How to balence immigration control and liberties

[Matt Collins]

I have a question...

How do we balance the enforcement of illegal immigration without trampling civil liberties and turning into a police state?

In other words we don't want the illegals to be working in this country because they are illegal. How do we enforce this?

Obviously we don't want to force a mandatory ID card on everyone. And walking up to anyone on the street asking for "papers please" or to provide documentation is not conductive to liberty. Forcing employers to verify someone's status is also a bad idea because it places an extra cost of doing business on the employer (which just gets passed onto us the consumer), and why should a legal citizen have to ask permission to work in their own country anyway?

How do we keep the illegals from working while not promoting a police state, expansive government, or restricting our liberties? Thoughts?

[foofighter20x]

Change the booking procedures? :confused:

I mean, when you get arrested, you are processed through booking where they take your photo, prints, enter your arrest into the system, check for outstanding warrants on your name or aliases, etc...

Do they ask at all where the arrested persons were born? It's a seemingly innocuous enough questions, and if you ask it nonchalantly, you are more likely to get the truth the first time, I would assume (criminals are prone to lying, though).

Anyway, if they say they weren't born in the US, then that could be an automatic flag to look into their immigration status.

Just a guess, really...

[LibertyEagle]

A mechanism already exists for employers to check the validity of a potential employee's Social Security Number. Problem is, most aren't doing it. I called Ron Paul HQ about this some time ago and they said the same SSN was being used by thousands and thousands of illegal aliens. They could be easily checked through a 800 phone number, but they just do not do it. They also said that states could also tighten up the creation of birth certificates by using watermarks, special ink, etc. on their birth certificates, to make them much more difficult to copy. Some states already do this; others do not.

[Matt Collins]

A mechanism already exists for employers to check the validity of a potential employee's Social Security Number. Problem is, most aren't doing it.But a SSN shouldn't exist because Social Security shouldn't exist.

[LibertyEagle]

Agreed, but as long as it does, I'd much rather have employers make a simple check to make sure the number isn't a duplicate than to add a whole new level of intrusion, with a biometric national ID card and our identity being checked by Homeland Security before we could hold a job.

[MozoVote]

I think improving the tax code should come before immigration reform. Illegals work for cash, and that makes them more competitive for low paying jobs. US citizens should also have that priveledge.

[Man from La Mancha]

How about a simple data base of finger prints that only checks if you belong here without any other data linked to it. No address, health, work record, gun ownership,ect.?

[Man from La Mancha]

I think improving the tax code should come before immigration reform. Illegals work for cash, and that makes them more competitive for low paying jobs. US citizens should also have that priveledge.

Negative, secure borders 1st and then no scabs.

[SeanEdwards]

Obviously we don't want to force a mandatory ID card on everyone.

Well, I guess I diverge somewhat from Ron Paul's position on this, but I'm not convinced that a right to privacy automatically implies a right to anonymity. Certainly the potential exists for abuse, but then many areas of law are potentially open to abuse.

When a police officer asks me to present identification, I don't see that alone as a violation of my rights. I think it's only a violation if some further improper use is made of that identification.

I think the whole "papers please" argument is verging on invoking Godwin's Law. It's a logical fallacy that attempts to associate reliable identification with a fascist Nazi state. I.E. "the nazis did it, therefore it's bad". Well, the Nazis invented the freeway too, but I don't see anyone here objecting to that.

[SeanEdwards]

Do they ask at all where the arrested persons were born?

I think it's policy for most state and local police forces to explicitly refrain from looking into the immigration status of anyone at all. The argument is that if illegal's fear deportation by involvement with local police forces, that they will be unlikely to report crimes.

[Matt Collins]

When a police officer asks me to present identification, I don't see that alone as a violation of my rights. I think it's only a violation if some further improper use is made of that identification.It's a violation of the right to remain silent, the right to not self-incriminate.


Well, the Nazis invented the freeway too, but I don't see anyone here objecting to that.I object to state sponsored freeways. The interstates should all be toll roads. If I don't use it, why should I pay for it?

[Nefertiti]

You should pay for it because the goods you buy are transported to you over those roads, whether you ever drive on them yourself or not.

[Man from La Mancha]

It's a violation of the right to remain silent, the right to not self-incriminate.

I object to state sponsored freeways. The interstates should all be toll roads. If I don't use it, why should I pay for it?


I thought one of the few things the American government was supposed to do was establish commerce between the states. Having toll roads would limit trade and travel to the poor. Also for the common defense I thought the freeways were established under Eisenhower for part our defense.

.

[SeanEdwards]

It's a violation of the right to remain silent, the right to not self-incriminate.


I don't see a truthful declaration of identity in itself as self-incriminating. Saying "my name is Sean", is not the same thing as admitting guilt for a crime.

[MozoVote]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that if you are detained, the police have the right to demand you identify yourself. If not, they can take you into custody. This happened based on a case in Nevada a few years ago.

[Matt Collins]

You should pay for it because the goods you buy are transported to you over those roads, whether you ever drive on them yourself or not.That would already be built into the cost of those goods. The people who transport the goods would have to pay the tolls (if they used those roads) which is a cost of doing business and it automatically gets passed onto the consumer. Again, if you don't want to put that money out, then you can choose by buying or not buying products that are transported on those roads. When it is a tax, specifically an income tax, you don't have a choice.

You should read the "FairTax Book" by Boortz and pay specific attention to the part where he talks about embedded taxes. Note that I don't support the FairTax.

[LibertyEagle]

How about a simple data base of finger prints that only checks if you belong here without any other data linked to it. No address, health, work record, gun ownership,ect.?

No. Once we allow them to start collecting biometrics, they will tie everything and their dog to it. In Texas, we have already instituted fingerprints with drivers' licenses. The people just acquiesced.

[Matt Collins]

I thought one of the few things the American government was supposed to do was establish commerce between the states. No, the Interstate Commerce Clause says that "The Congress shall have power to...regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..."

Regulate does not mean the same thing as "establish".

[MozoVote]

In Texas, we have already instituted fingerprints to drivers' licenses. The people just acquiesced.

In California you must put a fingerprint on any check you cash, and you must be fingerprinted to work in any state or county job as part of the education system. (Does not matter if the job is clerical and you do not come in contact with children).

[Matt Collins]

In Texas, we have already instituted fingerprints to drivers' licenses. That's pathetic and infuriates me!

Do you know the government doesn't have your fingerprint unless you actually give it to them (or you're arrested/booked)? Talk about treating law abiding citizens like criminals! :mad:

[Matt Collins]

I don't see a truthful declaration of identity in itself as self-incriminating."The right to remain silent..."

[LibertyEagle]

I object to state sponsored freeways. The interstates should all be toll roads. If I don't use it, why should I pay for it?


I used to think the same way; I'm not so sure anymore. Were you aware that a great deal of our infrastructure is being taken over by foreign countries? In Texas, the company building our toll roads is a Spanish company. The deal that was struck is largely still a secret and guess who negotiated it? Guiliani's law firm. The Spanish company gets to set the tolls at any level they darn well please, for 50 years. I figured the tolls would be pretty cheap. I thought that until I started checking. It looks like they will be astronomical!

It is this same company who will be building the 1st leg of the NAFTA Superhighway. It is called the Trans-Texas Corridor and amazing it will meet up with another such new tollroad being planned in Oklahoma.

This seems like a good way to limit the travel of Americans.

[SeanEdwards]

"The right to remain silent..."

Is not a right to remain anonymous. :D

[Matt Collins]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that if you are detained, the police have the right to demand you identify yourself. If not, they can take you into custody. This happened based on a case in Nevada a few years ago.I think that was if you were detained behind the wheel of a vehicle.

[Man from La Mancha]

No. Once we allow them to start collecting biometrics, they will tie everything and their dog to it. In Texas, we have already instituted fingerprints to drivers' licenses. The people just acquiesced.

Well that is a problem with that legislator that should be corrected by it's inhabitants. Nothing says they have to be that way, like I said make it only for one purpose. Fingerprints have a long history of working fairly well and they are very hard to forge. What better way would you suggest in protecting our borders from illegals?

[SeanEdwards]

I think that was if you were detained behind the wheel of a vehicle.

In California anyone over 18 is required by law to carry identification, while in a car or out. Might just be a state law, I don't know.

[MozoVote]

The whole national ID argument is somewhat tired, because all it takes is Name, SSN#, and date of birth, to positively identify anyone. Then a licensed investigator can tie to innumerable databases and find every car ever owned, drivers licenses, schools attended, homes owned, credit cards, yadda yadda.

The real essense of the debate, is whether we are drawing a line in the sand here. Not whether to prevent national identification from becoming available.

[LibertyEagle]

That's pathetic and infuriates me!

Do you know the government doesn't have your fingerprint unless you actually give it to them (or you're arrested/booked)? Talk about treating law abiding citizens like criminals! :mad:

Agreed! I haven't had to do it yet, because my drivers' license had not expired and I was able to renew it once without getting a new one. In a few months... time's up and if I want a driver's license, they're going to take my fingerprints too.

[Matt Collins]

In Texas, the company building our toll roads is a Spanish company. The deal that was struck is largely still a secret and guess who negotiated it? Guiliani's law firm. What deal? The state shouldn't be involved in highways.



The Spanish company gets to set the tolls at any level they darn well please, Well it's private property... if you don't like how much someone charges to use their property, then don't use their property!

[Matt Collins]

Is not a right to remain anonymous. :DThat's true, but we do have a right to remain silent. That means if a cop asks your name you don't have to answer, but they can then begin to investigate you to learn your name. If they are successful then you've just lost your anonymity but not your right to remain silent.

[MozoVote]

I think that (you must identify yourself) if you were detained behind the wheel of a vehicle.

It's a grey area. The man appeared to have been a driver, but was on foot and outside a vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

[Matt Collins]

Agreed! I haven't had to do it yet, because my drivers' license had not expired and I was able to renew it once without getting a new one. In a few months... time's up and if I want a driver's license, they're going to take my fingerprints too.I would consider moving or finding a way to give them a false impression.

[Lord Xar]

I used to think the same way; I'm not so sure anymore. Were you aware that a great deal of our infrastructure is being taken over by foreign countries? In Texas, the company building our toll roads is a Spanish company. The deal that was struck is largely still a secret and guess who negotiated it? Guiliani's law firm. The Spanish company gets to set the tolls at any level they darn well please, for 50 years. I figured the tolls would be pretty cheap. I thought that until I started checking. It looks like they will be astronomical!

It is this same company who will be building the 1st leg of the NAFTA Superhighway. It is called the Trans-Texas Corridor and amazing it will meet up with another such new tollroad being planned in Oklahoma.

This seems like a good way to limit the travel of Americans.

what? Guilanis law firm represents that spanish company? Oh my! Isn't that highway a precursor to the NAU?

Guilani will just be another schill to destroy america! WE CAN"T ALLOW THIS.

[Matt Collins]

What better way would you suggest in protecting our borders from illegals?Building a wall, taking the military from Iraq, putting them on the southern border, and anyone who comes over that border outside of our check points gets shot. That would solve the border problem in under a week.


Remember that open borders does not = unsecured borders.

[Matt Collins]

In California anyone over 18 is required by law to carry identification, while in a car or out. Can you find the statue that says that? I find it VERY hard to believe that passes Constitutional muster.

[Man from La Mancha]

People have voluntarily given up their anonymity for convenience. Still today we can pay for most things with cash or purchase money orders without a name, but I know of no one that does that.

[Man from La Mancha]

Building a wall, taking the military from Iraq, putting them on the southern border, and anyone who comes over that border outside of our check points gets shot. That would solve the border problem in under a week.


Remember that open borders does not = unsecured borders.


What about the illegals here or that can sneak in by 1000's of miles of coasts. As far as the wall, I like its concept but still it frightens me as it also can keep people trapped inside and there are many was around it. Paul's idea of cutting benefits is good. I think all employers of illegals should fined and jailed. And pick up people as police or other's run across them.

[MozoVote]

Building a wall, taking the military from Iraq, putting them on the southern border, and anyone who comes over that border outside of our check points gets shot. That would solve the border problem in under a week.

Remember that open borders does not = unsecured borders.

People were willing to risk being shot to flee East Germany and find jobs and a better life in West Germany. But you're right that the *rate* of immigration would slow.

On the whole though, I do not think the American public would ever support shooting immigrants. Hasn't shoot first and ask questions later already led to enough problems?

[dude58677]

End the welfare system, abolish social security, etc. Then there won't be an incentive to sneak across the border.

[MozoVote]

End the welfare system, abolish social security, etc. Then there won't be an incentive to sneak across the border.

I agree with your broader point, but they would still come. The difference is they they would find fewer jobs - and hopefully tell friends in their home country the same thing when returning.

Jobs for Americans first! End IRS witholding and FICA. Give our citizens the ability to work for cash too.

[richard1984]

I've heard that here in Tennessee, if you are pulled over without your license you get something like a $5 ticket, but they can look you up on the data base on their laptops in their car. So even driving without your license doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal (at least here). With the technology today, it is ridiculous to require people to have identification with them everywhere they go. Technology should be used to help the people--not as a means to incriminate and enslave them. The laws are all kinds of messed up these days. The people in power are using the speed of change in our world (which is enhanced by technology) as a veil, and behind this veil they are deliberately and methodically trying to herd us into corrals.

[SeanEdwards]

Securing the borders and managing who enters the country is important for a number of reasons besides immigration enforcement, and really should be treated as an issue seperate from the issue of 20 million illegals currently in the U.S.

I just don't think people with massively drug resistant TB (or other dangerously contagious diseases) have a fundamental right to enter the U.S. on their terms. Nor do I think Pakistanis who've trained for jihad have a right to enter. If they don't like it, too damn bad. Every other country on the planet is unapologetic about controlling entry into their territory. Why should the U.S. be the only country guilt-tripped for trying to control immigration?

[cjhowe]

As Americans on the immigration issue we want to have our cake and eat it too.

We philosophically recognize that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights, but we only want to allow American citizens to exercise those rights. This is terribly puzzling for me.

This is especially troubling amongst a forum of people that wish to drastically reduce the welfare state and entitlement system.

We want to look down on an illegal immigrant for stealing health and education service - I completely disagree with that assertion- but we don't look down on American citizens for doing the same thing.

We want to look down on illegal immigrants for stealing our jobs, but we praise competition.

We want to look down on some illegal immigrants gang affiliations, but we reject the war on drugs that allow the gangs to exist.

The American border is different than every other border in the world. Every other border describes the boundaries for which a government can force those with in it to succumb to authority. The United States border is philosophically supposed to be the boundary where the government can guarantee certain unalienable rights be secured for all men within it.

[MozoVote]

Hear hear. Good post, cjhowe.

[Man from La Mancha]

As Americans on the immigration issue we want to have our cake and eat it too.

We philosophically recognize that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights, but we only want to allow American citizens to exercise those rights. This is terribly puzzling for me.

This is especially troubling amongst a forum of people that wish to drastically reduce the welfare state and entitlement system.

We want to look down on an illegal immigrant for stealing health and education service - I completely disagree with that assertion- but we don't look down on American citizens for doing the same thing.

We want to look down on illegal immigrants for stealing our jobs, but we praise competition.

We want to look down on some illegal immigrants gang affiliations, but we reject the war on drugs that allow the gangs to exist.

The American border is different than every other border in the world. Every other border describes the boundaries for which a government can force those with in it to succumb to authority. The United States border is philosophically supposed to be the boundary where the government can guarantee certain unalienable rights be secured for all men within it. We look down on all criminals and people here illegally are criminals period.

[cjhowe]

We look down on all criminals and people here illegally are criminals period.

That's a lie. How many people do you know that have experimented with drugs or stolen music or movies through a P2P network. They are criminals as well, yet I would argue that no one from this forum would look down on them.

[Matt Collins]

What about the illegals here or that can sneak in by 1000's of miles of coasts. Compare the amount of Hatians and Cubans that build makeshift rafts to reach the US to the number of Mexicans that come over. Plus it's much easier to catch them at sea.



I think all employers of illegals should fined and jailed. How would an employer know if they are hiring an illegal?

[Matt Collins]

People were willing to risk being shot to flee East Germany and find jobs and a better life in West Germany.Mexico is hardly Communist Germany, compare the governments and the political philosophy of the two to see the difference.

[Matt Collins]

I've heard that here in Tennessee, if you are pulled over without your license you get something like a $5 ticket, but they can look you up on the data base on their laptops in their car. I was with a friend who was driving and got pulled over without his license. He got a ticket and the judge threw it out upon him showing the judge the valid license in court; I live in TN.

[MozoVote]

Mexico is hardly Communist Germany, compare the governments and the political philosophy of the two to see the difference.

It is a mafia-tocracy though. People in small villages have to pay bribes at every level of contact with the police and the government.

The real solution is to get Mexico to reform it's power structure. I don't know how that can be accomplished, though. We've tried lending money and that doesn't work. Regime change is off the table.

[Matt Collins]

Why should the U.S. be the only country guilt-tripped for trying to control immigration?I think that's only part of it. The other two parts are those who are true globalists (Bush/Kerry/Fred Thompson etc), and those officials who are bought off by the big business lobby who likes the cheap labor.

Of course if we didn't have minimum wage laws (federal laws on this are unconstitutional), the market would determine what labor is worth and we wouldn't necessarily have millions of Mexicans trespassing to work for us. However since the government has intervened we have a black market for labor just like we have a black market for drugs.

[Matt Collins]

We want to look down on illegal immigrants for stealing our jobs, but we praise competition. As Michael Badnarik says it all comes down to property and property rights. In this case, the Mexicans do NOT have a right to our property, and when they cross our border without our permission, they are trespassing. And remember that open borders doesn't necessarily mean unsecured borders.


The American border is different than every other border in the world. Every other border describes the boundaries for which a government can force those with in it to succumb to authority. The United States border is philosophically supposed to be the boundary where the government can guarantee certain unalienable rights be secured for all men within it.Interesting point.

[Matt Collins]

The real solution is to get Mexico to reform it's power structure. I don't know how that can be accomplished, though. We've tried lending money and that doesn't work. Regeme change is off the table.It's up to the People of Mexico. Just like we can't force Iraqis to embrace a democratic republic, we can't do the same for Mexico either. Or for that matter, Vietnam, Chile, Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc...

Government and change has to come from the People.

[cjhowe]

As Michael Badnarik says it all comes down to property and property rights. In this case, the Mexicans do NOT have a right to our property, and when they cross our border without our permission, they are trespassing. And remember that open borders doesn't necessarily mean unsecured borders.


If that's the case, those that hire them invite them and those that trade with them invite them. There, they're no longer trespassing.

[MozoVote]

If that's the case, those that hire them invite them and those that trade with them invite them. There, they're no longer trespassing.

I do think that part of the problem is collectively, our own. If we cared more about our county, culture, and heritage, we would not hire illegals left and right to save a few bucks.

[Matt Collins]

If that's the case, those that hire them invite them and those that trade with them invite them. There, they're no longer trespassing.So you are telling me that if you sell a bag of sugar to your neighbor they then have a right to come into your house and eat your food and sleep in your bed? Trading with someone is an invitation to trespass?

[Matt Collins]

I do think that part of the problem is collectively, our own. If we cared more about our county, culture, and heritage, we would not hire illegals left and right to save a few bucks.As I've previously mentioned, the businesses wouldn't need to hire these illegals if the federal government didn't place restrictions on wage. But since the government tells someone what they can and cannot legally pay someone for work, then a black labor market has been created. Regulation is bad for the market plain and simple.

[cjhowe]

I do think that part of the problem is collectively, our own. If we cared more about our county, culture, and heritage, we would not hire illegals left and right to save a few bucks.

This is the part that I'm confused about. What problem are we discussing? Fellow man looking to earn and provide for his family is a problem?

What is grounded in our culture and in our heritage is the guarantee of the preservation of certain unalienable rights.

[MozoVote]

As I've previously mentioned, the businesses wouldn't need to hire these illegals if the federal government didn't place restrictions on wage. But since the government tells someone what they can and cannot legally pay someone for work, then a black labor market has been created. Regulation is bad for the market plain and simple.

I agree with that. I'm just saying that we should have exibited more backbone in our principles. I know hiring illegals indirectly adds to the problem of tempting more to arrive, so I don't. More people should just voluntarily do the same, rather than saving a few bucks in the black market.

[cjhowe]

So you are telling me that if you sell a bag of sugar to your neighbor they then have a right to come into your house and eat your food and sleep in your bed? Trading with someone is an invitation to trespass?

Your analogy doesn't quite hold up. Illegal immigrants are not eating your food or sleeping in your bed. They are eating their own food, that they pay for and sleeping in their own bed, that they pay for. If I sell sugar, then I am inviting patrons into my shop. If I hire you, I am inviting you into my place of employment.

[Matt Collins]

Your analogy doesn't quite hold up. Illegal immigrants are not eating your food or sleeping in your bed. They are eating their own food, that they pay for and sleeping in their own bed, that they pay for. If I sell sugar, then I am inviting patrons into my shop. If I hire you, I am inviting you into my place of employment.Perhaps not directly but I think the analogy is still valid when one looks at educational expenses, insurance expenses, and other resources that are drained. In other words our ERs can't turn them down, even if they can't pay for the treatment. So who ends up paying for it? We do in terms of higher taxes and higher insurance rates. More people here that shouldn't be are a strain and drain on our infrastructure that we paid for. So while they are not literally taking food out of my house, they are definitely spending my tax dollars.

[Matt Collins]

I know hiring illegals indirectly adds to the problem of tempting more to arrive, so I don't. More people should just voluntarily do the same, rather than saving a few bucks in the black market.Business is in business to make a profit; it's a fact of life. When labor is available, they need to find the lowest overhead of doing business so they can keep costs down. If they can't keep costs down they either have to go out of business or raise their prices. Getting the cheapest labor they can is one of their goals and when there is a supply of black market labor it's almost impossible to ignore it. I personally would never knowingly hire an illegal, but I have high morals/ethics etc.

There are a few fundamental problems:

We should've secured the border and not let them in to begin with
They should NOT be getting access to ANY government services
Government should not regulate the labor market (think minimum wage and worker regulation etc) because it causes a black market to develop
Businesses cannot be expected to verify immigration status of everyone they hire; it would raise the cost of good and services
The US can not and should not be turned into a police state where one can be forced to prove their citizenship upon demand.

[Man from La Mancha]

Compare the amount of Hatians and Cubans that build makeshift rafts to reach the US to the number of Mexicans that come over. Plus it's much easier to catch them at sea.


How would an employer know if they are hiring an illegal?

True it is easier to catch on water.

I said before a simple finger print that only, again say only identifies a person as being and USA resident with no other data attached to it. Then an employer would know.

[Matt Collins]

What is grounded in our culture and in our heritage is the guarantee of the preservation of certain unalienable rights.Including property rights. And Mexicans don't have any right to American property

[Man from La Mancha]

That's a lie. How many people do you know that have experimented with drugs or stolen music or movies through a P2P network. They are criminals as well, yet I would argue that no one from this forum would look down on them.

Ok jay walkers aren't look down upon but those who steal from us our health benefits, lowering our wages, accounting for 25 deaths a day, steal from our country treasury, lower our value of education, teach in CA schools propaganda , fill up our prisons,and on and on. These people are criminals that most 75% look down on. It's evident you don't live in CA. or you haven't had an illegal rape or kill someone you know

People in good parts of S.CA, have to wait for emergency waiting room because some illegal is there and draining money out of the hospitals.

Farmers would pay $20/hr instead hire scab illegals lowering wages because you don't want to pay for food grown buy Americans but slave labor.

100 of billions in welfare benefits to illegals

Schools having to subsidize and teach in spanish to illegals

Americans that can't be hired because they don't speak spanish.

12 Murders a day by illegals and 13 dui deaths a day caused by illegals

Half of all LA gang members are illegals. prisons with over 25% illegals

ECT,ECt,ECT!!

Crimianls. Legal Immigrants don't do this by far away a large degree.

[cjhowe]

Perhaps not directly but I think the analogy is still valid when one looks at educational expenses, insurance expenses, and other resources that are drained. In other words our ERs can't turn them down, even if they can't pay for the treatment. So who ends up paying for it? We do in terms of higher taxes and higher insurance rates. More people here that shouldn't be are a strain and drain on our infrastructure that we paid for. So while they are not literally taking food out of my house, they are definitely spending my tax dollars.

It is asinine to bring insurance into this discussion. Insurance is a vehicle to reduce your exposure to risk. That is it. Using insurance for anything beyond that is poor consumerism. Forcing employers to insure their workforce is poor policy and defeats suppresses your right to contract.

We use illegal immigration as a scapegoat for poor management (education and health care). Anti immigration people want to have it both ways. The fact of the matter is illegal immigrants are not stealing these services from us. They pay every tax that funds the social services you complain about.

Federal Income tax (Funds misc. services)? They don't make enough to owe any (or so the argument goes with their taking low wages).
SS and Medicare? Under no circumstance will they ever be a recipient of this service, why should they pay for it?
Property tax (Funds education)? They pay this tax through rent to a landlord.
Various Consumption Taxes? They consume, they pay these taxes.

Since they pay these taxes just like any American, alien status is an unjust way to determine who should receive these services. You can argue about the service existing, but you cannot argue they have a lesser entitlement compared to Americans in similar socio-economic status.

[cjhowe]

Including property rights. And Mexicans don't have any right to American property

There's the bigotry that underscores this debate. Is this about Mexicans or illegal immigrants? We seem more than content to offer the Chinese right to "American" property. Your ability to contract dictates your right to property in America. The ability to contract is the basis of a free market.

[SeanEdwards]

There's the bigotry that underscores this debate. Is this about Mexicans or illegal immigrants? We seem more than content to offer the Chinese right to "American" property. Your ability to contract dictates your right to property in America. The ability to contract is the basis of a free market.

It's not bigotry, it's a recognition of fact. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican nationals. When we have 20 million Chinese nationals here illegally, then maybe you'd have a point.

[cjhowe]

Ok jay walkers aren't look down upon but those who steal from us our health benefits, lowering our wages, accounting for 25 deaths a day, steal from our country treasury, lower our value of education, teach in CA schools propaganda , fill up our prisons,and on and on. These people are criminals that most 75% look down on. It's evident you don't live in CA. or you haven't had an illegal rape or kill someone you know


health benefits? why should your alien status determine your right to services?

lowering of wages? every individual is their own master in terms of the services they offer and the wage they accept. If the wage offered is unacceptable, the individual should find someone who values their contribution more. No one owes you anything.

accounting for 25 deaths per day? I have no idea what you're talking about here.

lower our value of education? Parents apathy is what is lowering our value of education. Treating schools like a day care is what is lowering our value of education. Being exposed to additional cultures enriches our education system and makes us more aware of the world in which we live.

fill our prisons? This is the result of an unconscionable war on drugs

rape and murder? These are violent crimes that need to be dealt with accordingly. Your alien status does not make you predisposed to these actions.



People in good parts of S.CA, have to wait for emergency waiting room because some illegal is there and draining money out of the hospitals.

How do you know they're illegals? Did you ask them for proof of citizenship or were they brown?

If an emergency room is unable to triage patients properly, this is poor management on the hospital's part. If there were no illegals, this problem would still be there.



Farmers would pay $20/hr instead hire scab illegals lowering wages because you don't want to pay for food grown buy Americans but slave labor.

No they wouldn't. If farmers had to pay $20/hr their crops would not be competitive in our grocery stores and the farmer would not exist.



100 of billions in welfare benefits to illegals


This is made up. Illegals are ineligible to receive federal welfare benefits. If they are receiving state and local welfare, the legislature of those localities are more than capable of deciding their values in distribution of welfare benefits.


Schools having to subsidize and teach in spanish to illegals
Americans that can't be hired because they don't speak spanish.

If that's a skill that is necessary to perform a job, the employee should meet that skill.



12 Murders a day by illegals and 13 dui deaths a day caused by illegals

Violent crime is violent crime and has nothing to do with someone's alien status.



Half of all LA gang members are illegals. prisons with over 25% illegals

This is the effect of an ill-advised war on drugs, not the assumption that your alien status makes you predisposed to crime.

[Matt Collins]

It is asinine to bring insurance into this discussion. Insurance is a vehicle to reduce your exposure to risk. When my insurance rates go up because the insurance companies end up paying more because the illegals are not insured, then it is absolutely relevant.


The fact of the matter is illegal immigrants are not stealing these services from us. They pay every tax that funds the social services you complain about.BULLSHIT! How many illegals do you think file tax returns? How many illegals properly register their vehicles? How many illegals have insurance?


They don't make enough to owe anyWe have no way of knowing that because they don't file! Yes I think the income tax should be abolished and it shouldn't be any business of the government's about one's income. However to say that all illegals dont owe income tax or SS / welfare etc is ludicrous.



Under no circumstance will they ever be a recipient of this service, why should they pay for it?Got news for ya, by that logic I shouldn't pay it in either. Im 25 and SS wont be around when I'm 70, guaranteed! Again, the SS program is unconstitutional to begin with, but some illegals do receive welfare which we all pay for and they don't.



Property tax (Funds education)? They pay this tax through rent to a landlord./QUOTE]Low rent taxes do not proportionally fund education. In other words the places illegals are most likely to live have such low value that their property tax liability doesn't offset the amount of children they have in the schools - not to mention that we have to all teach them English which costs more and takes longer.


[QUOTE=cjhowe;51309]Since they pay these taxes just like any American, alien status is an unjust way to determine who should receive these services. You can argue about the service existing, but you cannot argue they have a lesser entitlement compared to Americans in similar socio-economic status.They fundamentally don't have a right to be in the country on our property. They have trespassed and violated our property rights. Everything else is just a symptom of the root cause.

[Matt Collins]

There's the bigotry that underscores this debate. Is this about Mexicans or illegal immigrants? We seem more than content to offer the Chinese right to "American" property. Your ability to contract dictates your right to property in America. The ability to contract is the basis of a free market.There is no bigotry here. I grew up in Orlando one of the most diverse cities in the US. One of my best friends is Cuban, I am not bigoted. The fact is that the majority of the illegals in this country are Mexicans.

And I don't want Chinese to have my property either.

And you are right about contracts, but contracts are only valid between legal individuals. Not everyone is legally allowed to enter into a contract!

[Matt Collins]

health benefits? why should your alien status determine your right to services?Because we pay for it also, thus it's ours and not theirs. If they want services, they should stay in their country. It's all about property rights.



fill our prisons? This is the result of an unconscionable war on drugs True, but illegals are quickly becoming a large make up of our prison population. We should just deport them where they belong anyway.


If an emergency room is unable to triage patients properly, this is poor management on the hospital's part. If there were no illegals, this problem would still be there.If the place is operating near capacity, and then they get a 15% surge of people who are illegals, I would say that's the fault of the illegals, not poor management.



Violent crime is violent crime and has nothing to do with someone's alien status.No, but it often times relates to education and poverty status. The less illegals we have, the lower the overall violent crime.

[cjhowe]

When my insurance rates go up because the insurance companies end up paying more because the illegals are not insured, then it is absolutely relevant.


Insurance is ONLY a vehicle to defray financial risk. This is the root cause of our "health care crisis". Americans treat this vehicle as the care itself. If a financial vehicle to defray risk ends up costing as much or more than the underlying risk itself, to continue to purchase it is poor consumerism.



BULLSHIT! How many illegals do you think file tax returns? How many illegals properly register their vehicles? How many illegals have insurance?
We have no way of knowing that because they don't file! Yes I think the income tax should be abolished and it shouldn't be any business of the government's about one's income. However to say that all illegals dont owe income tax or SS / welfare etc is ludicrous.



This is the problem with the debate, here we have a libertarian leaning forum that predominantly believe that a free person should not HAVE to do any of those things. But when there is something that we want to abandon our principles, we will use those things which we abhor to support our positions.



Got news for ya, by that logic I shouldn't pay it in either. Im 25 and SS wont be around when I'm 70, guaranteed! Again, the SS program is unconstitutional to begin with, but some illegals do receive welfare which we all pay for and they don't.

Our laws should reflect our values, and it is likely that everyone in this forum is for legislation to allow young people to opt out of the SS program. However, illegal immigrants are ineligible to receive social security



Low rent taxes do not proportionally fund education. In other words the places illegals are most likely to live have such low value that their property tax liability doesn't offset the amount of children they have in the schools -

If I had 3 families living in my apartment and they were all American citizens, we would be eligible to send our kids to school even though we pay a disproportionate amount of property taxes and no one would bat an eye.



not to mention that we have to all teach them English which costs more and takes longer.

It is uniquely American that we are proud of our ignorance of language.



They fundamentally don't have a right to be in the country on our property. They have trespassed and violated our property rights. Everything else is just a symptom of the root cause.

I don't get this "our property" argument. The property that you own isn't my property, so by extension it is not "ours". If property rights are unalienable rights then they exist to ALL men, not just United States citizens.

[cjhowe]

There is no bigotry here. I grew up in Orlando one of the most diverse cities in the US. One of my best friends is Cuban, I am not bigoted. The fact is that the majority of the illegals in this country are Mexicans.

And I don't want Chinese to have my property either.

And you are right about contracts, but contracts are only valid between legal individuals. Not everyone is legally allowed to enter into a contract!

No one is trying to take "your" property. They're content purchasing or renting their own.

[Matt Collins]

No one is trying to take "your" property. They're content purchasing or renting their own.They are not permitted to be in the US, therefore they are violating property rights.

[Matt Collins]

delete this post

[Lord Xar]

This person uses various arguments/deflections and really just uses political views to validate assanine beliefs within the current structure. He tried the race card and failed and keeps going back to arguments that are baseless on a grand scale. He talks of rights, yet If you are not a citizen, you do not have rights here. ( we are not talking of human rights here. )

Secondly, if you do have rights and they infringe on others (who are citizens), you have problems. So, in this case you have non-citizens infringing on the rights of citizens.

I removed myself from talking with this fellow because he is not about reason, but about political intent. You could thrust a million statistics down his throat and he will not budge. You could tell him that more people die at the hand of illegal immigrants per year than soldiers we loose in Iraq/afghanastan combined, and he will say "americans kill americans too.. so what is your point?" or "It is uniquely American that we are proud of our ignorance of language..." As usual, not bearing the knowledge of the original argument, but a deflection because he does not have an answer.

So, put him on ignore. I actually think he is a schill here. I would even think he might be a full blown socialist and is actually gonna vote for Hillary.

[Matt Collins]

As usual, not bearing the knowledge of the original argument, but a deflection because he does not have an answer.
I've noticed that.

But I give him the benefit of the doubt because there are some libertarians (I am a libertarian too) who do believe that artificial borders are indeed necessary for liberty.

Libertarians often disagree on two major points:
- Immigration enforcement
- Abortion

I wanted to explore the immigration point as much as possible to try to understand it, but if what you said is correct, then he is apparently a troll.