PDA

View Full Version : HNN on RP on immigration




Bradley in DC
07-13-2007, 09:19 PM
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/40899.html

Liberty & Power blog

nullvalu
07-13-2007, 09:26 PM
These are human beings, with rights..

umm yeah, you probably got the first part right.. but the whole rights thing.. umm.. they're not american citizens.. they're here illegaly.. they're criminals.. they broke our laws.. they have no rights in our country.. I agree with Dr. Paul in his interview at google today. They need to go to the back of the line. I hope not he will rethink his position. my 2 cents.

LibertyEagle
07-13-2007, 09:38 PM
Dr. Paul is right. It is an INVASION.

richard1984
07-13-2007, 09:38 PM
I don't know that I would say that they have "no rights." They shouldn't have any opportunities here, though. They should have to be American citizens to get a job here. So we really need to crack down on employeers who hire illegal immigrants.
Just thought I'd tack that on.

nullvalu
07-13-2007, 09:44 PM
I don't know that I would say that they have "no rights."

You are correct, they have the right to go back to their country and to the back of the line.

You say they shouldn't have opportunities here. If they're here, and they have no opportunities --- i wouldn't even want to imagine that world.

richard1984
07-13-2007, 09:48 PM
You are correct, they have the right to go back to their country and to the back of the line.

I meant things like the right to life, and so forth.


You say they shouldn't have opportunities here. If they're here, and they have no opportunities --- i wouldn't even want to imagine that world.

I just don't think they would stay over here if they couldn't get jobs. Afterall, most of them (I imagine) are here to help provide for their families back home. Our country isn't their home. They're only here to make money. I guarantee you that most of them would rather be back home.

It's a really shitty situation for everyone.

Meistro1
07-13-2007, 10:02 PM
Why do you even have to say "people have to follow the laws"? Why would you reward people who sneak into your country, AT THE EXPENSE of those who seek to immigrate legally? I think legal immigration should be increased heavily, after the welfare state is abolished (and not before) but illegal immigration should always be cracked down on. The reason this is a big problem now is because when it was a little problem the government lacked the slight political will to handle it.

Lord Xar
07-14-2007, 01:02 AM
yeah.. sometimes I wonder if people really "think" about the problem. To me, they sound sora crackpotish... I mean, where do these people live? the backwaters of Vermont where they probably haven't seen an illegal yet.... anyways, Does anybody have that "article" they speak about in the blog in Liberty Magazine?

Lord Xar
07-14-2007, 01:10 AM
Why do you even have to say "people have to follow the laws"? Why would you reward people who sneak into your country, AT THE EXPENSE of those who seek to immigrate legally? I think legal immigration should be increased heavily, after the welfare state is abolished (and not before) but illegal immigration should always be cracked down on. The reason this is a big problem now is because when it was a little problem the government lacked the slight political will to handle it.

well, even legal immigration needs to be reduced ALOT.. go to you tube and view this video. VERY VERY informative. The video ONLY is talking about legal immigration, not the 20 million illegals already here, so watch that video with true understanding.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z2RKBxR3BTI

Capitalism
07-14-2007, 06:08 PM
umm yeah, you probably got the first part right.. but the whole rights thing.. umm.. they're not american citizens.. they're here illegaly.. they're criminals.. they broke our laws.. they have no rights in our country.. I agree with Dr. Paul in his interview at google today. They need to go to the back of the line. I hope not he will rethink his position. my 2 cents.

Humans have rights regardless of whether a government realizes them. I personally find it appalling that most people think they can control whom I associate with because of their place of birth. It's no different to me than people telling me which drugs I can use or which books I can read. As a libertarian, I find nothing special about people's birthplace or nationality.

I do think RP would take a different position on immigration in the absense of the welfare state, but I could be wrong.

ThePieSwindler
07-14-2007, 06:16 PM
Humans have rights regardless of whether a government realizes them. I personally find it appalling that most people think they can control whom I associate with because of their place of birth. It's no different to me than people telling me which drugs I can use or which books I can read. As a libertarian, I find nothing special about people's birthplace or nationality.

I do think RP would take a different position on immigration in the absense of the welfare state, but I could be wrong.

Yeah but welfare isn't a right. Its a government-created construct, and allowing illegals to have it puts a burden on states and taxpayers and hurts everyone but the illegal immigrants. Ron Paul himself has said that we probably wouldnt worry about immigration at all and would really welcome ALL immigrants with more open arms if we did not have a welfare state. I agree with this position.

Lord Xar
07-14-2007, 06:26 PM
Humans have rights regardless of whether a government realizes them. I personally find it appalling that most people think they can control whom I associate with because of their place of birth. It's no different to me than people telling me which drugs I can use or which books I can read. As a libertarian, I find nothing special about people's birthplace or nationality.

I do think RP would take a different position on immigration in the absense of the welfare state, but I could be wrong.

hmm. I understand what you are saying.. BUT you are not really analyzing the position. You are taking a belief and contrary to the effects upon that belief, you still hold true to it even though its not practical or its invalid.

You say "why should the government get in the way of people i associate with.."

1. By being here illegally they are infringing on my rights
2. Citizenship has its benefits. To be here, you 'should' be a citizen
3. If I assoicate with a bunch of crackheads and I make my home, my yard and my street a haven for crackheads... how would you feel?
4. Schools, hospitals, streets etc... are all being infringed on
5. My language in my school is being infringed upon
6. The crime in my city is up. Infringement on my rights as a citizen

The list goes on and on and on and on.... yet you hold true to the simple princple.. "I" have a right. "I" can determine...... "I" can do what I want. Sure, perhaps you can IN YOUR OWN HOME, and that is that.

Also, your principles are still not wholly valid because your belief in "I Have a right" is contingent on "us", the United States, living in this complete libertarian environment. We don't. So your belief is faulty within the contraints of the current system WHICH in turn renders the beliefs of libertarian inpractical UNTIL everybody or the sytem is on board.

Also, your idea of "associating with anyone" is even invalid on a very base level. They are not citizens. Citizenship is noted and validated in the constitution. If they(founding fathers) didn't believe in it (citizenship) and believed in your idea, then that point would of never been made even on such a base level. Simple as that. Your belief, it seems, stems from Anarchy and complete autonomy. That isn't liberty, and it isn't patriotic.

Capitalism
07-14-2007, 06:26 PM
Yeah but welfare isn't a right. Its a government-created construct, and allowing illegals to have it puts a burden on states and taxpayers and hurts everyone but the illegal immigrants. Ron Paul himself has said that we probably wouldnt worry about immigration at all and would really welcome ALL immigrants with more open arms if we did not have a welfare state. I agree with this position.

I never said welfare was a right. So I don't really see why I need other people's approval to hire someone from another country to work for me.

ThePieSwindler
07-14-2007, 06:35 PM
I never said welfare was a right. So I don't really see why I need other people's approval to hire someone from another country to work for me.

Right but, the big issue is the welfare state, and thats what Ron Paul talks about. In fact, hes the only one that really talks about it in relation to immigration. I personally wouldnt care at all about illegals if they didn't infringe upon welfare, schools, etc and basically didn't basically freeload off the government at the expense on citizens. They have no right to come here and use our services at our expense, without abiding by the rules that we have to.

Get rid of that, and if the illegals want to come here just to work, let em. But don't allow them to drain on society without having any legal recognition.

You are making pressuppositions that ignore the real issue, and delve into the realm of the theoretical. Thankfully, Ron realizes the REAL issue behind illegal immigration; mainly that it is subsidized by the existence of the welfare state.

On a purely theoretical level i do agree with you, and i don't think anyone besides actual nationalists, racists, and xenophobes would care as much about illegal immigration, because it would be self controlled, since only those who really wanted to work an contribute would come here, the freeloaders would come here and be even worse off than at home.

Capitalism
07-14-2007, 09:02 PM
hmm. I understand what you are saying.. BUT you are not really analyzing the position. You are taking a belief and contrary to the effects upon that belief, you still hold true to it even though its not practical or its invalid.

You say "why should the government get in the way of people i associate with.."

1. By being here illegally they are infringing on my rights

Which right? Are they initiating force on you? I'm not talking about the welfare whores. I'm talking about the ones who work.



2. Citizenship has its benefits. To be here, you 'should' be a citizen

Rights exist outside of government.


3. If I assoicate with a bunch of crackheads and I make my home, my yard and my street a haven for crackheads... how would you feel?

Well, like Ron Paul, I oppose the war on drugs. If you want to do crack with your buddies on your own property, fine by me. If you want to infringe on my property rights, then I will stop you. But being a hard-working person from another country is not anywhere close to being a crack head, so your point is moot.



4. Schools, hospitals, streets etc... are all being infringed on

Again, privatize, privatize, privatize. If immigrants are causing problems, then the problems still stem from the fac that these things are not private, and they should be. It makes no difference to me if I am robbed by an illegal immigrant or a person born here (whose parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were also born here - if that makes them acceptable Americans to you).


5. My language in my school is being infringed upon

You are still free to speak English.



6. The crime in my city is up. Infringement on my rights as a citizen

And crime in other cities is down. I have a friend in Houston, where crime has been going down for quite some time even with the expanding immigrant population. Poverty is usually the major factor in crime, and free markets do a lot to combat that. (the welfare state does not)



The list goes on and on and on and on.... yet you hold true to the simple princple.. "I" have a right. "I" can determine...... "I" can do what I want. Sure, perhaps you can IN YOUR OWN HOME, and that is that.

Yes, people like me who are concerned with their freedom often annoy people who aren't. I know.



Also, your principles are still not wholly valid because your belief in "I Have a right" is contingent on "us", the United States, living in this complete libertarian environment. We don't. So your belief is faulty within the contraints of the current system WHICH in turn renders the beliefs of libertarian inpractical UNTIL everybody or the sytem is on board.

No, my rights and the rights of others do not depend on the support of other people. Just because the government is screwing up everything does not mean people's rights are not valid. They are rights and not priviliges.



Also, your idea of "associating with anyone" is even invalid on a very base level. They are not citizens. Citizenship is noted and validated in the constitution. If they(founding fathers) didn't believe in it (citizenship) and believed in your idea, then that point would of never been made even on such a base level. Simple as that. Your belief, it seems, stems from Anarchy and complete autonomy. That isn't liberty, and it isn't patriotic.

Oh, then what is liberty? Doing whatever the government tells you to? Citizenship is noted in the Constitution; this is true. And the government is free to block all immigration, allow all of it, or anything in between. I never claimed that your position is not constitutional. I will admit that I am in favor of maximizing freedom under the Constitution, and I make no apologies for that.

Capitalism
07-14-2007, 09:07 PM
Right but, the big issue is the welfare state, and thats what Ron Paul talks about. In fact, hes the only one that really talks about it in relation to immigration. I personally wouldnt care at all about illegals if they didn't infringe upon welfare, schools, etc and basically didn't basically freeload off the government at the expense on citizens. They have no right to come here and use our services at our expense, without abiding by the rules that we have to.

Get rid of that, and if the illegals want to come here just to work, let em. But don't allow them to drain on society without having any legal recognition.

You are making pressuppositions that ignore the real issue, and delve into the realm of the theoretical. Thankfully, Ron realizes the REAL issue behind illegal immigration; mainly that it is subsidized by the existence of the welfare state.

On a purely theoretical level i do agree with you, and i don't think anyone besides actual nationalists, racists, and xenophobes would care as much about illegal immigration, because it would be self controlled, since only those who really wanted to work an contribute would come here, the freeloaders would come here and be even worse off than at home.

I am sympathetic to your argument, and this is why I still support Ron Paul despite my difference of opinion in this matter. However, I do not subscribe to the line of thought that says it is okay to limit everyone's freedom due to other limitations of freedom. In other words, rights are primary and come before economic cost-benefit analysis.

Lord Xar
07-14-2007, 09:41 PM
Which right? Are they initiating force on you? I'm not talking about the welfare whores. I'm talking about the ones who work.




Rights exist outside of government.



Well, like Ron Paul, I oppose the war on drugs. If you want to do crack with your buddies on your own property, fine by me. If you want to infringe on my property rights, then I will stop you. But being a hard-working person from another country is not anywhere close to being a crack head, so your point is moot.



Again, privatize, privatize, privatize. If immigrants are causing problems, then the problems still stem from the fac that these things are not private, and they should be. It makes no difference to me if I am robbed by an illegal immigrant or a person born here (whose parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were also born here - if that makes them acceptable Americans to you).



You are still free to speak English.




And crime in other cities is down. I have a friend in Houston, where crime has been going down for quite some time even with the expanding immigrant population. Poverty is usually the major factor in crime, and free markets do a lot to combat that. (the welfare state does not)



Yes, people like me who are concerned with their freedom often annoy people who aren't. I know.




No, my rights and the rights of others do not depend on the support of other people. Just because the government is screwing up everything does not mean people's rights are not valid. They are rights and not priviliges.




Oh, then what is liberty? Doing whatever the government tells you to? Citizenship is noted in the Constitution; this is true. And the government is free to block all immigration, allow all of it, or anything in between. I never claimed that your position is not constitutional. I will admit that I am in favor of maximizing freedom under the Constitution, and I make no apologies for that.

Okay, we can go back and forth and as usual, I will notice you selectively take quotes and then misrepresent them with a baseless 'gotcha argument'.

If "should" be able to hire anybody you want, as long - in my eyes, they are a citizen. Also, IF you reduce the welfare state and all its generous perks.. then its more likely you will be hiring an American for those of illegal status would then have to pay for their own insurance etc..... So really, at the seam of it all - your argument seems inconsequential, so I am not sure the nail you are trying to drive home.

Also, I am still a proponent that IF you are illegal, you shouldn't be here.. thus "illegal" -

My point about the crackheads was lost on you - so your rebuttal to it tells me where you are coming from.

I think all this "I", or "Me" or "Personal Rights" are all moot IF the thing you are interfacing with is illegal. Sorta a simple observation.

Capitalism
07-14-2007, 10:06 PM
Okay, we can go back and forth and as usual, I will notice you selectively take quotes and then misrepresent them with a baseless 'gotcha argument'.

If "should" be able to hire anybody you want, as long - in my eyes, they are a citizen. Also, IF you reduce the welfare state and all its generous perks.. then its more likely you will be hiring an American for those of illegal status would then have to pay for their own insurance etc..... So really, at the seam of it all - your argument seems inconsequential, so I am not sure the nail you are trying to drive home.

Also, I am still a proponent that IF you are illegal, you shouldn't be here.. thus "illegal" -

My point about the crackheads was lost on you - so your rebuttal to it tells me where you are coming from.

I think all this "I", or "Me" or "Personal Rights" are all moot IF the thing you are interfacing with is illegal. Sorta a simple observation.

"Illegal" does not always mean "immoral." For example, it is "illegal" to gamble in many places. This does not mean I think the government should use force against them. So I don't see why it is immoral for one person to want to travel to another country to work for a willing employer.

I haven't really read if you are willing to accept more legal immigration after the welfare state is crushed. All I see is that you want to reduce both legal and illegal immigration now.

DeadheadForPaul
07-14-2007, 10:07 PM
Immigration is a tough issue for me. If I was born in Mexico, you better believe that I would be coming over to the U.S. I often agree with the libertarian stance where one has freedom of movement

However, if we have open borders, what defines us as a country? What would be the point of having countries? Wouldn't this effectively end 'citizenship'? If citizenship was open to all, what would prevent people from coming to the U.S. and living off the entitlement/welfare system? Don't we need to worry about our national security? I think these issues are why I am for protecting the borders against ILLEGAL immigration.