake. A fellow poster that I have long admired.

But, one that can't answer my simple question.

A neg rep, bro? Really?

[jmdrake]

I haven't lied. I gave you a chance to defend your position. I specifically mentioned that I wasn't straw manning you. You've failed to do so. I'll give you one more chance.

How would an open border policy prohibit or reduce child sex trafficking?

I already explained it. But this requires intelligence which you seem to lack. Your policy is what is driving the human smuggling coyote market. So Consuela form El Salvador wants to get to the U.S. The only way she can get in is via a coyote. She trusts the coyote who then kills her and takes her kids and sells them on the black market. I hope you're happy. If Consuela didn't need to use a coyote she wouldn't be dead and her kids wouldn't be sex slaves.

[jmdrake]

Oh...my. My first neg rep from JMDrake. A fellow poster that I have long admired.

But, one that can't answer my simple question.

A neg rep, bro? Really?

You said I supported child sex slavery and you think that's asking a question?

Learn English. This is not a question. It's a false statement from you.


So if there is no smuggling, because of border policy, there will not be child sex slaves.

[Anti Federalist]

You do realize that would require more government, right??

How would it require any more government than what we already suffer under?

[Swordsmyth]

But your boy Trump wants the Venezuelans because the are more leftists. And republicans before him welcomed Cubans. Basically the more leftist your country is, the more Republican politicians welcome you. Why is that?
Some people are fooled into "fighting communism" by accepting refugees from communist countries, less people are like that all the time, Trump may be letting in Venezuelan refugees but he is stopping or throwing out far more illegal and legal leftist immigrants so until someone better comes along he will have to do.

[jmdrake]

How would it require any more government than what we already suffer under?

You know right after 9/11 I heard a caller to the G. Gordon Liddy show ask if the government response to 9/11 would increase the size of government. He assured her it wouldn't. Who was right?

[Anti Federalist]

Swordsmyth phil4paul According to Ron Paul you two have given in to neocon fearmonger. According to Dr. Paul.

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.

Ron also says "freedom is popular".

That is demonstrably untrue.

So, sadly, he is wrong on this issue.

I'd still take a bullet for him though.

[Swordsmyth]

You know right after 9/11 I heard a caller to the G. Gordon Liddy show ask if the government response to 9/11 would increase the size of government. He assured her it wouldn't. Who was right?
Only in this case inaction is guaranteed to turn us into a communist hellhole, that wasn't the case with 9/11.

[Anti Federalist]

You know right after 9/11 I heard a caller to the G. Gordon Liddy show ask if the government response to 9/11 would increase the size of government. He assured her it wouldn't. Who was right?

Quite right, government always grows, like a cancer.

The more people the more government.

So why do we want to import millions of people?

[jmdrake]

Only in this case inaction is guaranteed to turn us into a communist hellhole, that wasn't the case with 9/11.

That's what the authoritarians always say. "This time it will be different." And "This time we are facing an existential threat." And "the constitution is not a suicide pact." Remember that? Fearmongers gotta fearmonger.

[phill4paul]

I already explained it. But this requires intelligence which you seem to lack. Your policy is what is driving the human smuggling coyote market. So Consuela form El Salvador wants to get to the U.S. The only way she can get in is via a coyote. She trusts the coyote who then kills her and takes her kids and sells them on the black market. I hope you're happy. If Consuela didn't need to use a coyote she wouldn't be dead and her kids wouldn't be sex slaves.

If there was no way that a coyote could smuggle Consuela across the border then this whole situation is mute. No? If it were even four times harder then it would be out of her price range. And she wouldn't have to auction off her kids because she would even undertake the trek.
Christ, you've lost it man. You've actually gone full progressive.
Well, that seems to be the way RPF has split. The progressive half that liked his measure and the conservative half that liked the same.
And now that is all gone. A shame really. But, in truth either side saw what they wanted and tuned out that which they didn't.
And so here we are.

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.ancientpages.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/sittungbull.jpg

Let's go back in history and ask this man what he thought of millions of migrants, hostile to his culture, customs and ethnicity, invading his land, displacing his people and reducing his once proud warriors to second class citizens and serfs of the government?

[jmdrake]

Quite right, government always grows, like a cancer.

The more people the more government.

So why do we want to import millions of people?

I'm not for importing anybody. I ain't saying send over C130s to ship people in. I just trust our current government less than you do apparently. But you never answered my first question in this thread. So your solution now is to "vote harder?" LOL. Yep. Hold your nose and vote republican because the libertarians aren't united on the border issue and they can't win anyway? Seriously. You never answered my question.

[Anti Federalist]

I already explained it. But this requires intelligence which you seem to lack. Your policy is what is driving the human smuggling coyote market. So Consuela form El Salvador wants to get to the U.S. The only way she can get in is via a coyote. She trusts the coyote who then kills her and takes her kids and sells them on the black market. I hope you're happy. If Consuela didn't need to use a coyote she wouldn't be dead and her kids wouldn't be sex slaves.

Consuela should follow the Dali Lama's advice and community organize in her country and turn her nation around.

We're broke, full, and up to our neck in police state shit...we have enough problems without adding Consuela to the mix.

[jmdrake]

If there was no way that a coyote could smuggle Consuela across the border then this whole situation is mute. No?

Except there's always a way. How long have we had a war on drugs? How has that gone again? How many times has the CIA, FBI, DEA and Pentagon been caught smuggling in drugs? Have you never heard of something called bribery?



If it were even four times harder then it would be out of her price range.


Not at all. Not if she has kids. The coyote, if he is an unscrupulous sex slaver, will be more than happy to "help" her and probably offer his help for free. Hell, he'll tell her to go back to her village and get some more kiddies.



And she wouldn't have to auction off her kids because she would even undertake the trek.


No dumbass. She wouldn't have to pay a cent. The coyote in the scenario I gave would just take the kids. They'd be more valuable than whatever she could pay.



Christ, you've lost it man. You've actually gone full progressive.


I see your neg rep was well deserved. You insist on lying. And I take Ron Paul's position and you call that "full progressive." And I bet you are going to lie again and say you were "asking a question" without a question mark.

[jmdrake]

Consuela should follow the Dali Lama's advice and community organize in her country and turn her nation around.

We're broke, full, and up to our neck in police state $#@!...we have enough problems without adding Consuela to the mix.

AF, are you going to answer my question?

[Swordsmyth]

That's what the authoritarians always say. "This time it will be different." And "This time we are facing an existential threat." And "the constitution is not a suicide pact." Remember that? Fearmongers gotta fearmonger.
Just because liars say that doesn't mean it is never true, the facts were clear on 9/11, there was no existential threat, they are clear now that there is.

[phill4paul]

Consuela should follow the Dali Lama's advice and community organize in her country and turn her nation around.

We're broke, full, and up to our neck in police state shit...we have enough problems without adding Consuela to the mix.

Amen. Or her children that become sex slaves.

[jmdrake]

The native man is still here. You don't have to go back in time to talk to him. And the French traders weren't a problem. It was the bloody Englishmen.


http://www.ancientpages.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/sittungbull.jpg

Let's go back in history and ask this man what he thought of millions of migrants, hostile to his culture, customs and ethnicity, invading his land, displacing his people and reducing his once proud warriors to second class citizens and serfs of the government?

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not for importing anybody. I ain't saying send over C130s to ship people in. I just trust our current government less than you do apparently. But you never answered my first question in this thread. So your solution now is to "vote harder?" LOL. Yep. Hold your nose and vote republican because the libertarians aren't united on the border issue and they can't win anyway? Seriously. You never answered my question.

Because I don't have a one size fits all answer...I don't have any good answers really.

The powers that be, before I was born, enacted policies that were designed to utterly change the face, direction and culture of the United States.

They have been successful beyond their wildest dreams.

I just know that I live in New England and I like it very much the way it is.

If I wanted to live in New Kabul, I'd move.

I have a right to say that, I have a right to endorse policies that support that.

[jmdrake]

Amen. Or her children that become sex slaves.

Yes. Because according to you sex slavery only happens to immigrants.

[Swordsmyth]

Except there's always a way. How long have we had a war on drugs? How has that gone again? How many times has the CIA, FBI, DEA and Pentagon been caught smuggling in drugs? Have you never heard of something called bribery?
And they leave the border wide open to facilitate all that.




Not at all. Not if she has kids. The coyote, if he is an unscrupulous sex slaver, will be more than happy to "help" her and probably offer his help for free. Hell, he'll tell her to go back to her village and get some more kiddies.



No dumbass. She wouldn't have to pay a cent. The coyote in the scenario I gave would just take the kids. They'd be more valuable than whatever she could pay.
And what is to prevent the coyote from just kidnapping children with a wide open border that is even cheaper to cross?

[Anti Federalist]

The native man is still here. You don't have to go back in time to talk to him. And the French traders weren't a problem. It was the bloody Englishmen.

Exactly...although where I live, the land was bought fair and square.

But that's not the point...the point is that the native population, could not, would not, were not able to repel or contain hordes, millions of foreign invaders that supplanted and displaced their populations, stole their lands, executed their children and reduced them to second class citizens that they still struggle with to this day.

These last three years opened my eyes to how hostile the Bolshevik left and the open borders crowd is to me and mine.

It's probably way too late for me and mine, just like it was for Sitting Bull.

But I'm going to put up a fight...

[Swordsmyth]

The native man is still here. You don't have to go back in time to talk to him.
And he will tell you how much worse off he is because the whites flooded into his land


And the French traders weren't a problem. It was the bloody Englishmen.
So the Injuns would have been better off picking and choosing who was allowed in and in what numbers.

[jmdrake]

Because I don't have a one size fits all answer...I don't have any good answers really.

The powers that be, before I was born, enacted policies that were designed to utterly change the face, direction and culture of the United States.

They have been successful beyond their wildest dreams.

I just know that I live in New England and I like it very much the way it is.

If I wanted to live in New Kabul, I'd move.

I have a right to say that, I have I right to endorse policies that support that.

I'm not the CEO of Apple, YouTube, Facebook or Twitter (who almost didn't cave). I wouldn't de-platform anyone and I 100% support your right to say whatever and endorse whatever. I think I can endorse a different position without being accused of supporting child sex slavery. (Not by you of course.) Yes. There are no good answers. That is why I am ambivalent about immigration. I wasn't freaking out about the children being separated from their parents (some of those parents who have now been deported have purposefully left their kids behind in America.) Nor am I demanding a freaking wall. I'm concerned as all about "e-verify." I don't think I should have to report to the federal government every time I pay someone to cut my grass or wash my car. Don't think for a minute that can't happen! I think Alex Jones is off his rocker these days, but I do still agree with the mantra "Problem, reaction, solution." Authoritarians on the left and the right use the same methods. Get enough people worked up that "The end is nigh if you don't do X" and you will find people willing to do X.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not the CEO of Apple, YouTube, Facebook or Twitter (who almost didn't cave). I wouldn't de-platform anyone and I 100% support your right to say whatever and endorse whatever. I think I can endorse a different position without being accused of supporting child sex slavery. (Not by you of course.) Yes. There are no good answers. That is why I am ambivalent about immigration. I wasn't freaking out about the children being separated from their parents (some of those parents who have now been deported have purposefully left their kids behind in America.) Nor am I demanding a freaking wall. I'm concerned as all about "e-verify." I don't think I should have to report to the federal government every time I pay someone to cut my grass or wash my car. Don't think for a minute that can't happen! I think Alex Jones is off his rocker these days, but I do still agree with the mantra "Problem, reaction, solution." Authoritarians on the left and the right use the same methods. Get enough people worked up that "The end is nigh if you don't do X" and you will find people willing to do X.

I have no doubt about that.

Again, the infrastructure is already in place to halt long term immigration, at least through "normal" channels of entry, planes, highways, ships and so on.

This Afghan "community organizer" that has no clue about "Live Free or Die" as it relates to government intrusion into people's lives, did not arrive by swimming the Rio Grande.

[jmdrake]

And they leave the border wide open to facilitate all that.

When it was officially open there was a lot less of that.



And what is to prevent the coyote from just kidnapping children with a wide open border that is even cheaper to cross?

Consuela wouldn't be handing her kids over to him if she could just catch a ride on the local church bus. The border area with Mexico used to be a safe place to visit and cross. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember that. I am. And border crossing was not illegal that doesn't mean there couldn't be checks. Once driving from Arizona to California my family had to stop at a checkpoint and get rid of all of our fruit because there was a quarantine. But that didn't mean it was illegal to drive from Arizona to California. But hey, just like liberal Elizabeth Warren you can't understand the difference between not going along with your solution and supporting the problem.

[jmdrake]

I have no doubt about that.

Again, the infrastructure is already in place to halt long term immigration, at least through "normal" channels of entry, planes, highways, ships and so on.

This Afghan "community organizer" that has no clue about "Live Free or Die" as it relates to government intrusion into people's lives, did not arrive by swimming the Rio Grande.

Of course not. She came over as a legal refugee. We screwed up her country over a course of decades. Republicans took the credit for "liberating" Afghanistan first from communism and then from the Taliban. Blowback?

Afghanistan before and after American's fighting communism there.

https://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Afghanistan+before+and+after+the+pic+on+the+top+wa s_6a5ba8_4991003.jpg

Maybe if more people knew that it was actually democratic president Jimmy Carter that started arming jihadists in Afghanistan? But sadly Ronald Reagan took the credit and there ya go.

[jmdrake]

And he will tell you how much worse off he is because the whites flooded into his land


So the Injuns would have been better off picking and choosing who was allowed in and in what numbers.

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/nowhites.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

When it was officially open there was a lot less of that.
"Closing" the border didn't cause the change, drug pushing and other factors did.
It is the same with the sex trade, degeneracy increased the demand "closed" borders.




Consuela wouldn't be handing her kids over to him if she could just catch a ride on the local church bus. The border area with Mexico used to be a safe place to visit and cross. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember that. I am. And border crossing was not illegal that doesn't mean there couldn't be checks. Once driving from Arizona to California my family had to stop at a checkpoint and get rid of all of our fruit because there was a quarantine. But that didn't mean it was illegal to drive from Arizona to California. But hey, just like liberal Elizabeth Warren you can't understand the difference between not going along with your solution and supporting the problem.
As I said above degeneracy increased demand, with a wide open border you would see an increase in kidnappings in Mexico and other nearby countries and we have to control the border to keep from being overrun and conquered by economic migrants anyway.

[Origanalist]

I am out of rep for jmdrake, and he deserves much more.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/nowhites.jpg

And your point is?

Injuns had a right to be here and a right to try and keep out invaders, Americans have a right to be here to a right to keep out invaders, we don't want to suffer the consequences of losing they way the Injuns did.

[jmdrake]

"Closing" the border didn't cause the change, drug pushing and other factors did.
It is the same with the sex trade, degeneracy increased the demand "closed" borders.

And I should take your word for it because.....? Apparently you can't even tell if child sex slavery has increased or not in the past 50 years.



As I said above degeneracy increased demand

Actually you said that you didn't even know if the demand was increased or not.

[Swordsmyth]

I am out of rep for jmdrake, and he deserves much more.

Just the other day you admitted the necessity of controlling immigration and wished to be able to keep Californians out of your state........

[jmdrake]

And your point is?

Injuns had a right to be here and a right to try and keep out invaders, Americans have a right to be here to a right to keep out invaders, we don't want to suffer the consequences of losing they way the Injuns did.

You know most Mexicans got a little "injun" in them right? That's true in spades for the migrants from central America. If you are really so concerned about what happened to the "injuns"......

[Origanalist]

When it was officially open there was a lot less of that.



Consuela wouldn't be handing her kids over to him if she could just catch a ride on the local church bus. The border area with Mexico used to be a safe place to visit and cross. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember that. I am. And border crossing was not illegal that doesn't mean there couldn't be checks. Once driving from Arizona to California my family had to stop at a checkpoint and get rid of all of our fruit because there was a quarantine. But that didn't mean it was illegal to drive from Arizona to California. But hey, just like liberal Elizabeth Warren you can't understand the difference between not going along with your solution and supporting the problem.

I'm old enough. And this bullshit infuriates me. Even the Canadian border is a huge pain in the ass. The 'solutions' to a government created problem is to give government more power, nucking futs.

[Swordsmyth]

And I should take your word for it because.....? Apparently you can't even tell if child sex slavery has increased or not in the past 50 years.




Actually you said that you didn't even know if the demand was increased or not.
I'm taking your word for the increase and combining it with the increase in degeneracy.

[phill4paul]

Except there's always a way. How long have we had a war on drugs? How has that gone again? How many times has the CIA, FBI, DEA and Pentagon been caught smuggling in drugs? Have you never heard of something called bribery?



Not at all. Not if she has kids. The coyote, if he is an unscrupulous sex slaver, will be more than happy to "help" her and probably offer his help for free. Hell, he'll tell her to go back to her village and get some more kiddies.



No dumbass. She wouldn't have to pay a cent. The coyote in the scenario I gave would just take the kids. They'd be more valuable than whatever she could pay.



I see your neg rep was well deserved. You insist on lying. And I take Ron Paul's position and you call that "full progressive." And I bet you are going to lie again and say you were "asking a question" without a question mark.

So your argument is basically it would happen anyway. So let it unfettered. OK.

[Swordsmyth]

You know most Mexicans got a little "injun" in them right? That's true in spades for the migrants from central America. If you are really so concerned about what happened to the "injuns"......
I don't want to suffer the same consequences they did, that doesn't mean I want to give the land back to them (or to part Injuns from a different area) and leave myself without a home, that would be inflicting the same consequences on myself that I want to avoid.

Stop thinking with your emotions.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm old enough. And this bull$#@! infuriates me. Even the Canadian border is a huge pain in the ass. The 'solutions' to a government created problem is to give government more power, nucking futs.

Just the other day you admitted the necessity of controlling immigration and wished to be able to keep Californians out of your state........

And then you denied being in favor of open borders.......

[jmdrake]

So your argument is basically it would happen anyway. So let it unfettered. OK.

A-B-C-D-E-F--- Come on Phill. You can get to G if you keep trying! :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

I don't want to suffer the same consequences they did, that doesn't mean I want to give the land back to them (or to part Injuns from a different area) and leave myself without a home, that would be inflicting the same consequences on myself that I want to avoid.

Stop thinking with your emotions.

You are the one being emotional. I am just pointing out facts. Anyway, so your concern is that the "injuns" have now become so white that they will do unto you as your ancestors did unto your ancestors?

[phill4paul]

I am out of rep for jmdrake, and he deserves much more.

Sorry. Gonna disagree. His belief is that if there is open borders everything will work out spades. I'm not seeing that. Convince me otherwise.

[jmdrake]

Sorry. Gonna disagree. His belief is that if there is open borders everything will work out spades. I'm not seeing that. Convince me otherwise.

A-B-C-D-E-F- Ah forget it. The last letter is Z. I'll give you the lollipop for trying. Good job for trying.

[Origanalist]

Just the other day you admitted the necessity of controlling immigration and wished to be able to keep Californians out of your state........

We did control immigration. Then we stopped. And we did it without The Great Socialist Wall of America. Those days are gone, over, done. What you're hoping for aint gonna happen, your god Emperor of these United States isn't going to give you satisfaction. Destroying liberty to save liberty isn't going to work. If you want the principles of liberty to be quashed in the name of saving it, all I can say is no.

[Swordsmyth]

You are the one being emotional. I am just pointing out facts. Anyway, so your concern is that the "injuns" have now become so white that they will do unto you as your ancestors did unto your ancestors?
Since when is conquest a racial trait Mr. racist?
The Injuns and the Spaniards conquered many peoples over the course of history as did members of every other race and ethnicity.

[phill4paul]

Of course not. She came over as a legal refugee. We screwed up her country over a course of decades. Republicans took the credit for "liberating" Afghanistan first from communism and then from the Taliban. Blowback?

Afghanistan before and after American's fighting communism there.

https://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Afghanistan+before+and+after+the+pic+on+the+top+wa s_6a5ba8_4991003.jpg

Maybe if more people knew that it was actually democratic president Jimmy Carter that started arming jihadists in Afghanistan? But sadly Ronald Reagan took the credit and there ya go.

And so it is pay back? Welcome her and her progressive beliefs with open arms? Freedom?

[jmdrake]

Since when is conquest a racial trait Mr. racist?

You are the one that brought up race Mr. Racist. You are the one that said the "injuns" as a race didn't control their borders. Now common sense says they didn't have gunpowder.


The Injuns and the Spaniards conquered many peoples over the course of history as did members of every other race and ethnicity.

Again I was going by what you said. Oh the poor liberal "injuns" didn't control their borders. Don't try to turn you racism around on me.

[Swordsmyth]

We did control immigration. Then we stopped. And we did it without The Great Socialist Wall of America. Those days are gone, over, done. What you're hoping for aint gonna happen, your god Emperor of these United States isn't going to give you satisfaction. Destroying liberty to save liberty isn't going to work. If you want the principles of liberty to be quashed in the name of saving it, all I can say is no.
I have never advocated for the wall (I have repeatedly called for increased patrols on the border) but it will be better than what we have now, if you know how to control immigration without a wall or patrolling the border while millions of economic migrants are intent on coming to the freest and richest country on earth please speak up.

[Origanalist]

Just the other day you admitted the necessity of controlling immigration and wished to be able to keep Californians out of your state........

And then you denied being in favor of open borders.......

People used to be able to cross our southern and northern border with ease. If you stayed, then there was a problem. This problem is completely and unnecessarily manufactured, just like the so called solution. It's a fucking crime how far this place has fallen.

[jmdrake]

And so it is pay back? Welcome her and her progressive beliefs with open arms? Freedom?

Most southerners would not vote Republican for generations because they held the Republican party responsible for the U.S. Civil War. Why would you expect someone from Afghanistan to react any differently from what is seen, rightly or wrongly, as Republican wars in Afghanistan?

[jmdrake]

I have never advocated for the wall (I have repeatedly called for increased patrols on the border) but it will be better than what we have now, if you know how to control immigration without a wall or patrolling the border while millions of economic migrants are intent on coming to the freest and richest country on earth please speak up.

You don't support the border wall? That means you support child sex slavery! :rolleyes:

Seriously, its time for you and phill4paul to drop the histrionics. The more you two make BS arguments the better the open borders side looks. AF takes a similar position without being an asshole.

[Swordsmyth]

You are the one that brought up race Mr. Racist. You are the one that said the "injuns" as a race didn't control their borders. Now common sense says they didn't have gunpowder.
Just as I might say Europeans failed to keep out the Huns or the Goths, race had nothing to do with it till you decided to think that way Mr. Racebaiter.
Not only did the Injuns not have gunpowder but many of them welcomed the whites and were overly helpful, in the end it doesn't matter why they failed to keep out the Europeans, they are an example of what will happen to us if we fail to secure our territory for any reason.




Again I was going by what you said. Oh the poor liberal "injuns" didn't control their borders. Don't try to turn you racism around on me.
And the Chinese didn't keep the Mongols out, facts aren't racist, your mind is.

[Origanalist]

I have never advocated for the wall (I have repeatedly called for increased patrols on the border) but it will be better than what we have now, if you know how to control immigration without a wall or patrolling the border while millions of economic migrants are intent on coming to the freest and richest country on earth please speak up.

When illegals used to show up on the job, someone would call immigration services and they would be gone pronto. That stopped, why? What's the end game here?

[Swordsmyth]

You don't support the border wall? That means you support child sex slavery! :rolleyes:

Seriously, its time for you and @phill4paul (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=10850) to drop the histrionics. The more you two make BS arguments the better the open borders side looks. AF takes a similar position without being an $#@!.
:rolleyes:

You do a marvelous job of undermining the open borders side.

[phill4paul]

We did control immigration. Then we stopped. And we did it without The Great Socialist Wall of America. Those days are gone, over, done. What you're hoping for aint gonna happen, your god Emperor of these United States isn't going to give you satisfaction. Destroying liberty to save liberty isn't going to work. If you want the principles of liberty to be quashed in the name of saving it, all I can say is no.

Can't really see where importing those that are not bred in liberty, don't care to learn about it, but imminently affect it is a good thing. Care to explain how it is?

[jmdrake]

People used to be able to cross our southern and northern border with ease. If you stayed, then there was a problem. This problem is completely and unnecessarily manufactured, just like the so called solution. It's a $#@!ing crime how far this place has fallen.

^This! 1000x this! I would love to see a video of Swordsmyth going to a Trump rally holding a sign that says CLOSE THE BORDER! but don't build the wall.

[Swordsmyth]

When illegals used to show up on the job, someone would call immigration services and they would be gone pronto.
So you would rather have immigration primarily enforced by a domestic police state than at the border?


That stopped, why?
Liberals and people who loved money more than their country embraced illegals.


What's the end game here?
Either we control our borders or we become California all over the US.

[Swordsmyth]

Most southerners would not vote Republican for generations because they held the Republican party responsible for the U.S. Civil War. Why would you expect someone from Afghanistan to react any differently from what is seen, rightly or wrongly, as Republican wars in Afghanistan?
Why should we let them come here and destroy us?
That is what those who caused the war want.

[jmdrake]

Just as I might say Europeans failed to keep out the Huns or the Goths, race had nothing to do with it till you decided to think that way Mr. Racebaiter.
Not only did the Injuns not have gunpowder but many of them welcomed the whites and were overly helpful, in the end it doesn't matter why they failed to keep out the Europeans, they are an example of what will happen to us if we fail to secure our territory for any reason.


Right. The man running around talking about "injuns" and making broad generalizations is not the racebaiter. :rolleyes: Lie all you want. It's cheap these days.

Anyway, you think that if the "injuns" had not been "overly helpful" there would have been a different result? Because I don't.

[Swordsmyth]

People used to be able to cross our southern and northern border with ease. If you stayed, then there was a problem. This problem is completely and unnecessarily manufactured, just like the so called solution. It's a $#@!ing crime how far this place has fallen.

So you would rather have immigration primarily enforced by a domestic police state than at the border?

[jmdrake]

Why should we let them come here and destroy us?
That is what those who caused the war want.

Did southerners who went north after the civil war destroy it? Maybe that's not a good question.

[phill4paul]

Seriously, its time for you and phill4paul to drop the histrionics. The more you two make BS arguments the better the open borders side looks. AF takes a similar position without being an asshole.

Nice of you to judge us. I'm sure AF is placated. Hey, bud, you started this. I wasn't being histrionic. I was dropping personally heartfelt truth bombs. You were the one that went for the jugular. So, fuck you. That's about the space I'm in now.

[Origanalist]

Can't really see where importing those that are not bred in liberty, don't care to learn about it, but imminently affect it is a good thing. Care to explain how it is?

You're missing the point, they were imported on purpose. Starting in earnest with GWB but starting before him also. Why? Could it be so people clamor for more government protection? Also, how many new American arrivals (youts) are bred in liberty?

[phill4paul]

Did southerners who went north after the civil war destroy it? Maybe that's not a good question.

Northerners that went south surely did.

[jmdrake]

So you would rather have immigration primarily enforced by a domestic police state than at the border?

Speaking only for myself I have no problem with police deporting people that they are caught for some crime somewhere in the interior of the U.S. and are found to not be citizens or here on a legal visa. Of course that's an open borders position right?

[Swordsmyth]

Right. The man running around talking about "injuns" and making broad generalizations is not the racebaiter. :rolleyes: Lie all you want. It's cheap these days.
I use Injuns to differentiate from actual Indians from India, you look to see racism everywhere because crying racist is part of your playbook just like the leftist open borders supporters.


Anyway, you think that if the "injuns" had not been "overly helpful" there would have been a different result? Because I don't.
It would have been different because the whites never would have had a beachhead but that doesn't matter, the result is what is important, we don't want the same result from allowing too many foreigners to come here and vote us into a communist hellhole.

[phill4paul]

You're missing the point, they were imported on purpose. Starting in earnest with GWB but starting before him also. Why? Could it be so people clamor for more government protection? Also, how many new American arrivals (youts) are bred in liberty?

And if they are imported on purpose shouldn't they be stopped?

[jmdrake]

Nice of you to judge us. I'm sure AF is placated. Hey, bud, you started this. I wasn't being histrionic. I was dropping personally heartfelt truth bombs. You were the one that went for the jugular. So, $#@! you. That's about the space I'm in now.

LOL. So you go around randomly accusing people of supporting child sex slavery, which is what you freaking did you lying sack of puss, then when someone neg reps you over it you get mad? Ummm...okay.

[Swordsmyth]

Speaking only for myself I have no problem with police deporting people that they are caught for some crime somewhere in the interior of the U.S. and are found to not be citizens or here on a legal visa. Of course that's an open borders position right?
Yes it is because almost all of them won't be caught doing some other crime and they will stay here and vote and have children who will grow up and vote.

[Origanalist]

So you would rather have immigration primarily enforced by a domestic police state than at the border?

It was and yes. It wasn't a police state unless you were obviously working when you shouldn't be and the borders weren't a fucking Berlin Wall. It wasn't omnipresent and it worked, until it was decided to be neutered from above.

[jmdrake]

I use Injuns to differentiate from actual Indians from India

LOL



, you look to see racism everywhere because crying racist is part of your playbook just like the leftist open borders supporters.

Liar. You were the one that played the race card. You were the one that first accused anyone of being racist. And you are lying about me being open borders. I just don't support a police state.

[jmdrake]

Yes it is because almost all of them won't be caught doing some other crime and they will stay here and vote and have children who will grow up and vote.

Oh. So let me see if I understanding you. Being against sanctuary cities is an open borders position. You are about as stupid as they come.

So Swordsmyth. You are against a border wall. You support sanctuary cities. How exactly are you for closed borders?

[Origanalist]

And if they are imported on purpose shouldn't they be stopped?

Yes. But they aren't, who's fault is that?

[Swordsmyth]

You're missing the point, they were imported on purpose. Starting in earnest with GWB but starting before him also. Why? Could it be so people clamor for more government protection?
That just makes the problem worse and the urgency of removing them greater.


Also, how many new American arrivals (youts) are bred in liberty?
More than foreign the number of youts who are.

[Swordsmyth]

Oh. So let me see if I understanding you. Being against sanctuary cities is an open borders position. You are about as stupid as they come.
If that is the only enforcement you want it is.
You are dumber than dirt.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. But they aren't, who's fault is that?
Does whose fault it is change what should be done about it?

[phill4paul]

A-B-C-D-E-F--- Come on Phill. You can get to G if you keep trying! :rolleyes:

That's not an argument. But, get on with your bad self it it makes you feel better.

[jmdrake]

That's not an argument. But, get on with your bad self it it makes you feel better.

I was responding to a non argument from you with a non argument of my own.

[Swordsmyth]

Liar. You were the one that played the race card. You were the one that first accused anyone of being racist. And you are lying about me being open borders. I just don't support a police state.
You started it with this among other things:

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/nowhites.jpg

[jmdrake]

If that is the only enforcement you want it is.
You are dumber than dirt.

A) I didn't say that was the only enforcement I wanted Mr. Liar.
B) You said you were against a border wall and an "internal police state" (what you called what Originalist was saying) without giving him a chance to explain how he would enforce it.
C) So far YOU haven't actually said what you would do on the border except "close" it.

I could be dumber than dirt but still smarter than you.

[phill4paul]

Most southerners would not vote Republican for generations because they held the Republican party responsible for the U.S. Civil War. Why would you expect someone from Afghanistan to react any differently from what is seen, rightly or wrongly, as Republican wars in Afghanistan?

Exactly. Politics over time changes. She's not been here long enough to experience that. She's in direct opposition to the "free state project." Do you think that might be bad. The "free state project" and her ideological beliefs?

[Origanalist]

That just makes the problem worse and the urgency of removing them greater.


More than foreign the number of youts who are.

No comprende.

[Swordsmyth]

It was and yes. It wasn't a police state unless you were obviously working when you shouldn't be and the borders weren't a $#@!ing Berlin Wall. It wasn't omnipresent and it worked, until it was decided to be neutered from above.
Then you are in favor of turning a blind eye to most of the invaders with almost non-existent enforcement, the problem was smaller back then so the results weren't as catastrophic as they will be now but lax enforcement back then is one thing that created the situation we now have.

[Origanalist]

Does whose fault it is change what should be done about it?

What do you think is going to be done about it?

[phill4paul]

LOL. So you go around randomly accusing people of supporting child sex slavery, which is what you freaking did you lying sack of puss, then when someone neg reps you over it you get mad? Ummm...okay.

That's not how it went down. I didn't straw man and asked your actual position. Feel free to link all quotes.

[jmdrake]

You started it with this among other things:

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/nowhites.jpg

That was in response to your "Injuns should have been selective about who they let over" comment. There wasn't exactly a passport system back then. How would you suggest the "injuns" do the selecting? (And LOL and someone who thinks the only other thing he can say for Native Americans is "injuns" in order to differentiate from India. Like nobody would know from the context what "Indian" meant?)

[Swordsmyth]

No comprende.
That figures.

If we have been flooded with an excess of invaders on purpose we are much worse off than if the problem had happened naturally and we need to get rid of them even faster than we would have needed to other wise.

[Origanalist]

Then you are in favor of turning a blind eye to most of the invaders with almost non-existent enforcement, the problem was smaller back then so the results weren't as catastrophic as they will be now but lax enforcement back then is one thing that created the situation we now have.

And you're full of shit as usual.

[jmdrake]

That's not how it went down. I didn't straw man and asked your actual position. Feel free to link all quotes.

That's EXACTLY how it went down.


Will you allow citizens to end it? I'm for that. Property owners or their hires? States executing none citizens for trespass? Child sex trafficking is NOT helped by closed borders. In any sense. Prove it.
I can only assume that you are fine with it. Free market and all that.
There is no free market in human trade.
But, I dunno, don't wanna assume or strawman.
You tell me. All roads from the north and south, all ports from the east and west, open, no control. Cool with you?

So fvck you. Seriously.

[Origanalist]

That figures.

If we have been flooded with an excess of invaders on purpose we are much worse off than if the problem had happened naturally and we need to get rid of them even faster than we would have needed to other wise.

This is not going to happen. All your dreams will come to naught. So now what?

And of course it was on purpose.

[Champ]

At this point in time, September of 2018, is there an issue that has the libertarians more split than this one?

I can't recall such an "ants going crazy on a stomped on ant hill" situation since maybe Rand in 2012 endorsing Romney.

[Swordsmyth]

That was in response to your "Injuns should have been selective about who they let over" comment. There wasn't exactly a passport system back then. How would you suggest the "injuns" do the selecting?
Being primitive they might have used race as a rule of thumb or they might have accepted a limited number of individuals that assimilated peacefully and driven off any large groups.



(And LOL and someone who thinks the only other thing he can say for Native Americans is "injuns" in order to differentiate from India. Like nobody would know from the context what "Indian" meant?)
You call them what you want and I'll call them what I want, "Injuns" isn't pejorative, it is simply a colloquialism.

[phill4paul]

STILL waiting on an answer from liberty loving jmdrake.

1) Can property owners on the border shoot trespassers?
2) Can states on the border order their militia to shoot trepassers?

[Swordsmyth]

At this point in time, September of 2018, is there an issue that has the libertarians more split than this one?

I can't recall such an "ants going crazy on a stomped on ant hill" situation since maybe Rand in 2012 endorsing Romney.
Because it is an existential crisis, liberty can't survive a flood of foreign communists, on the other hand the anarchist wing sees border control as a blasphemy against their purist religion.

[Swordsmyth]

This is not going to happen. All your dreams will come to naught. So now what?

It might, if it doesn't then we will have to choose between secession/expulsion, civil war and becoming a communist hellhole.

[jmdrake]

STILL waiting on an answer from liberty loving jmdrake.

1) Can property owners on the border shoot trespassers?
2) Can states on the border order their militia to shoot trepassers?

I already told you I have no problem with property patrols but I am against killing. I don't think it was right for the Texas man who killed a prostitute because she took his money and didn't give him sex and I am against killing someone because they walk across your lawn or field or whatever. But I guess to you that is "liberal." If you want to shot at someone with rock salt or bean bags I don't care. Your buddy Swordsmyth is against the wall. Do you support it? Just curious.

[Swordsmyth]

And you're full of $#@! as usual.

Talking to yourself again old man?

[Origanalist]

Because it is an existential crisis, liberty can't survive a flood of foreign communists, on the other hand the anarchist wing sees border control as a blasphemy against their purist religion.

Liberty isn't surviving period. It has bigger and more direct threats than the border.

[Origanalist]

Talking to yourself again old man?

I am talking to you junior.

[Swordsmyth]

What do you think is going to be done about it?

Patrol the borders and deport the invaders and reduce immigration after a freeze.

[jmdrake]

Being primitive they might have used race as a rule of thumb or they might have accepted a limited number of individuals that assimilated peacefully and driven off any large groups.

Obviously. And hence my sign based on YOUR implication.




You call them what you want and I'll call them what I want, "Injuns" isn't pejorative, it is simply a colloquialism.

And I can use a giphy to illustrate what you were really saying. But you decided to get butthurt over it. That's your problem.

[Swordsmyth]

I am talking to you junior.
Then you are projecting.

[Origanalist]

Patrol the borders and deport the invaders and reduce immigration after a freeze.

Lol, good luck.

[Swordsmyth]

Obviously. And hence my sign based on YOUR implication.
Yes, you the congenital racist didn't give them the possibility that I did of conducting themselves in a non-racist manner even though many of them did exactly what Isaid they might do instead of just being racist.





And I can use a giphy to illustrate what you were really saying. But you decided to get butthurt over it. That's your problem.
You continued to bring race into the issue when I ignored that picture.

[Origanalist]

Then you are projecting.

Whatever you say sparky.

[Swordsmyth]

Liberty isn't surviving period.
Even if you are right in your defeatism we can still stretch out its lifespan.


It has bigger and more direct threats than the border.
Wrong.

[Anti Federalist]

Of course not. She came over as a legal refugee. We screwed up her country over a course of decades. Republicans took the credit for "liberating" Afghanistan first from communism and then from the Taliban. Blowback?

Afghanistan before and after American's fighting communism there.

Maybe if more people knew that it was actually democratic president Jimmy Carter that started arming jihadists in Afghanistan? But sadly Ronald Reagan took the credit and there ya go.

Won't get an argument from me on that...but how does that change the fundamental fact that she is running for office on a platform of radically changing the relationship with state government, in my backyard?

I'm very sorry the government, that I am trying my damnedest to reduce and eliminate, blew up your homeland.

I really am.

I will be more than willing to fund relief efforts to help you rebuild your country in whatever fashion you wish.

Now, please, go.

[Origanalist]

Even if you are right in your defeatism we can still stretch out its lifespan.


Wrong.

No, Im right. And you're a fool.

[jmdrake]

Yes, you the congenital racist didn't give them the possibility that I did of conducting themselves in a non-racist manner even though many of them did exactly what Isaid they might do instead of just being racist.

You, the obvious racist, contradicted yourself by first calling them "primitive" and then as an afterthought coming up with a non primitive solution. So how exactly is this "primitive" culture going to keep up with the assimilation statistics and decide when to make the cutoff?


You continued to bring race into the issue when I ignored that picture.

You initially brought race into the picture and first played the race card Mr. Racist. Must make you feel good. Are you on Jesse Jackson's payroll?

[jmdrake]

Won't get an argument from me on that...but how does that change the fundamental fact that she is running for office on a platform of radically changing the relationship with state government, in my backyard?

I'm curious. Do you think it's possible for a Muslim immigrant to win a republican primary regardless of his/her platform? If the answer to that question is no than how is this not a self fulfilling prophecy?



I'm very sorry the government, that I am trying my damnedest to reduce and eliminate, blew up your homeland.

I really am.

I will be more than willing to fund relief efforts to help you rebuild your country in whatever fashion you wish.

Now, please, go.

I guess the "injuns" are saying the same thing. (Except they didn't have anything to do with screwing up Europe).

[phill4paul]

That's EXACTLY how it went down.



So fvck you. Seriously.

I did say "assume." I accused you of nothing. Christ, you are such a prog. Even gave me a neg rep. even though that, at this point is meaningless. Go find a safe space.

[Swordsmyth]

A) I didn't say that was the only enforcement I wanted Mr. Liar.
You responded that you would support the policy in question in response to me query about internal enforcement vs. border enforcement and you said nothing about supporting border enforcement, if you support border enforcement in spite of everything you have said to the contrary in this thread please explain.


B) You said you were against a border wall and an "internal police state" (what you called what Originalist was saying) without giving him a chance to explain how he would enforce it.
C) So far YOU haven't actually said what you would do on the border except "close" it.
I have said I wanted the border patrolled and immigration limited.


I could be dumber than dirt but still smarter than you.
Perhaps but you are still dumber than me so just how dumb are you then?

[jmdrake]

You responded that you would support the policy in question in response to me query about internal enforcement vs. border enforcement and you said nothing about supporting border enforcement, if you support border enforcement in spite of everything you have said to the contrary in this thread please explain.

So you think the only kind of immigration enforcement is border enforcement? I really am dealing with a lack of intelligence here. Okay. Here's another non-border and non-police state enforcement that I support. Check citizenship before doling out any welfare benefits state or federal. I'm sure you could think of some more if you tried hard enough.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm curious. Do you think it's possible for a Muslim immigrant to win a republican primary regardless of his/her platform? If the answer to that question is no than how is this not a self fulfilling prophecy?
Who cares? She shouldn't be here at all.




I guess the "injuns" are saying the same thing. (Except they didn't have anything to do with screwing up Europe).
Who cares? they lost, they won't be getting control of the land back, we can still keep control if we don't give it away to people who want to destroy us.

[Swordsmyth]

So you think the only kind of immigration enforcement is border enforcement? I really am dealing with a lack of intelligence here. Okay. Here's another non-border and non-police state enforcement that I support. Check citizenship before doling out any welfare benefits state or federal. I'm sure you could think of some more if you tried hard enough.
I thought we wanted to get rid of welfare and citizenship checks for employment and all those other things that intrude government into our lives.

[jmdrake]

Who cares? She shouldn't be here at all.

A) I wasn't even talking to you.

B) She came here LEGALLY so your "border enforcement" means nothing in this case.



Who cares? they lost, they won't be getting control of the land back, we can still keep control if we don't give it away to people who want to destroy us.

If you don't care quit bringing them up.

[jmdrake]

I thought we wanted to get rid of welfare and citizenship checks for employment and all those other things that intrude government into our lives.

We do want to get rid of welfare. What's your point? Don't screen for citizenship while welfare still exists? Is that your position?
phil4paul that's how you ask a question. You use question marks.

[Anti Federalist]

You are the one that brought up race Mr. Racist. You are the one that said the "injuns" as a race didn't control their borders. Now common sense says they didn't have gunpowder.

Nah, not quite.

The deadliest conflict on North American soil, that there are records of anyway, and in terms of population killed as a ratio, was King Phillips' War from 1675 to 1678.

An Indian/European conflict that arose, among other reasons, over the British demanding that the native Wampanoag peoples turn over their arms and powder.

King Phillip with his rifle.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Philip_King_of_Mount_Hope_by_Paul_Revere.jpeg/394px-Philip_King_of_Mount_Hope_by_Paul_Revere.jpeg

[Swordsmyth]

You, the obvious racist, contradicted yourself by first calling them "primitive" and then as an afterthought coming up with a non primitive solution. So how exactly is this "primitive" culture going to keep up with the assimilation statistics and decide when to make the cutoff?
They were primitive and so were the whites in many ways, that is a fact and it has nothing to do with race Mr. Racist.
They could play it by ear, if there were too many whites to suit them they would stop accepting any more or even throw some out.




You initially brought race into the picture and first played the race card Mr. Racist. Must make you feel good. Are you on Jesse Jackson's payroll?
I never brought race into the picture, I simply discussed groups that actually existed, you are the one who kept assuming race played a part in what I said.

[Swordsmyth]

We do want to get rid of welfare. What's your point? Don't screen for citizenship while welfare still exists? Is that your position?
@phil4paul (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=32856) that's how you ask a question. You use question marks.
In the short term I would screen for citizenship but we were never discussing the short term, we were discussing what aught to be.

[phill4paul]

I already told you I have no problem with property patrols but I am against killing. I don't think it was right for the Texas man who killed a prostitute because she took his money and didn't give him sex and I am against killing someone because they walk across your lawn or field or whatever. But I guess to you that is "liberal." If you want to shot at someone with rock salt or bean bags I don't care. Your buddy Swordsmyth is against the wall. Do you support it? Just curious.

If a rancher had a fence, a "wall," and multiple signs every 25 feet that read, in many languages, and even sign language, (get it? "sign language," that's some funny shit right there.) "trespassers will be shot on sight" you think it is only ok if he uses bean bags or rock salt. Is that correct. I'd hate to offend your sensibilities again. Just asking. ?????????????????????????/

[Swordsmyth]

A) I wasn't even talking to you.
Tough cookies


B) She came here LEGALLY so your "border enforcement" means nothing in this case.
That is where reduced immigration comes in.




If you don't care quit bringing them up.
I care about avoiding their fate not about what they might say about sending me "back" to Europe now.

[jmdrake]

Nah, not quite.

The deadliest conflict on North American soil, that there are records of anyway, and in terms of population killed as a ratio, was King Phillips' War from 1675 to 1678.

An Indian/European conflict that arose, among other reasons, over the British demanding that the native Wampanoag peoples turn over their arms and powder.

King Phillip with his rifle.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Philip_King_of_Mount_Hope_by_Paul_Revere.jpeg/394px-Philip_King_of_Mount_Hope_by_Paul_Revere.jpeg

Thanks for the history lesson. I will have to read up on King Phillip. Anyway, don't take blankets from immigrants.