Hazelton Pa anti illegal immigration struck down.

[PennCustom4RP]

I am watching CNN and hear that the effort in Hazelton Pa to make and enforce its anti illegal immigration laws has been struck down by the Local Court as Unconstitutional.
Mayor Lou Barletta states he will appeal and that this issue may make it to the US Supreme Court.
These laws were made because the Federal Govt does nothing to enforce laws already on the books.
Lou Dobbs will be addressing this issue on his show shortly.

[ChooseLiberty]

Probably funded by the ACLU.




I am watching CNN and hear that the effort in Hazelton Pa to make and enforce its anti illegal immigration laws has been struck down by the Local Court as Unconstitutional.
Mayor Lou Barletta states he will appeal and that this issue may make it to the US Supreme Court.
These laws were made because the Federal Govt does nothing to enforce laws already on the books.
Lou Dobbs will be addressing this issue on his show shortly.

[cjhowe]

You seriously think this ordinance was a good thing? It violates so many of your constitutional rights much less the constitutional rights of the illegal alien. These types of ordinances are a slippery slope. Next they'll want businesses to check warrant rosters before they do business with someone. This is a ridiculous notion. You want to punish people for who they associate with regardless of whether their association has anything to do with illegal acts.

[PennCustom4RP]

Yeah it was the ACLU, and they apparently have forgotten what the A in ACLU stands for...it stands for American...not Mexican, or any other illegal alien.

[ChooseLiberty]

Heaven forfend it should violate the RIGHTS OF THE ILLEGALS. LOL.

How about worrying about citizens rights first. Just wondering.

Actually businesses ARE supposed to check for legality before they employ someone. It's just that illegals all have fake papers.



You seriously think this ordinance was a good thing? It violates so many of your constitutional rights much less the constitutional rights of the illegal alien. These types of ordinances are a slippery slope. Next they'll want businesses to check warrant rosters before they do business with someone. This is a ridiculous notion. You want to punish people for who they associate with regardless of whether their association has anything to do with illegal acts.

[PennCustom4RP]

The ACLU lawyer Vic Walczak just told Lou Dobbs that the Federal Govts purpose was NOT to ensure its citizens security or safety...
If this is the case...WTF do we have a Governement, and why can't the States enforce laws that do this?

[ChooseLiberty]

Just shows how f'd up the ACLU is. That's the federal government's primary legitimate purpose.



The ACLU lawyer Vic Walczak just told Lou Dobbs that the Federal Govts purpose was NOT to ensure its citizens security or safety...
If this is the case...WTF do we have a Governement, and why can't the States enforce laws that do this?

[cjhowe]

The ACLU lawyer Vic Walczak just told Lou Dobbs that the Federal Govts purpose was NOT to ensure its citizens security or safety...
If this is the case...WTF do we have a Governement, and why can't the States enforce laws that do this?

Vic was correct. The purpose of the Federal Government is to protect ALL persons within its borders regardless of alien status.

[ChooseLiberty]

Citation? LOL.

Nice to have a ACLU supporting immigration lawyer on the Ron Paul board. Have you sent your maximum contribution to Dr. Paul's campaign yet?



Vic was correct. The purpose of the Federal Government is to protect ALL persons within its borders regardless of alien status.

[cjhowe]

Chief Justice Morrison Waite



"The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.'

[ChooseLiberty]

Is that the best you can do? :D



Chief Justice Morrison Waite

[cjhowe]

Citation? LOL.

Nice to have a ACLU supporting immigration lawyer on the Ron Paul board. Have you sent your maximum contribution to Dr. Paul's campaign yet?

I have sent the maximum for which my means allow. In addition libertarianism philosophy is pro-immigration. These ordinances run contrary to the rights of individuals to contract freely. Ron Paul has been vocal about his views on the issue. He hints at supporting the libertarian philosophy but that the federal government has put states in a awkward position by dictating who receives education and emergency medical services.

[cjhowe]

Is that the best you can do? :D

Declaration of Independence


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


Is this a game to you?

[ChooseLiberty]

Do you think a pure free market can exist between Mexico and the US?

Seems a little one sided to me. If it really opened up lots of sharp pencil types with accompanying capital from the US might move to Mexico and end up running the country since the US methods are more efficient. Instead the US gets the dregs of Mexican society. Nice.



I have sent the maximum for which my means allow. In addition libertarianism philosophy is pro-immigration. These ordinances run contrary to the rights of individuals to contract freely. Ron Paul has been vocal about his views on the issue. He hints at supporting the libertarian philosophy but that the federal government has put states in a awkward position by dictating who receives education and emergency medical services.

[ChooseLiberty]

Nope. Is it to you?


Declaration of Independence


Is this a game to you?

[cjhowe]

Do you think a pure free market can exist between Mexico and the US?

Seems a little one sided to me. If it really opened up lots of sharp pencil types with accompanying capital from the US might move to Mexico and end up running the country since the US methods are more efficient. Instead the US gets the dregs of Mexican society. Nice.

I believe a truly free market can exist between Mexico and the U.S. However, that is not the issue here. The issue is can a free market exist within the U.S. I am positive that a free market for labor can exist in the U.S. It's based entirely on the ability for the individual to contract. If you remove an individual's right to contract, through alien status ordinances or through minimum wage laws, or through forcing companies to provide health care to their employees, you end up stealing from taxpayers to provide welfare for those that are unable to demand minimum wage or health care in exchange for their labor. Free markets are humanitarian.

[PennCustom4RP]

Ron Paul has been vocal about his views on the issue. He hints at supporting the libertarian philosophy but that the federal government has put states in a awkward position by dictating who receives education and emergency medical services.

RP's position seems pretty clear to me...from the Issues page at www.ronpaul2008.com

Border Security and Immigration Reform

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

1 Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2 Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3 No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4 No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5 End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6 Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

This Judges ruling is contrary to the RP position, and will be struck down by the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Philadelphia

[ChooseLiberty]

Well, you got the "freedom to contract" words right.

Most illegals get employment because the employers don't have to follow the law and shift a large portion of illegals costs to the taxpayers. If employers followed the laws the price of illegals would increase to the employers and supply/demand would change. Illegals would lose their jobs and take the humanitarian road back to Mexico or where ever.

The employers freedom to contract with illegals is a fraud.


I believe a truly free market can exist between Mexico and the U.S. However, that is not the issue here. The issue is can a free market exist within the U.S. I am positive that a free market for labor can exist in the U.S. It's based entirely on the ability for the individual to contract. If you remove an individual's right to contract, through alien status ordinances or through minimum wage laws, or through forcing companies to provide health care to their employees, you end up stealing from taxpayers to provide welfare for those that are unable to demand minimum wage or health care in exchange for their labor. Free markets are humanitarian.

[cjhowe]

RP's position seems pretty clear to me...from the Issues page at www.ronpaul2008.com

Border Security and Immigration Reform

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

1 Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2 Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3 No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4 No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5 End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6 Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

This Judges ruling is contrary to the RP position, and will be struck down by the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Philadelphia

You're confusing several issues. What you're quoting is about naturalization and the rule of law. Alien status is about immigration, not naturalization. If it was about naturalization, they wouldn't be aliens.
In the debates RP said that if we didn't have an entitlement system, they wouldn't be the scapegoats, we would need them and they would be welcomed.

[cjhowe]

Well, you got the "freedom to contract" words right.

Most illegals get employment because the employers don't have to follow the law and shift a large portion of illegals costs to the taxpayers. If employers followed the laws the price of illegals would increase to the employers and supply/demand would change. Illegals would lose their jobs and take the humanitarian road back to Mexico or where ever.

The employers freedom to contract with illegals is a fraud.

I lost you somewhere. Are you in favor of the minimum wage? From wikipedia:



Freedom of contract is the idea that individuals should be free to bargain among themselves the terms of their own contracts, without government interference.

If this is the case, how are "costs" being pushed onto others?

[ChooseLiberty]

After this post I've got to go.

In the current situation the employers contract with illegals is also with the rest of the taxpayers since the illegals use all sorts of services that employers or illegals would generally have to pay for if they weren't illegal. Hospitals, schools, etc. "tragedy of the commons". The "contract" shifts costs to a party not consenting to the contract - taxpayers. If they are legalized with guest worker permits for instance their costs will be shifted back the employer/legal alien through min. wage or whatever and the price of hiring illegals will rise. The employers would see the true relative price of the legalized illegals and make different hiring decisions.

Theoretically, I'm in favor of applying the principles fairly across the board. If the US has open borders, Mexico must have open borders and similar property rights, criminal laws etc. If an employer wants to hire someone they must bear the same cost for all the people across the board and not be able to shift it to the taxpayers.

On a practical level - I agree with Dr. Paul.

www.ronpaullibrary.org



I lost you somewhere. Are you in favor of the minimum wage? From wikipedia:


If this is the case, how are "costs" being pushed onto others?

[cjhowe]

If you have time later, I'd like it if you could attempt to explain that again. I don't see how hiring an illegal to level your back 40 is passing anything onto taxpayers.

[PennCustom4RP]

You're confusing several issues. What you're quoting is about naturalization and the rule of law. Alien status is about immigration, not naturalization. If it was about naturalization, they wouldn't be aliens.
In the debates RP said that if we didn't have an entitlement system, they wouldn't be the scapegoats, we would need them and they would be welcomed.

No where in the entire RP position does it say one word about naturalization.
He states that the border must be physically secured, visa rules enforced, no amnesty, no welfare, no birth right, then reform.
You are the one that is confused.

[Bradley in DC]

Heaven forfend it should violate the RIGHTS OF THE ILLEGALS. LOL.

How about worrying about citizens rights first. Just wondering.

Actually businesses ARE supposed to check for legality before they employ someone. It's just that illegals all have fake papers.

Right, like us landlords and other Americans! The ordinance was way out of line.

[jorlowitz]

Good discussion here. It sounds like a classic dispute over theoretical optimality (free movement, free trade) and protectionist pragmatism ("we'll allow them freedom of movement once they accord us the same"). Ironically, these issues have often been resolved through means that have been so often dismissed on these forums: international organizations and trade agreements.

It is better for the economy overall if workers can seek and obtain jobs in the U.S. It would also be better the economy overall if there were no barriers to U.S. migration to and investment in Mexico. But, that is not the case, and onlookers are left to ask the question, whose economy? Is it better for average American workers to face a one-sided increase in mobility (Immigrants') without a simultaneous reciprocation on their part? I'm not sure what the answer to this question, but it seems clear to me that the issue will just swing back and forth from idealism to pragmatism unless there is one.

[cjhowe]

No where in the entire RP position does it say one word about naturalization.
He states that the border must be physically secured, visa rules enforced, no amnesty, no welfare, no birth right, then reform.
You are the one that is confused.

"no birth right citizenship" is viewpoint on naturalization.

naturalization defined: When a person acquires nationality of a state after birth. Citizenship of a foreign state acquired after birth is not naturalization.

physically secured - security issue
visa rules enforced - rule of law issue
no amnesty - rule of law issue
no welfare - state's rights issue/scope of government issue
no birth right - naturalization issue
then reform - immigration issue...he doesn't give a viewpoint here. However he did in the N.H. debate. "because of our economic conditions, we do need workers, but if we had a truly free market economy the illegal immigrants would not be the scapegoat. We would probably need them and they would be acceptable."

[cjhowe]

Good discussion here. It sounds like a classic dispute over theoretical optimality (free movement, free trade) and protectionist pragmatism ("we'll allow them freedom of movement once they accord us the same"). Ironically, these issues have often been resolved through means that have been so often dismissed on these forums: international organizations and trade agreements.

It is better for the economy overall if workers can seek and obtain jobs in the U.S. It would also be better the economy overall if there were no barriers to U.S. migration to and investment in Mexico. But, that is not the case, and onlookers are left to ask the question, whose economy? Is it better for average American workers to face a one-sided increase in mobility (Immigrants') without a simultaneous reciprocation on their part? I'm not sure what the answer to this question, but it seems clear to me that the issue will just swing back and forth from idealism to pragmatism unless there is one.



Welcome to the discussion, jorlowitz. I think the issue is a misunderstanding where people think they're being pragmatic when in fact they're being harmful. This is because of the counter-intuitiveness of the underlying economic principle. When we say "average worker" what we're talking about is standard of living. Yet we keep talking about an actual worker. Some X worker losing their job. His job (as if he had ownership of it) was shipped down to Mexico, or some illegal is doing it. Economics says that it doesn't matter. That displaced worker will either find another job requiring similar skills or he will improve his skills. It is the improvement of his skills that increases the standard of living for the average worker, not his ability to maintain particular employment.

When the U.S. and Mexico have truly free trade, it's best for both. But when the U.S. has truly free trade and Mexico does not, it is still better for both than if neither had free trade.

[BillyBeer]

If you have time later, I'd like it if you could attempt to explain that again. I don't see how hiring an illegal to level your back 40 is passing anything onto taxpayers.

You hire the illegal to build a retaining wall.

The illegal alien has no health insurance so he seeks medical care at government hospital with no intention of paying the bill.

The illegal alien brings his kid to the country. The kid attends public schools, qualifies for government health programs, federal loans, and on and on.

These are but a few examples of costs generated by undocumented labour that are passed onto taxpayers.

[BillyBeer]

When the U.S. and Mexico have truly free trade, it's best for both. But when the U.S. has truly free trade and Mexico does not, it is still better for both than if neither had free trade.

Your free trade fantasy land should happen a little bit after hell freezes over.

And no NAFTA is not free trade and is not better than the previous system. Free trade as it exists is not free, and will never be free. The faith in some sort of 100% pure international free trade is nothing more than idealistic poppycock.

[G-khan]

Vic was correct. The purpose of the Federal Government is to protect ALL persons within its borders regardless of alien status.

I can agree with that - can you agree that the Feds should enforce the laws they have now and protect our borders?

[BillyBeer]

I can agree with that - can you agree that the Feds should enforce the laws they have now and protect our borders?

I am waiting for some kind of economic Utopia argument where all decisions are rational, there is free movement of people across borders, free trade everywhere, and unfettered free markets everywhere.

[cjhowe]

You hire the illegal to build a retaining wall.

The illegal alien has no health insurance so he seeks medical care at government hospital with no intention of paying the bill.

The illegal alien brings his kid to the country. The kid attends public schools, qualifies for government health programs, federal loans, and on and on.

These are but a few examples of costs generated by undocumented labour that are passed onto taxpayers.

The ONLY federal welfare that illegal aliens qualify for is emergency room health care. The loans you talk about, they don't qualify because of their status. The food program, that's a state's issue and they can decide what the requirements for aid is. Almost all school districts receive their primary funding through property taxes. If they are residents of that district, they have paid that tax regardless of their alien status.



Your free trade fantasy land should happen a little bit after hell freezes over.

And no NAFTA is not free trade and is not better than the previous system. Free trade as it exists is not free, and will never be free. The faith in some sort of 100% pure international free trade is nothing more than idealistic poppycock.

I've never suggested that NAFTA is free trade. Go study economics. Free trade dictates that those offering free trade benefit through a higher standard of living, regardless of who cheats at trade, provided it is actually trade and not theft.


I can agree with that - can you agree that the Feds should enforce the laws they have now and protect our borders?

I personally see the Fed's enforcement of the border as a purely security action. Their role is not for the regulation of the ethnic mix of our country. If someone comes to our borders and does not pose a threat to life, liberty or property (same as you or I) they should not be turned away.

[McDermit]

The ONLY federal welfare that illegal aliens qualify for is emergency room health care. The loans you talk about, they don't qualify because of their status. The food program, that's a state's issue and they can decide what the requirements for aid is. Almost all school districts receive their primary funding through property taxes. If they are residents of that district, they have paid that tax regardless of their alien status.

Hazleton's welfare office has a line that begins outside of the building on any given day. And personally knowing some of the individuals (illegals) recieving welfare and food stamps, I guarantee you that a fair percentage have fake documents.

If you had ever been in a hospital in Hazleton, you'd have a problem with the number of illegals receiving free health care as well. The city doesn't have the resources to care for all of the illegals that are coming in. One of our two hospitals closed it's doors last year. And just this week, the free clinic has been forced to close it's doors. A few months ago when my sister broke her leg, we sat in a hospital waiting room for 9 hours before seeing a doctor. And then we were there another 4 hours before she was finally casted and sent home.

And if you think they pay school/property taxes, I want some of whatever it is you've been drinking! The illegals, for the most part, aren't buying homes and working jobs on the up and up. If they're working, most are being paid under the table. Most deal drugs, recieve welfare/foodstamps, or live off of their friends/family and live 10 to an apartment in HUD housing. There's no tax money being collected from them, that's for sure.

Going to argue? I LIVE HERE. I just moved 2 months ago, but I used to live next to an apartment building that was inhabited soley by illegals. The "manager" is leasing the entire building and sublets the units. He basically provides temp housing for other illegals coming into town. I see the vans coming and going, with a dozen of them piled in. Every time I caught a glimpse of their living rooms when the doors were left open, I saw the mattresses covering the floor (they push them up against the walls during the day.) I work from home, so I knew that most of them were also home all day and most of the night. Certainly not working. And there were at least a dozen new faces every two weeks.

I'd reported them to the police whenever I saw drugs coming and going or there was fighting outside, and 14 illegals were arrested in the building during the year that I lived next door. In addition, I was jumped/mugged twice trying to get from my apt to my car, my girlfriend's car was stolen from our driveway, and my apartment was broken into while I lived there. My mail (packages, checks, credit cards) was regularly stolen as well.. to the point that I started having things sent to my girlfriend's house instead.

The illegals came in and turned the city upside down. Regardless of whether the ordinance was poorly worded or punished the wrong people, I will certainly never hold it against Mayor Lou for trying to take back the city he loves. I was one of few Hispanics that were born and raised in Hazleton, and it used to be a place I was proud to call home. But now the illegals have given us all a bad name.

[PennCustom4RP]

Stand firm McDermit, this is far from over.

btw...since you're there in Hazleton...get Ron Paul info to Mayor Barletta, it would be great to have him in the fold!

[ChooseLiberty]

Are you making a legal, economic or social argument?

Try to come up with a definition of "free market". It's an idealized concept. Or you could just post a link to whatever you've been reading.

Simple example - you're out with a friend in the park - a man carrying a holstered gun walks up and offers to sell him a new Mercedes while you have momentarily gone to Starbucks. You're friend says he only has $5, but the man can get an unspecified remainder from you when you get back from Starbucks. The man agrees and transfers ownership of the car to your friend. Your friend takes off in the car and when you get back the man is waiting on you for the rest of the money. You don't want to pay, but the man pulls the gun, gets your wallet and tells you he'll need more money later for an indeterminate period of time. You have no recourse. Your friend thinks he has made a free market transaction.

Another - you have just purchased a house to live in. After you move in the owner of the house next door decides to turn it into a crack house for criminally insane ax murderers. This is illegal but the police will not enforce the law. The price of your house drops by 50% overnight. You ask your neighbor to change his house back but your neighbor answers - free market!




If you have time later, I'd like it if you could attempt to explain that again. I don't see how hiring an illegal to level your back 40 is passing anything onto taxpayers.

[ChooseLiberty]

Interesting.


Hazleton's welfare office has a line that begins outside of the building on any given day. And personally knowing some of the individuals (illegals) recieving welfare and food stamps, I guarantee you that a fair percentage have fake documents.

If you had ever been in a hospital in Hazleton, you'd have a problem with the number of illegals receiving free health care as well. The city doesn't have the resources to care for all of the illegals that are coming in. One of our two hospitals closed it's doors last year. And just this week, the free clinic has been forced to close it's doors. A few months ago when my sister broke her leg, we sat in a hospital waiting room for 9 hours before seeing a doctor. And then we were there another 4 hours before she was finally casted and sent home.

And if you think they pay school/property taxes, I want some of whatever it is you've been drinking! The illegals, for the most part, aren't buying homes and working jobs on the up and up. If they're working, most are being paid under the table. Most deal drugs, recieve welfare/foodstamps, or live off of their friends/family and live 10 to an apartment in HUD housing. There's no tax money being collected from them, that's for sure.

Going to argue? I LIVE HERE. I just moved 2 months ago, but I used to live next to an apartment building that was inhabited soley by illegals. The "manager" is leasing the entire building and sublets the units. He basically provides temp housing for other illegals coming into town. I see the vans coming and going, with a dozen of them piled in. Every time I caught a glimpse of their living rooms when the doors were left open, I saw the mattresses covering the floor (they push them up against the walls during the day.) I work from home, so I knew that most of them were also home all day and most of the night. Certainly not working. And there were at least a dozen new faces every two weeks.

I'd reported them to the police whenever I saw drugs coming and going or there was fighting outside, and 14 illegals were arrested in the building during the year that I lived next door. In addition, I was jumped/mugged twice trying to get from my apt to my car, my girlfriend's car was stolen from our driveway, and my apartment was broken into while I lived there. My mail (packages, checks, credit cards) was regularly stolen as well.. to the point that I started having things sent to my girlfriend's house instead.

The illegals came in and turned the city upside down. Regardless of whether the ordinance was poorly worded or punished the wrong people, I will certainly never hold it against Mayor Lou for trying to take back the city he loves. I was one of few Hispanics that were born and raised in Hazleton, and it used to be a place I was proud to call home. But now the illegals have given us all a bad name.

[cjhowe]

Are you making a legal, economic or social argument?

Try to come up with a definition of "free market". It's an idealized concept. Or you could just post a link to whatever you've been reading.

Simple example - you're out with a friend in the park - a man carrying a holstered gun walks up and offers to sell him a new Mercedes while you have momentarily gone to Starbucks. You're friend says he only has $5, but the man can get an unspecified remainder from you when you get back from Starbucks. The man agrees and transfers ownership of the car to your friend. Your friend takes off in the car and when you get back the man is waiting on you for the rest of the money. You don't want to pay, but the man pulls the gun, gets your wallet and tells you he'll need more money later for an indeterminate period of time. You have no recourse. Your friend thinks he has made a free market transaction.

What the hell are you talking about? Regardless of what the your friend thinks, he's committed fraud. Regardless of what the salesman thinks, he's committing armed robbery. How this has anything to do with hiring illegals is beyond me.


Another - you have just purchased a house to live in. After you move in the owner of the house next door decides to turn it into a crack house for criminally insane ax murderers. This is illegal but the police will not enforce the law. The price of your house drops by 50% overnight. You ask your neighbor to change his house back but your neighbor answers - free market!

Again, how this has anything to do with illegal immigration is beyond me. However, the solution to your issue here is the 1) the legalization of drugs and 2) zoning regulations. This will put the sale of drugs into stores and not in neighborhoods.

[cjhowe]

Hazleton's welfare office has a line that begins outside of the building on any given day. And personally knowing some of the individuals (illegals) recieving welfare and food stamps, I guarantee you that a fair percentage have fake documents.

Immigration is a federal issue, food stamp welfare is a state's issue. However a state wants to distribute it's welfare, is up to that state. At the same time, I'm not condoning fraud.

Regardless of what social problems you have here, dictating who a business can trade with is a dangerous path that goes against the citizen's constitutional rights. This violates due process. You are requiring a business to discriminate against an individual who hasn't even been charged with a crime, much less been convicted of a crime.



If you had ever been in a hospital in Hazleton, you'd have a problem with the number of illegals receiving free health care as well. The city doesn't have the resources to care for all of the illegals that are coming in. One of our two hospitals closed it's doors last year. And just this week, the free clinic has been forced to close it's doors.
A few months ago when my sister broke her leg, we sat in a hospital waiting room for 9 hours before seeing a doctor. And then we were there another 4 hours before she was finally casted and sent home.

It's called triage. While your sister may have been uncomfortable she wasn't a priority.


And if you think they pay school/property taxes, I want some of whatever it is you've been drinking! The illegals, for the most part, aren't buying homes and working jobs on the up and up. If they're working, most are being paid under the table. Most deal drugs, recieve welfare/foodstamps, or live off of their friends/family and live 10 to an apartment in HUD housing. There's no tax money being collected from them, that's for sure.

Going to argue? I LIVE HERE. I just moved 2 months ago, but I used to live next to an apartment building that was inhabited soley by illegals. The "manager" is leasing the entire building and sublets the units. He basically provides temp housing for other illegals coming into town. I see the vans coming and going, with a dozen of them piled in. Every time I caught a glimpse of their living rooms when the doors were left open, I saw the mattresses covering the floor (they push them up against the walls during the day.) I work from home, so I knew that most of them were also home all day and most of the night. Certainly not working. And there were at least a dozen new faces every two weeks.

I'd reported them to the police whenever I saw drugs coming and going or there was fighting outside, and 14 illegals were arrested in the building during the year that I lived next door. In addition, I was jumped/mugged twice trying to get from my apt to my car, my girlfriend's car was stolen from our driveway, and my apartment was broken into while I lived there. My mail (packages, checks, credit cards) was regularly stolen as well.. to the point that I started having things sent to my girlfriend's house instead.

The illegals came in and turned the city upside down. Regardless of whether the ordinance was poorly worded or punished the wrong people, I will certainly never hold it against Mayor Lou for trying to take back the city he loves. I was one of few Hispanics that were born and raised in Hazleton, and it used to be a place I was proud to call home. But now the illegals have given us all a bad name.

Drugs are not an illegal immigration issue. It's a drug law issue. The law creates this problem. Tossing out all of the illegals doesn't get rid of the problem. As far as people living a transient lifestyle and sleeping many people to a room...Who are you to tell someone how they should sleep and live?

People with the anti-immigration viewpoint want to point to all of the problems that "illegals" are a part of, but they don't want to address the reason why the problem exists.

Healthcare is a problem of over regulation. Over regulation reduces the amount of ingenuity that can take place in a market.

Drugs are a problem of over regulation. Prohibition doesn't work, we have to admit it. Where there is demand, the market will provide a supply. You're never going to eliminate the demand for drugs.

Governments are inept at regulating things. Creating quotas on immigration from specific countries is the government attempting to regulate the labor market. The market is best at regulating the labor market.

[ChooseLiberty]

You're obviously unable to respond. Seems I overestimated your abilities. My bad.

Good luck with your La Raza job application. :D



What the hell are you talking about? Regardless of what the your friend thinks, he's committed fraud. Regardless of what the salesman thinks, he's committing armed robbery. How this has anything to do with hiring illegals is beyond me.


Again, how this has anything to do with illegal immigration is beyond me. However, the solution to your issue here is the 1) the legalization of drugs and 2) zoning regulations. This will put the sale of drugs into stores and not in neighborhoods.

[Lord Xar]

Vic was correct. The purpose of the Federal Government is to protect ALL persons within its borders regardless of alien status.

That is not true. You are twisting things to validate your own beliefs.

Illegal immigration IS wrong. Period.

Now, if the Federal government is NOT doing its job, what happens?

You are obviously missing something because you suggests these rights are equal, they are not.

By virtue of the illegal immigrants massive influx, the citzens of the United States are havning their rights and sovereignty distinguished.

[Lord Xar]

The ONLY federal welfare that illegal aliens qualify for is emergency room health care. The loans you talk about, they don't qualify because of their status. The food program, that's a state's issue and they can decide what the requirements for aid is. Almost all school districts receive their primary funding through property taxes. If they are residents of that district, they have paid that tax regardless of their alien status.




I've never suggested that NAFTA is free trade. Go study economics. Free trade dictates that those offering free trade benefit through a higher standard of living, regardless of who cheats at trade, provided it is actually trade and not theft.



I personally see the Fed's enforcement of the border as a purely security action. Their role is not for the regulation of the ethnic mix of our country. If someone comes to our borders and does not pose a threat to life, liberty or property (same as you or I) they should not be turned away.

You have made these SAME arguments before and you are flat out wrong. My brother is a fireman and illegal immigrants ARE GETTING welfare. They are also pushing black americans out of HUD housing. There are sooo many examples.

Do you have your head in the sand?

[cjhowe]

You have made these SAME arguments before and you are flat out wrong. My brother is a fireman and illegal immigrants ARE GETTING welfare. They are also pushing black americans out of HUD housing. There are sooo many examples.

Do you have your head in the sand?

Since 1996, Illegal immigrants are barred from the following federal public benefits: grants, contracts, loans, licenses, retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, post secondary education, food assistance, and unemployment benefits. States are barred from providing state or locally funded benefits to illegal immigrants unless a state law is enacted granting such authority.

It sure seems HUD falls under public or assisted housing. So either your brother, the fireman, thinks that simply being brown is illegal, they're not receiving aid, or they are receiving aid through fraud. I'm not condoning fraud. If people are committing fraud, they should be held accountable for that. The fact of the matter is illegal immigrants are ineligible for federal welfare.

[McDermit]

Three times I've typed up a response, and each time, I get logged out and lose it when I attempt to post.

I'm giving up.



But I will say that I still stand 100% behind what Lou's trying to do in Hazleton. Although the English as an Official Language ordinance was an unnecessary slap in the face, I fail to see how any other portion of the IIRA/Landlord Tenant Ordinance is discriminatory.

[cjhowe]

That is not true. You are twisting things to validate your own beliefs.

Illegal immigration IS wrong. Period.

Now, if the Federal government is NOT doing its job, what happens?

You are obviously missing something because you suggests these rights are equal, they are not.

By virtue of the illegal immigrants massive influx, the citzens of the United States are havning their rights and sovereignty distinguished.

Governments are created among men in order to protect rights, not to grant them. This ordinance in Hazelton is an attempt to recognize that the government grants the right to do trade. In addition, the manner in which it attempts to grant this right is in direct violation of due process. Hazelton is attempting to tell businesses that they cannot contract with people who have yet to be charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. This is no different than telling a landlord that he cannot rent to men who owe back child support or to people suspected of having ever used illegal narcotics.

We have a disagreement on illegal immigration. That is fine. My issue with Hazelton is about protecting my rights.

[cjhowe]

Three times I've typed up a response, and each time, I get logged out and lose it when I attempt to post.

I'm giving up.




fyi: even when you get logged out while posting a message, after completing the login screen your message still gets posted

[PennCustom4RP]

My issue with Hazelton is about protecting my rights.
CJ as you are an American citizen, and as this is a City ordinance, a city that you don't live in, no where near, your rights are not in jeopardy. This is an Illegal Immigrant ordinance, something you are not. Same as how the Gay Marriage Issue doesn't apply to you...or maybe...:D

[cjhowe]

CJ as you are an American citizen, and as this is a City ordinance, a city that you don't live in, no where near, your rights are not in jeopardy. This is an Illegal Immigrant ordinance, something you are not.

The law violates due process. Regardless of whether it affects me personally, it is against our constitution. If the federal government is unable to protect the rights of the people in Hazelton, Pa, how can I expect them to protect mine in Texas?



Same as how the Gay Marriage Issue doesn't apply to you...or maybe...:D

Do you really want to start an ad hominem dialogue surrounding this issue? You've provided me enough truthful statements about yourself to make your arguments biased, bigoted and invalid that I can recite if you wish. I've stayed on the issue and principle on this topic. Please do the same.

[McDermit]

Governments are created among men in order to protect rights, not to grant them. This ordinance in Hazelton is an attempt to recognize that the government grants the right to do trade. In addition, the manner in which it attempts to grant this right is in direct violation of due process. Hazelton is attempting to tell businesses that they cannot contract with people who have yet to be charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. This is no different than telling a landlord that he cannot rent to men who owe back child support or to people suspected of having ever used illegal narcotics.

We have a disagreement on illegal immigration. That is fine. My issue with Hazelton is about protecting my rights.

Maybe you can explain this so it makes sense to me. How, exactly, is any discrimination ocurring, and how is due process being violated?

The Ordinance requires all employers to verify the status of their workers. It is already illegal to employ illegal aliens. Businesses are already required to obtain their ID and working papers. The IIRA goes a step further in that it implements a system by which employers can be held accountable. There is a system by which complaints can be filed, and those found to be soley based on race/nationality will not be considered valid. Employers will be penalized if they knowingly employ illegals. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see, since the federal government already has the right to fine employers for hiring illegals.

Similarly, the Landlord Tenant Ordinance penalizes only those who knowingly rent to illegals. It establishes a system by which all multi-unit rental occupants are required to register with the city. Same rules for all renters, not just Hispanics. And it gives the city the ability to penalize landlords who knowingly disregard the laws. Harboring an illegal is already a federal crime. Letting 20 of them pile into a one bedroom apartment every night sure sounds like harboring to me. Why shouldn't landlords be penalized for it?


Opponents make it sound like city officials will go around punishing everyone who rents to or employs Hispanics. People cry out about how unfair it is to the single illegal immigrant mom and her 2 babies who will be forced out of their home. But that isn't the case at all. No one is about to go door to door checking papers, but when an obvious problem exists (ie: the abundance of apartments being used as temporary housing for illegals, the companies bringing in vans full of illegals after firing their old time American workers, etc.) at least the city would have a means to combat it.

[angelatc]

fyi: even when you get logged out while posting a message, after completing the login screen your message still gets posted

Also, be sure to click the "Remember me" box. It won't (at least it doesn't for me) actually remember you if you close your browser, but it will keep you logged in long enough to post.

[cjhowe]

Maybe you can explain this so it makes sense to me. How, exactly, is any discrimination ocurring, and how is due process being violated?

The Ordinance requires all employers to verify the status of their workers. It is already illegal to employ illegal aliens. Businesses are already required to obtain their ID and working papers. The IIRA goes a step further in that it implements a system by which employers can be held accountable. There is a system by which complaints can be filed, and those found to be soley based on race/nationality will not be considered valid. Employers will be penalized if they knowingly employ illegals. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see, since the federal government already has the right to fine employers for hiring illegals.


This part doesn't concern me so much, except for the fact that all complaints will be based solely on ethnicity. How else did the suspicion of their alien status come up? It's de facto discrimination based on ethnicity.



Similarly, the Landlord Tenant Ordinance penalizes only those who knowingly rent to illegals. It establishes a system by which all multi-unit rental occupants are required to register with the city. Same rules for all renters, not just Hispanics. And it gives the city the ability to penalize landlords who knowingly disregard the laws. Harboring an illegal is already a federal crime. Letting 20 of them pile into a one bedroom apartment every night sure sounds like harboring to me. Why shouldn't landlords be penalized for it?


Any time your name has to be on a roster in order to be able to do something, the maker of the roster is claiming to be the granter of the rights. Government is not the granter of the right to trade. This belief can be seen by those who ascribe to the apocalypse, fearing the mark of the beast. The prophesy that you will not be able to trade unless you have the mark of the beast. I do not ascribe to that theory, simply showing that that the ideal that government is not the granter of the right to trade is well rooted.

It is understood that the government, while not the granter of rights, can take rights away. This must be done through due process. Since the illegal immigrant has never been charged with the crime of illegal immigration, nor convicted of illegal immigration, the government cannot take this right away. Likewise, the landlord's rights to trade cannot be taken away without due process.



Opponents make it sound like city officials will go around punishing everyone who rents to or employs Hispanics. People cry out about how unfair it is to the single illegal immigrant mom and her 2 babies who will be forced out of their home. But that isn't the case at all. No one is about to go door to door checking papers, but when an obvious problem exists (ie: the abundance of apartments being used as temporary housing for illegals, the companies bringing in vans full of illegals after firing their old time American workers, etc.) at least the city would have a means to combat it.

Temporary housing is not illegal. Sleeping 20 people to a room is not illegal (provided it doesn't jeopardize health; sanitation). Being brown is not illegal. There is no probable cause for the the landlord to doubt someone's alien status, so what are you combating?

[PennCustom4RP]

Do you really want to start an ad hominem dialogue surrounding this issue? You've provided me enough truthful statements about yourself to make your arguments biased, bigoted and invalid that I can recite if you wish. I've stayed on the issue and principle on this topic. Please do the same.

1. I was teasing you as I have no clue nor care about your orientation, was only stating that the Hazleton issue applies to you as much as the Marriage issue. Whereas this issue in Hazleton does apply to me as I am from that area, 25 miles away, own property there, have family there.

2. you can say whatever you like about me, true, false or otherwise...

[McDermit]

This part doesn't concern me so much, except for the fact that all complaints will be based solely on ethnicity. How else did the suspicion of their alien status come up? It's de facto discrimination based on ethnicity.


Any time your name has to be on a roster in order to be able to do something, the maker of the roster is claiming to be the granter of the rights. Government is not the granter of the right to trade. This belief can be seen by those who ascribe to the apocalypse, fearing the mark of the beast. The prophesy that you will not be able to trade unless you have the mark of the beast. I do not ascribe to that theory, simply showing that that the ideal that government is not the granter of the right to trade is well rooted.

It is understood that the government, while not the granter of rights, can take rights away. This must be done through due process. Since the illegal immigrant has never been charged with the crime of illegal immigration, nor convicted of illegal immigration, the government cannot take this right away. Likewise, the landlord's rights to trade cannot be taken away without due process.



Temporary housing is not illegal. Sleeping 20 people to a room is not illegal (provided it doesn't jeopardize health; sanitation). Being brown is not illegal. There is no probable cause for the the landlord to doubt someone's alien status, so what are you combating?If I live next door to a one or two bedroom apartment with 20 people living in it, it's going to raise suspicions. It's not just 20 people crashing for a few nights, but rather 20 people, often different people, living there EVERY day, none or few seeming to be working, or all going to work together crammed into a single vehicle. Come on now, how else can you explain it? Stereotypical, sure.. but there's nothing discriminatory about it when it's plain as day.

As it stand now in Hazleton, when you see suspicious/illegal activity (regarding illegal aliens,) it gets reported he mto the police or the mayor and nothing happens. DHS/BICE/FBI hardly ever shows up. Maybe 3 locals get deported per year. The ordinance would give the city the power to do something, even when the federal govt refuses. I don't really understand why people have a problem with that.

And temporary housing isn't allowed in a building zoned as a residential apartment. 20 people sleeping in a one bedroom apartment is a code violation. Harboring illegal aliens is a crime.


The landlord isn't being fined until after the occupant's status is verified as illegal. Same with employers. No action is taken until after a violation has been proven to have ocurred. How is that not due process?

[PennCustom4RP]

This part doesn't concern me so much, except for the fact that all complaints will be based solely on ethnicity. How else did the suspicion of their alien status come up? It's de facto discrimination based on ethnicity.

McDermit stated in his original post on this topic that he is an American Born Hispanic. Is he complaining that he is being harassed due to ethnicity? No he isn't, he is complaining about illegal immigrants pilfering his city, making he and his family feel unsafe.



Any time your name has to be on a roster in order to be able to do something, the maker of the roster is claiming to be the granter of the rights. Government is not the granter of the right to trade.
This is not true in entirety either, the Govt does grant the 'right' to trade through occupational permits, licensing, diplomas and certification, e.g. you can't practice medicine without a medical degree.


It is understood that the government, while not the granter of rights, can take rights away.This must be done through due process.
Hazleton did not pluck these ordinances from the air, they were voted on and passed by this city's legislative body.

Since the illegal immigrant has never been charged with the crime of illegal immigration, nor convicted of illegal immigration, the government cannot take this right away. Likewise, the landlord's rights to trade cannot be taken away without due process.

The Authorities have the duty to investigate, and find evidence pursuant to a crime. Asking a person questions is not the same as arresting them, and they have the Right to Remain Silent. If this person of interest becomes a suspect, further evidence is gathered to see whether they have indeed committed a crime, if so, charged, if not released. This is how its done for Americans, why not Illegal Immigrants? The illegal immigrant HAS committed a crime, and when evidence of this is gathered, he will be charged.
You cannot use circular rhetoric find your position. What you're saying equates to is a crime hasn't been committed because no one has been charged with the crime. I guess in your eyes, murderers are not murderers because they have yet to be caught.



Sleeping 20 people to a room is not illegal (provided it doesn't jeopardize health; sanitation).
20 to a room not illegal, but 20 to a boxcar would be? I fail to see the difference. We can't have the pesky Health and Sanitation people snooping around. Consider this, the average prison cell is 5x9 feet, if the Govt thought smaller would be ok, they would be.

Being brown is not illegal. There is no probable cause for the the landlord to doubt someone's alien status, so what are you combating?
With most legitimate rental agreements, a Social Security number is required, and a credit card too, as the landlord needs to protect his property from vandalism, non payment etc. Not having such, as an illegal wouldn't, would be probable cause for a landlord to question their status.
Only the shady slumlords overlook these requirements.

[PennCustom4RP]

And temporary housing isn't allowed in a building zoned as a residential apartment. 20 people sleeping in a one bedroom apartment is a code violation. Harboring illegal aliens is a crime.


The landlord isn't being fined until after the occupant's status is verified as illegal. Same with employers. No action is taken until after a violation has been proven to have ocurred. How is that not due process?

EXACTLY

[cjhowe]

If I live next door to a one or two bedroom apartment with 20 people living in it, it's going to raise suspicions. It's not just 20 people crashing for a few nights, but rather 20 people, often different people, living there EVERY day, none or few seeming to be working, or all going to work together crammed into a single vehicle. Come on now, how else can you explain it? Stereotypical, sure.. but there's nothing discriminatory about it when it's plain as day.

Stereotype: Biased generalizations about a group based on hearsay, opinions, and distorted, preconceived ideas.
All of what you bring up is a stereotype. None of it is evidence or suspicion of the occurrence of a crime. Stereotyping is discrimination!



As it stand now in Hazleton, when you see suspicious/illegal activity (regarding illegal aliens,) it gets reported he mto the police or the mayor and nothing happens. DHS/BICE/FBI hardly ever shows up. Maybe 3 locals get deported per year. The ordinance would give the city the power to do something, even when the federal govt refuses. I don't really understand why people have a problem with that.

Illegal alien is a status, not an activity. How can you have suspicion of a status?


And temporary housing isn't allowed in a building zoned as a residential apartment. 20 people sleeping in a one bedroom apartment is a code violation. Harboring illegal aliens is a crime.

The landlord isn't being fined until after the occupant's status is verified as illegal. Same with employers. No action is taken until after a violation has been proven to have ocurred. How is that not due process?

Other than for this ordinance, why would the landlord ever have reason to know an individual's alien status? In the last 10 years, I have lived in 3 apartment complexes and not once been asked my alien status.


McDermit stated in his original post on this topic that he is an American Born Hispanic. Is he complaining that he is being harassed due to ethnicity? No he isn't, he is complaining about illegal immigrants pilfering his city, making he and his family feel unsafe.

He may not be complaining now, but I guarantee you that he has been harassed due to his ethnicity. My boss is an American of Hispanic decent. He is in his mid-30s, dresses in dress pants and a button up shirt, and sits at the bigger desk with the executive chair in our office. I am in my mid-20s, occasionally dress in shorts and a t-shirt, sit at a small computer desk and sit in an office chair. When vendors come to visit us, they assume I'm the boss. It's disgusting and will only get worse as these ordinances pop up.



This is not true in entirety either, the Govt does grant the 'right' to trade through occupational permits, licensing, diplomas and certification, e.g. you can't practice medicine without a medical degree.

Fair enough, but those occupational codes are to protect the consumer in the transaction. These ordinances do not protect the consumer. These ordinances attack the consumer.


Hazleton did not pluck these ordinances from the air, they were voted on and passed by this city's legislative body.


The Authorities have the duty to investigate, and find evidence pursuant to a crime. Asking a person questions is not the same as arresting them, and they have the Right to Remain Silent. If this person of interest becomes a suspect, further evidence is gathered to see whether they have indeed committed a crime, if so, charged, if not released. This is how its done for Americans, why not Illegal Immigrants? The illegal immigrant HAS committed a crime, and when evidence of this is gathered, he will be charged.
You cannot use circular rhetoric find your position. What you're saying equates to is a crime hasn't been committed because no one has been charged with the crime. I guess in your eyes, murderers are not murderers because they have yet to be caught.

The point is that you have no reason to even suspect a crime has taken place. Illegal alien is a status based crime, not activity based. Your entire suspicion that a crime has taken place is based on ethnicity.


20 to a room not illegal, but 20 to a boxcar would be? I fail to see the difference. We can't have the pesky Health and Sanitation people snooping around. Consider this, the average prison cell is 5x9 feet, if the Govt thought smaller would be ok, they would be.

With most legitimate rental agreements, a Social Security number is required, and a credit card too, as the landlord needs to protect his property from vandalism, non payment etc. Not having such, as an illegal wouldn't, would be probable cause for a landlord to question their status.
Only the shady slumlords overlook these requirements.
Up until recently it was actually illegal to use your social security card as identification. (My SS card from 1980 says as much on it.) This has since changed, however it is NEVER mandatory to provide your SS card to a business.

[McDermit]

Stereotype: Biased generalizations about a group based on hearsay, opinions, and distorted, preconceived ideas.
All of what you bring up is a stereotype. None of it is evidence or suspicion of the occurrence of a crime. Stereotyping is discrimination!


Illegal alien is a status, not an activity. How can you have suspicion of a status?


Other than for this ordinance, why would the landlord ever have reason to know an individual's alien status? In the last 10 years, I have lived in 3 apartment complexes and not once been asked my alien status.


He may not be complaining now, but I guarantee you that he has been harassed due to his ethnicity. My boss is an American of Hispanic decent. He is in his mid-30s, dresses in dress pants and a button up shirt, and sits at the bigger desk with the executive chair in our office. I am in my mid-20s, occasionally dress in shorts and a t-shirt, sit at a small computer desk and sit in an office chair. When vendors come to visit us, they assume I'm the boss. It's disgusting and will only get worse as these ordinances pop up.


Fair enough, but those occupational codes are to protect the consumer in the transaction. These ordinances do not protect the consumer. These ordinances attack the consumer.

The point is that you have no reason to even suspect a crime has taken place. Illegal alien is a status based crime, not activity based. Your entire suspicion that a crime has taken place is based on ethnicity.

Up until recently it was actually illegal to use your social security card as identification. (My SS card from 1980 says as much on it.) This has since changed, however it is NEVER mandatory to provide your SS card to a business.
Ugh.

It has nothing to do with ethnicity. If I saw 20 white folks cramming themselves into a minivan and sleeping 20 to a room, I'd know that something was up. Same if they were black, asian, hispanic, whatever. It's beyond suspicious.

And it's not discriminatory, it's seeing things for what they are. Not only do I personally know some of these people, but I'm extremely familiar with the way that illegals live, travel, get here, find work/housing, etc. I hear them talking about where they came from, where they get their documents, where they're headed next, who they're working for, etc.

And I don't care how politically correct or self-righteous you think you are, if you see 20 people piling out of a minivan, are you going think, "Oh! Goody! They're car pooling to help save the environment!" No. You know damn well what they're up to.



When I was renting, I was asked for either an SSN or my soc card every time. I was also asked for both by my employer and my bank. Maybe it should be mandatory to provide employers with soc cards. Afterall, we don't condone fraud.. and fraud is more easily perpetrated when only a number is provided, as opposed to the physical card.

I also had to provide my SSN along with other extensive documentation when I purchased my home. There's no reason that the same shouldn't be required of all renters. The only people that are going to suffer will be the slumlords, and perhaps the illegals who will no longer be welcome in the city.

[cjhowe]

Ugh.
When I was renting, I was asked for either an SSN or my soc card every time.

Maybe that's because you're hispanic. Perhaps it's just my youthful naivete, but I'd be kind of pissed if the roles were reversed. You have these rights as individuals, not because of your class, not because you're a citizen, not because you have xyz visa, but because you are an individual. How does the individual illegal immigrant harm anyone? The role of the federal government is to protect all persons within its borders, not simply to protect citizens. IMO, It is morally reprehensible to hold a counter viewpoint.

[Capitalism]

When I was renting, I was asked for either an SSN or my soc card every time. I was also asked for both by my employer and my bank. Maybe it should be mandatory to provide employers with soc cards. Afterall, we don't condone fraud.. and fraud is more easily perpetrated when only a number is provided, as opposed to the physical card.

I also had to provide my SSN along with other extensive documentation when I purchased my home. There's no reason that the same shouldn't be required of all renters. The only people that are going to suffer will be the slumlords, and perhaps the illegals who will no longer be welcome in the city.

After Ron Paul becomes president and we have some time to work things out (might take a while) we'll all be able to burn our social security cards. They're unconstitutional.

[McDermit]

Maybe that's because you're hispanic. Perhaps it's just my youthful naivete, but I'd be kind of pissed if the roles were reversed. You have these rights as individuals, not because of your class, not because you're a citizen, not because you have xyz visa, but because you are an individual. How does the individual illegal immigrant harm anyone? The role of the federal government is to protect all persons within its borders, not simply to protect citizens. IMO, It is morally reprehensible to hold a counter viewpoint.
White folks here have to provide documentation as well. And I rarely had a problem with anyone around here 6, 10 years ago. I used to get a smile and a "good morning" in return when I smiled or addressed someone in the street or in a grocery store. But since the illegals have come in and scared everyone half to death, I get dirty looks instead. To anyone who doesn't know me, I'm "one of them." And it started way before Lou's IIRA was brought to the table.


Perhaps the individual illegal immigrant in your area doesn't harm anyone, but here they absolutely do. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, they've caused nothing but problems in Hazleton - for both Hispanics and the rest of our population alike.

As in any group, there are good and bad. Unfortunately, this area attracts far more bad than good. The majority of the city doesn't want them here, including a large majority of the Hispanic community. There very existence in our city and country is a criminal. Why should we be forced to allow them to live here and further ruin the city?


No one suggested that we should take them out and shoot them. We "protect" them just fine. But now how about we ship them back to their home countries and they can do it the legal way if they want to come back.

[McDermit]

After Ron Paul becomes president and we have some time to work things out (might take a while) we'll all be able to burn our social security cards. They're unconstitutional.That'll be a glorious day. But until then, we're stuck with them.. and people should be following the laws as they now stand.

[cjhowe]

That'll be a glorious day. But until then, we're stuck with them.. and people should be following the laws as they now stand.

Our laws and policies aren't fixing the problems. No one wants to deal with the real problems here. We just want to find a scapegoat. It used to be the kikes, *******, dagos, mics, gooks and now it's the spics and the sand *******. Same problems, new scapegoats.

[Man from La Mancha]

Our laws and policies aren't fixing the problems. No one wants to deal with the real problems here. We just want to find a scapegoat. It used to be the kikes, *******, dagos, mics, gooks and now it's the spics and the sand *******. Same problems, new scapegoats.


How totally wrong, all those others who you mentioned are USA citizens. Besides all those others can vote for Ron. And "those illegal" are causing massive damage to our country. 12 murders and 12 DUI deaths a day by illegals plus dozens of other drains to our nation caused by these "scapegoats"

.

[cjhowe]

How totally wrong, all those others who you mentioned are USA citizens. Besides all those others can vote for Ron. And "those illegal" are causing massive damage to our country. 12 murders and 12 DUI deaths a day by illegals plus dozens of other drains to our nation caused by these "scapegoats"

.

Wow...open a book

All of those groups immigrated to the U.S. before the Emergency Quota Act, so there was no need to "get in line". No need to get in line, no need to cross illegally.

While it is unfair to judge the prejudice of a people outside their moment of time and the circumstances that they lived, consider the debate in favor of the Emergency Quota Act
Representative Albert Johnson:


“The United States of America, a nation great in all things, is ours today. To whom will it belong tomorrow? . . . The United States is our land. If it was not the land of our fathers, at least it may be, and it should be, the land of our children. We intend to maintain it so. The day of unalloyed welcome to all people, the day of indiscriminate acceptance of all races, has definitely ended.”

How is this view of America any different than those from the KKK? What are you protecting America from? An influx of culture, language perhaps? You're not trying to protect it from crime, because you won't address the laws that creates crime. You're not trying to protect the welfare system, our nation's safety net, because you won't address the laws that allow for all of the other abuses.

You would rather preserve your bigotry and merely scratch at the issues that really impact people's ability to live freely than address the issues at their root.

[Man from La Mancha]

cjhowe

Wow...open a book

All of those groups immigrated to the U.S. before the Emergency Quota Act, so there was no need to "get in line". No need to get in line, no need to cross illegally.

While it is unfair to judge the prejudice of a people outside their moment of time and the circumstances that they lived, consider the debate in favor of the Emergency Quota Act

Again they wanted to be American, illegals just want money and don't give a shit about changing to be an America, Big difference is back then only 76,000,000 millions not 300,000,000 as now.

And I noticed you didn't mention the 25 people binging killed every day by illegals.

[Lord Xar]

cjhowe,

Not for nothing, you are seriously delusional. You use validatons and interpretations for a fixed system within a broken system.

Were slaves given "equal rights" under law? Where they considered citizens?

I wonder if one could make the point that the forefathers did not have the insight to realize that there would be a MASSIVE invasion of illegal immigrants and the United States wouldn't take care of it.. thus, the assumption could be that the forefathers meant "legal" citizens.. cause if your interpretation of the constitution is valid, then american indians had these 'same rights'... right?

You condone an open border because you are not truly american. You have no, as it is obvious with your posting, allegiance to America. I am getting the tremendous sense that you are an anarchist.

Your interpretation of the constituion always falls on the side that is the most detrimental to legal citizens.

You make a statement such as "federal governments don't supply welfare..." well, states do. Your demogoguery is so transparent.

And IF 'the federal' doesn't supply welfare to illegals, why? Aren't we all equal under the law and thus entitled to the same benefits?

So, illegals are then protected under the 2nd amendment? And again, we go back to the slaves -- IF what you say is true, then how on one hand you have a constitution and on the other, slaves? So, if you concede that the founders had a distinction on who actually the constitution covered but didn't word it.. perhaps then the assumption is that they 'assumed' citizen would be the drawing line.

Were you on the alipac forum stirring up mud about 2 weeks ago?

[cjhowe]

cjhowe


Again they wanted to be American, illegals just want money and don't give a shit about changing to be an America, Big difference is back then only 76,000,000 millions not 300,000,000 as now.

And I noticed you didn't mention the 25 people binging killed every day by illegals.

The population in 1921 (The year of the Emergency Quota Act) was about 105 million. This is irrelevant though as the number of immigration (both legal and "illegal") has remained relatively constant as a proportion of total population (it's actually a little low at the moment)

As far as addressing your statistics...Representative Steve King's statistics are pure fantastical speculation and not backed by any hard evidence. Consider the real statistics...

In 2005, there were 48 alcohol related fatalities a day.
The article doesn't cite the year, but 20% of alcohol related fatalities included at least one person without a valid drivers license.
Illegal immigrants don't have a valid drivers license.
Those without valid drivers license include many more people than simply illegal immigrants...

Yet we're to believe that illegals are involved in 27% of alcohol related fatalities (13 of 48)? No disrespect to Rep King, but he pulled it out of his ass.

[Lord Xar]

You would rather preserve your bigotry and merely scratch at the issues that really impact people's ability to live freely than address the issues at their root.


okay... now with the "bigotry" accusation. Didn't you call me a bigot on another thread? Does the ARA sound familiar to you?

Dude, are you an anarchist? I guess it is true that Ron Paul attracts all differnt types of the spectrum for different reasons. You see him perhaps as a stepping stone to complete open borders, complete and washing away of any semblence of culture or to be in such a way, open to being a whore for whomever happens to be in the majority at the time. We both respect what America 'could' represent from a totally different want.

What I want is COMPLETELY opposite of you.... and based on your writings, I am very glad.

[Lord Xar]

The population in 1921 (The year of the Emergency Quota Act) was about 105 million. This is irrelevant though as the number of immigration (both legal and "illegal") has remained relatively constant as a proportion of total population (it's actually a little low at the moment)




Really, its a little low? See , you are becoming more & more transparent. The population is exploding. Now, you say "its a little low" as if that is a bad thing compared to the past when replacement levels were low - so the influx at those previous times was not such a great measure as the replacements (immigrants) were in a nice rhythm with those current population levels.

Now... you are avoiding all the other issues that come into play. educational levels, english proficiency, birth ratio's etc... less education = more babies. So, the direct effect of the current immigration has DRASTIC consequences that previous waves of illegal and legal immigration had. The systems are MUCH more burdened now.

You selectively form arguments while completely ignoring very relevant issues. More and More this is becoming obvious.


look here for your "lower" levels. Where are you getting your figures?
http://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/TraditionalLevelsofUSImmigration.pdf

To me, it seems that immigration is actually double - how does double go to lower? I do not think that pdf includes ILLEGAL.... and ANCHOR babies.

Dude... uhmmm. .. your are losing credibility.

[lucius]

How is this view of America any different than those from the KKK? What are you protecting America from? An influx of culture, language perhaps? You're not trying to protect it from crime, because you won't address the laws that creates crime. You're not trying to protect the welfare system, our nation's safety net, because you won't address the laws that allow for all of the other abuses.

You would rather preserve your bigotry and merely scratch at the issues that really impact people's ability to live freely than address the issues at their root.

I disagree with you. Illegal aliens are far more criminal than the average American citizen, over 3/4 of all US fugitive felony arrest warrants are for illegal aliens (17,000).

Illegal immigration is a tool of the transnational corporate globalists to wage class warfare upon the lower and middle classes in America, while reducing the need for positive economic reform in the countries they hail from. Look how the CFR President LBJ and his floor manager in the Senate, the CFR Edward Kennedy, who sold Immigration Reform Act of 1965 with this deception:

“What the bill will not do: First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

In hindsight, I think everything he said this bill would not do has happened and more. The Mexican government beats up and shoots illegal aliens sneaking thru their southern border. Our CFR Fabian Socialist indoctrinations has distorted our perceptions concerning simple solutions to this issue: stop anchor babies, regulate corporations by enforcing The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), start the deportation of illegal aliens similar to the successful plan used during the Eisenhower administration. Illegal immigration into America does nothing to solve the root-cause of economic reform in the countries that they come from—America is only being used as safety valve for the most economic disparaged, subverting any meaningful economic reform.

[cjhowe]

cjhowe,

Not for nothing, you are seriously delusional. You use validatons and interpretations for a fixed system within a broken system.

Were slaves given "equal rights" under law? Where they considered citizens?

Slaves weren't considered men, they were considered property. Are you trying to justify bigotry of illegal aliens with the use of slavery?


I wonder if one could make the point that the forefathers did not have the insight to realize that there would be a MASSIVE invasion of illegal immigrants and the United States wouldn't take care of it.. thus, the assumption could be that the forefathers meant "legal" citizens.. cause if your interpretation of the constitution is valid, then american indians had these 'same rights'... right?

Why do you insist on validating bigotry of today with the shameful acts of our past? Was America bigoted then, yes. Was it still wrong, yes!


You condone an open border because you are not truly american. You have no, as it is obvious with your posting, allegiance to America. I am getting the tremendous sense that you are an anarchist.

I'd be curious what it means to you to be an American. To me, being American means recognizing the need and responsibility of freedom. "Americans" recognize that ALL men are created equal. Where we can (within our borders), America must protect the unalienable rights of all men. Not just the ones you like, not just the ones that are the same color as you or share your faith...all men. I am no anarchist. I am very much a rule of law person, but our laws must be aligned with our principles. Our immigration laws are not in line...
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"




Your interpretation of the constituion always falls on the side that is the most detrimental to legal citizens.

My interpretation of the constitution is that it first protects the unalienable rights of all men and that it second maintains the rights those men have ceded to the government.


You make a statement such as "federal governments don't supply welfare..." well, states do. Your demogoguery is so transparent.

And IF 'the federal' doesn't supply welfare to illegals, why? Aren't we all equal under the law and thus entitled to the same benefits?

I don't see welfare as an entitlement, for legal or illegals. The federal government should have no role in a welfare system. State governments can decide how it wishes to care for its residents.


So, illegals are then protected under the 2nd amendment? And again, we go back to the slaves -- IF what you say is true, then how on one hand you have a constitution and on the other, slaves? So, if you concede that the founders had a distinction on who actually the constitution covered but didn't word it.. perhaps then the assumption is that they 'assumed' citizen would be the drawing line.

Again, slaves were considered property, not men. As far as where to draw the line, that's for the SCOTUS to decide. The second ammendment is vague when it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The people can be interpreted to mean any persons or it can be referring to the People of the United States. If it were my decision, I think all people should have the right to protect themselves unless that right has been removed from them through due process.


Were you on the alipac forum stirring up mud about 2 weeks ago?
Seeing as my viewpoint is for substantially less regulation of immigration, I don't think I would be wasting my time on an Alipac forum.

[cjhowe]

Really, its a little low? See , you are becoming more & more transparent. The population is exploding. Now, you say "its a little low" as if that is a bad thing compared to the past when replacement levels were low - so the influx at those previous times was not such a great measure as the replacements (immigrants) were in a nice rhythm with those current population levels.

I'll find the statistics to back my assertion up.


Now... you are avoiding all the other issues that come into play. educational levels, english proficiency, birth ratio's etc... less education = more babies. So, the direct effect of the current immigration has DRASTIC consequences that previous waves of illegal and legal immigration had. The systems are MUCH more burdened now.

You selectively form arguments while completely ignoring very relevant issues. More and More this is becoming obvious.

Those are different issues that have much better solutions that are entirely unrelated to ethnicity or alien status.



look here for your "lower" levels. Where are you getting your figures?
http://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/TraditionalLevelsofUSImmigration.pdf

Isn't that a misleading piece of propaganda. There's not one of those time periods that is consistent with another. Your link chooses time periods larger than specific events to dampen the apparent impact.


To me, it seems that immigration is actually double - how does double go to lower? I do not think that pdf includes ILLEGAL.... and ANCHOR babies.

Dude... uhmmm. .. your are losing credibility.


I disagree with you. Illegal aliens are far more criminal than the average American citizen, over 3/4 of all US fugitive felony arrest warrants are for illegal aliens (17,000).

I'm not finding this information. Can you please provide a source?


Illegal immigration is a tool of the transnational corporate globalists to wage class warfare upon the lower and middle classes in America, while reducing the need for positive economic reform in the countries they hail from. Look how the CFR President LBJ and his floor manager in the Senate, the CFR Edward Kennedy, who sold Immigration Reform Act of 1965 with this deception:

The illegal immigration issue is a tool used to make us look at rights as being granted to groups and not to individuals.


“What the bill will not do: First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

In hindsight, I think everything he said this bill would not do has happened and more. The Mexican government beats up and shoots illegal aliens sneaking thru their southern border. Our CFR Fabian Socialist indoctrinations has distorted our perceptions concerning simple solutions to this issue: stop anchor babies, regulate corporations by enforcing The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), start the deportation of illegal aliens similar to the successful plan used during the Eisenhower administration. Illegal immigration into America does nothing to solve the root-cause of economic reform in the countries that they come from—America is only being used as safety valve for the most economic disparaged, subverting any meaningful economic reform.

Almost all of our immigration laws have been a black mark on our country in order to protect our xenophobia. LBJ's law wasn't a good one and our current law isn't a good one. Our laws must align with our principles.

[cjhowe]

Here are better statistics on immigration.

I hope this aligns well

col 1 - year
col 2 - population in that year
col 3 - sum of immigration for previous 10 years
col 4 - rate

1910....92407 ....8795.39....0.095
1920....106461....5735.81....0.054
1930....123077....4107.21....0.033
1940....132122.....528.43....0.004
1950....151684....1035.04....0.007
1960....180671....2515.48....0.014
1970....203984....3321.35....0.016
1980....227224....4389.00....0.019
1990....249622....7339.00....0.029
2000....282224....9095.42....0.032

If you'll notice these statistics. In 1910 and 1920, the rate was 9.5% and 5.4% respectively. This was before the Emergency Quota Act. From 1921 to LBJ's immigration law, there was no quota for immigrants coming from the western hemisphere. These were also times of rampant bigotry, high adoption of union labor, and labor demand was predominately semi-skilled (manufacturing). With the relatively recent growth in demand for low skilled labor (restaurant, housing and services industry specifically) we've had an increased influx of immigrants. The market can solve most problems if you get government out of the way. This is not a cause of alarm. Put away your xenophobia.

[Capitalism]

That'll be a glorious day. But until then, we're stuck with them.. and people should be following the laws as they now stand.

You were advocating more unconstitutional laws.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

cjhowe,

Your arguments on this topic are exactly why so many small l-libertarians refuse to join the Libertarian Party, and why many leave it.

Fact is, you seem to forget the basic premise of the Libertarian Party -- opposed to the initiation of force.

Well, AS SOON as that illegal comes across the border of the UNITED STATES, (s)he has initiated force against the people of the United States.

Maybe some Americans don't want to buy a house in what appears to be an excellent neighborhood, only to have illegals rent the house next to them. Yeah, yeah, freedom to do what the owner wants with the property, yada, yada. The owners rights end when my rights are infringed upon. Should I be FORCED to move?

Maybe some Americans don't want their property taxes raised every year to warehouse illegal children in public schools. In Charlotte, there are an estimated 13,000 ILLEGAL CHILDREN in the school system. That is $70 to $80 MILLION a year out of AMERICAN taxpayers pockets. Not to mention, the illegals barely speak a word of English, but due to the PC nature of schools these days, the illegals are thrown in regular classes, INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHT OF AMERICAN CHILDREN TO AN EDUCATION! You can say go to a private school, true, but the AMERICAN WAS FORCED INTO THE PRIVATE SCHOOL.

Illegals overburden the healthcare system adding cost every single time one of them goes to the emergency room as a primary care physician. Don't give me the crap about triage. Nobody should have to wait nine hours for a broken leg, unless it's a hospital in an area overrun by gang activity (again illegals), where a gang war claimed 15 gunshot "victims".

Our working and middle classes are under assault from illegals undercutting wages in construction, and other entry-level blue collar jobs. Do you really think the illegals are paying taxes? For example, a 20 year old kid working in construction can make about $40k a year, after taxes, he sees about $25-28k. Solidly middle class, enough to purchase a modest home, truck, and maybe go to school to learn how to run a construction company. Well, here comes Mr. Illegal who will work for $35k a year TAX FREE. You can say that the American worker should take less, okay, but he's being FORCED to take less.

Do you understand my point yet?

Why should I have to see Spanish on road signs? Does Mexico include English on theirs? When my forefathers and mothers came from Sweden, Lithuania, and Germany, they weren't kowtowed to. They didn't have radio stations to listen to in their language, they didn't have national newspapers, they didn't have national foods available in stores, etc. Yeah, some of them formed small communities, which is actually a GOOD thing, ethnic heritage in small areas with voluntary association...

The nation, culture, and heritage of the United States is under attack. The very fact you don't support an end to this invasion makes me question your want to be a citizen of the United States. I'm sorry I have to be so blunt, but if you cannot see what is happening to this nation, you are blind, and God help us all.

[lucius]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucius
I disagree with you. Illegal aliens are far more criminal than the average American citizen, over 3/4 of all US fugitive felony arrest warrants are for illegal aliens (17,000).

I'm not finding this information. Can you please provide a source?



It is from this article, 'The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave': http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

I mis-quoted from memory, it should be 2/3 not 3/4.

[cjhowe]

cjhowe,

Your arguments on this topic are exactly why so many small l-libertarians refuse to join the Libertarian Party, and why many leave it.

Fact is, you seem to forget the basic premise of the Libertarian Party -- opposed to the initiation of force.

Well, AS SOON as that illegal comes across the border of the UNITED STATES, (s)he has initiated force against the people of the United States.

Unless their crossing the border is the intent to harm you (encroaching army), it is not a force.


Maybe some Americans don't want to buy a house in what appears to be an excellent neighborhood, only to have illegals rent the house next to them. Yeah, yeah, freedom to do what the owner wants with the property, yada, yada. The owners rights end when my rights are infringed upon. Should I be FORCED to move?

No, if you wish to dictate what is done on another property, you need to have controlling ownership interest of that property. You and your fellow "members only" neighbors can purchase the property and then put terms on the sale of it. This is ignorance to hold this view of an individual based on the color of their skin, but I support your right to be ignorant.


Maybe some Americans don't want their property taxes raised every year to warehouse illegal children in public schools. In Charlotte, there are an estimated 13,000 ILLEGAL CHILDREN in the school system. That is $70 to $80 MILLION a year out of AMERICAN taxpayers pockets. Not to mention, the illegals barely speak a word of English, but due to the PC nature of schools these days, the illegals are thrown in regular classes, INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHT OF AMERICAN CHILDREN TO AN EDUCATION! You can say go to a private school, true, but the AMERICAN WAS FORCED INTO THE PRIVATE SCHOOL.

Again, this is not force.
The small l libertarian philosophy would be to
1) Change the revenue structure so that it reflects those that are benefiting from the service and
2) Reduce the scope of responsibility that the government has for education. We have a tool at our disposal that turns education on it's ear. The internet. The government should only be responsible for basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills.


Illegals overburden the healthcare system adding cost every single time one of them goes to the emergency room as a primary care physician. Don't give me the crap about triage. Nobody should have to wait nine hours for a broken leg, unless it's a hospital in an area overrun by gang activity (again illegals), where a gang war claimed 15 gunshot "victims".

The point about triage is that a triage nurse should be able to turn non emergencies away. The emergency room should be similar to a police or fire department.

While some gangs have illegals as their members, the cause of gang violence is not illegals. Our failed drug laws create violent gangs, not the alien status of their membership.


Our working and middle classes are under assault from illegals undercutting wages in construction, and other entry-level blue collar jobs. Do you really think the illegals are paying taxes? For example, a 20 year old kid working in construction can make about $40k a year, after taxes, he sees about $25-28k. Solidly middle class, enough to purchase a modest home, truck, and maybe go to school to learn how to run a construction company. Well, here comes Mr. Illegal who will work for $35k a year TAX FREE. You can say that the American worker should take less, okay, but he's being FORCED to take less.

This viewpoint is ridiculous. This is like saying that Pepsi is being forced to take less for their colas because Sam's choice accepts less for theirs. There is competition in labor too. Because Americans refuse to be price competitive in the labor market is not a reason for government intervention.


Do you understand my point yet?

I understand your point, however it's ignorant in defining what a force is.


Why should I have to see Spanish on road signs?

Because you want your fellow commuters to be aware of the conditions of the road that you're both driving?


Does Mexico include English on theirs?

If you want to compare the Great American Experiment to Mexico, that's sad.


When my forefathers and mothers came from Sweden, Lithuania, and Germany, they weren't kowtowed to. They didn't have radio stations to listen to in their language, they didn't have national newspapers, they didn't have national foods available in stores, etc. Yeah, some of them formed small communities, which is actually a GOOD thing, ethnic heritage in small areas with voluntary association...

ALL of the things you mentioned are voluntary. The business owner providing the non-English TV, radio, and newspaper products, is voluntarily providing these. This is a great example of the market deciding.


The nation, culture, and heritage of the United States is under attack. The very fact you don't support an end to this invasion makes me question your want to be a citizen of the United States. I'm sorry I have to be so blunt, but if you cannot see what is happening to this nation, you are blind, and God help us all.
If you think rolled "R"s, tamales and a strong work eithic is an attack, I would hate to see how you'd respond to an actual attack. Don't go looking for dragons to slay.

[cjhowe]

It is from this article, 'The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave': http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

I mis-quoted from memory, it should be 2/3 not 3/4.

You misquoted more than just the number in one statistic. That 2/3 is for warrants in Los Angeles, not across America. This is also a misleading article. It does not give sources of its statistics. It doesn't specify whether this 2/3 is for all warrants or all outstanding warrants. If it's for all outstanding warrants this number is easily skewed by the the person named in the warrant returning to their native country. If the person is not in the U.S., the warrant cannot be served and it stays open on the books. In addition, this article is about drug crime. The cause of drug crime is not illegals, it is the drug law. If you end prohibition on narcotics and sell them in shops, the price plummets, the turf wars end and there is nothing to support the cycle of gang violence.

[Man from La Mancha]

Unless their crossing the border is the intent to harm you (encroaching army), it is not a force.

No, if you wish to dictate what is done on another property, you need to have controlling ownership interest of that property. You and your fellow "members only" neighbors can purchase the property and then put terms on the sale of it. This is ignorance to hold this view of an individual based on the color of their skin, but I support your right to be ignorant.

Again, this is not force.

.


An economic force attack can more easily destroy a country than an any other kind because we have people with your opinions that let it happen.

These illegals are draining the money out of the states they are in. David Crockett surely wouldn't approve handing out the peoples money like that in form of free schools, housing, medical aid. Didn't he die trying to stop the invasions of Mexicans into Texas.

Is this not force spread all over theUSA?
I still haven't seen that you at all care of the 24 deaths a day and all rape and crimes illegal people are doing.

Everybody I know likes legal immigration, why are you for law breakers that are killing over 9000 people a year?







Terry Funderburk, Columbia, SC wrote;

"I own a small construction business installing copper on new homes. I have been in business for 20 years and always had plenty of work lined up. Last year my business grossed $176, 000.00. This year though, seven months into 2007 I have only done $18,000.00 of business so far. This time last year I was at $120,000.00.

"It's because of the illegal competition * you know, the fellows that are here to do the jobs that Americans don't or won't do. They are killing my business this year. The last few months I have lost plenty of sleep worrying about how to pay the bills and the help. Well, things came to a head this week. I bid on a copper trim job.

"The house was struck by lightning last year, rebuilt and was almost ready for the copper. I had done two different copper jobs for this particular homeowner and knew him slightly. Anyway I asked him if it was ready for copper so he told me to measure it and give him a bid.

"He said also that an international roofing crew had installed the shingles and that if I wanted to do the copper -- I needed to give him a real low bid because if it was too high he was going to let his illegals do it. I bid $5 grand for the labor. To tell you the truth I thought I had gotten the job because he said it would be ready in a few weeks.

"This past Monday morning I drove by the job and found some illegals already installing the copperwork. I got real mad then.

"I went home made me 2 picket signs to protest those illegals. I called my son and had him meet me at that job. I gave him my digital camera and told him to park across the street and to take as many pictures as he could. I also told him to call the local news channel when the cops pulled up.

One thing, when I left home I told my wife to not expect me home that night because I was going to get myself arrested to make a point. I got out of my vehicle and started walking up and down the road in front of the job, yelling at the top of my lungs, the homeowner came out to see what was happening and called the cops then.

"I made so much noise that all his neighbors came out to see what the commotion was, I called him a cheap bastard in front of them and that I was going broke because so-called Americans like him would rather pay the illegals cheap and put the difference in his pocket. I was enraged. I didn't shut up.

"Every vehicle that came by I made sure they knew what was going on. After about 30 or 40 minutes a cop finally pulled up, got out, came up to me took my sign out of my hands and asked me if I would come to his patrol car.

"I asked him if I was under arrest. He said no so I told him to let me go give my sign back so I could continue expressing my first amendment rights. He then grabbed me forcefully and started shoving me towards his car.

"I sat down in the middle of the road. He tried to jerk me back to my feet but I yelled police brutality to my son and to be sure he got the picture. The cop then took his hands off me; he was kind of scared at that point.

"I was mad though, I was still yelling, a parade of cars came by to see what was happening. He called for a back-up after that. It took 30 more minutes for another cop to arrive.

"When he came, they picked me up by my elbows and shoved me in the back seat. They went over and started talking to the homeowner. God, I was so mad, so damn frustrated, worrying about going bankrupt and here the cops are taking the side of the people breaking the law.

"The first cop got in the front seat and started writing a ticket, I asked him again if I was under arrest and he said no. I asked him what was the charge against me and he said cursing. I started laughing, hilariously, because it was funny.

"I said let me ask you something, which crime is worse, me cursing, the homeowner breaking the law by knowingly employing illegals or the illegals themselves by being here illegally. Here is what I found out about which crime is the worst. It is cursing.

"For cursing I spent 24 hours in jail. The lawbreaking homeowner got a pat on the back for calling the police and the illegals finished the job before I got out of jail the next day. But it isn't over with by a long shot.

"Tuesday after jail I emailed and called eight different lawyers because there is no way I was going to plead guilty. I went to jail to make a statement and there is no way I am going to let it go that way. The lawyer told me if I wanted to fight it to request a jury trial so that's what I did Friday morning in court.

"I don't know how I will pay for the lawyer but I will somehow. The lawyer also told me that my case is going to be very sensitive politically. He said they were going to try to keep it quiet.

"He said that if we win the jury trial that will open the door to some lawsuits against the homeowner, the contractor and the lady that owns the roofing company that stole my copperwork.

The competitor * breaking laws and improving profits; hire illegal aliens

"This lady, Jo Dell Pickens was interviewed by the State newspaper on 27 June, it was an article that took the illegals side of the equation. However in the article Miss Pickens said that she employed 22 illegal Hispanics.

"So in that article she is admitting to breaking at least 22 of our laws. This woman and her illegals are on the verge of bankrupting me and everybody thinks I'm just supposed to keep quiet, accept it and go on to something else. Nope !

"Friday after court I stopped by police headquarters and picked up my protest sign and tried to find out where to get a protest permit. I plan on picketing the state capitol here in a couple of weeks.

"I also stopped by the state newspaper office to find out the name of the reporter that did the article on Miss Pickens, I told her I wanted to be interviewed so someone could give the opposite side of the article she wrote before. She is supposed to get back with me but I probably won't hear from her again because that paper has an agenda dealing with the open borders crowd.

"One last thing- I am from Senator Lindsey Graham's state, but I am not a bigot. I am married to a beautiful lady from the Philippines. It took 2 years and 15 grand for visa and lawyer fees to get her here. She has been here 2 years now, can't get a job or drivers license until she gets her green card.

"The legal immigration part is just as messed up as the illegal side is."

Frosty offers recap

Fellow Americans, stories like this happen frequently all over our country.

The pie-in-the-sky SPP and NAU are causative. We are pawns in a giant economic scheme.

Our president and Congress support "ethnic cleansing" of Americans by not enforcing our U.S. laws. Thousands upon thousands of these same stories occur every day in our country.

Brown-on-White; hate crime in Colorado

This past weekend in Grand Junction, Colorado, six Mexicans beat up two American teens sitting down at an outside café eating dinner. As reported in the <http://www.gjsentinel.com/>Grand Junction Sentinel:

"The two boys sat down Sunday to grab something to eat and were sitting outside the restaurant when a red Honda pulled into the parking lot and a group of young Hispanic men got out.

"Nathan Corle, 16, said the men began yelling at them, calling them "white boys" and asking them what they were looking at and if they wanted to fight. He said he laughed because he thought it was a joke.

"Sam Corle, 19, said he had his head down and was taking a bite of his burrito when one of the men ran around behind him and punched him in the side of his head. "I had no idea why they were attacking us," Nathan Corle said.

"No normal person walks up and hits someone for no reason."

A fight ensued between the Corle brothers and their friend and what they estimated to be six to eight Hispanic men. During the fight, Nathan Corle said he heard the Hispanic males yelling "'We're going to teach white boys a lesson. White boys are going to die.'"

Ethnic cleansing accelerates in America * silently, against U.S. citizens.

Meanwhile, Nero fiddles around while America is in "silent flames" * with precious little reported in the multiculturally-sensitive U.S. liberal media.

Silence breeds contempt. The odds of violent insurrection are growing, for cause.

© 2007 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved

[PennCustom4RP]

An economic force attack can more easily destroy a country than an any other kind ...

Exactly...
It has been long US policy to place economic sanctions and embargoes on nations who don't do as we like. Why do we do this? Because they work. Look at Cuba, Iran and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, economic sanctions are now being covertly placed on the American people, by the illegal immigrants, and their Governments.
This most certainly is FORCE.

[cjhowe]

An economic force attack can more easily destroy a country than an any other kind because we have people with your opinions that let it happen.

Our rights are granted to us as individuals, not as groups, by our Creator. In addition, every additional person who adds to our productivity, improves our economy. Legal, illegal, it doesn't matter. I wish you would take economics.


These illegals are draining the money out of the states they are in. David Crockett surely wouldn't approve handing out the peoples money like that in form of free schools, housing, medical aid. Didn't he die trying to stop the invasions of Mexicans into Texas.

Seriously, open a book before you go embarrassing yourself. David Crocket fought for Texas independence. Before the Texas Revolution, Texas was Coahuila y Tejas, a state of Mexico.
David Crocket wouldn't agree with handing over the people's (federal) money for education for anyone. It's an abuse of the general welfare clause. Why do you think RP wants to get rid of the Department of Education?


Is this not force spread all over theUSA?
I still haven't seen that you at all care of the 24 deaths a day and all rape and crimes illegal people are doing.

Everybody I know likes legal immigration, why are you for law breakers that are killing over 9000 people a year?


I've already invalidated your misinformed statistics. Why do you keep bringing them up?

I'm not going to quote your story. This is about competition. Nobody owes anyone a job. Why don't consumer good companies bitch and moan about generic competition? Pepsi doesn't complain about Sam's Choice. If you cannot compete to earn what you consider a satisfactory wage, that is the market telling you to change industies, or improve your skills, or lower your price. Labor is no different.

[cjhowe]

Exactly...
It has been long US policy to place economic sanctions and embargoes on nations who don't do as we like. Why do we do this? Because they work. Look at Cuba, Iran and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, economic sanctions are now being covertly placed on the American people, by the illegal immigrants, and their Governments.
This most certainly is FORCE.

An economic sanction is a refusal to trade. You're the one suggesting the sanction against illegal immigrant labor. Illegals working in America without repercussion would be free trade. You're advocating against free trade.

[PennCustom4RP]

An economic sanction is a refusal to trade.
Not entirely

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sanction
Definition of sanction - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Sanction
1 : a formal decree; especially : an ecclesiastical decree
2 a obsolete : a solemn agreement : OATH b : something that makes an oath binding

3 : the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law

This what our Government should be doing, but isn't.

4 a : a consideration, principle, or influence (as of conscience) that impels to moral action or determines moral judgment b : a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's standards

c : explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification : APPROBATION

This is what our Govt is doing by not enforcing law.




You're the one suggesting the sanction against illegal immigrant labor. Illegals working in America without repercussion would be free trade. You're advocating against free trade.

No, I am suggesting that the Immigration laws already in place be enforced, and if this trend on non enforcement continues then;

5 : an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication
As the US and Canada both have illegal immigration laws regarding this, it is International, and the leaders need to find the balls to stand up and enforce these laws, and stop catering to those in the NAU and LaRaza camp, such as yourself.

[Man from La Mancha]

Click on link for this page below with all related links working
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103

"While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators," states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration."

This why we to have control this problem is to weed out the bad while giving 6 months a year work visa out to the good workers. Forcing them back home for a half a year to take care of their families and try correct their countries problems. They still would make much more money than in their home countries. And enable more of them to come here and profit. Also then all the people from housewives to big corparations can still have their slaves and scabs.


INVASION USA
Illegal aliens murder
12 Americans daily
Death toll in 2006 far overshadows total
U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, Afghanistan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Joseph Farah
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.

Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.

(Story continues below)


But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.

While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.

While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.

A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.

Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.

King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.

Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.

As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.

According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.

While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.

In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:

The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;
36 percent had been arrested at least five times before. WWhats the cost of all this in money and suffering "While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators," states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?" ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related offers:

Get Rep. Tom Tancredo's "In Mortal Danger"


Pat Buchanan's latest takes on border crisis – autographed: 'State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America'

"Conquest of Aztlan": Will Mexicans retake American Southwest?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous stories:

Cop murder spotlights crisis of killer aliens

'12-pack' illegal in fatal car crash

Another drunk illegal kills 2 more Americans

80,000 violent felons run loose on U.S. streets

More illegal aliens tried in gang rapes

Illegal alien charged in vehicular homicide

How open borders turn Americans into roadkill

Sting rounds up 25 foreigners for sex crimes

Illegal aliens linked to gang-rape wave

Prostituion ring run by illegals, for illegals

Illegal alien rapes puppy

Feds arrest 2,100 in illegals sweep

Suspected illegal 'tries to rape girl'

Study: 1 million sex crimes by illegals

5 illegals face deportation after killing principal

'Illegal runs red light,' kills popular principal

Illegal-alien offenders flout U.S. justice system

Illegal 'hits American jackpot' with $44,000 job, crime spree

Murder suspect – an illegal with driver's license

Illegal, 17, runs down hero cop

3 illegals beat pregnant woman

Illegal alien accused of triple homicide

Illegal alien wanted for hunter murder

'Cop-killing' illegal snagged in Mexico

Alleged cop killer an illegal immigrant

[PennCustom4RP]

and....
Transcript from Lou Dobbs story on earlier tonight...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/30/ldt.01.html
CNN.com - Transcripts

DOBBS: The federal government's failure to enforce existing immigration law have left the states with a responsibility and certainly the consequences.

Now the state of Virginia may not receive the help that it has needed to enforce laws.

And, as Lisa Sylvester reports, immigration and customs officials say they can't commit those resources to train officers at all in Virginia state jails.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Virginia Beach, a horrific accident. Authorities say Alfredo Ramos rear-ended two teenage girls stopped at a red light, killing them both. At the time his blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit.

He is an illegal alien, previously charged with drunk driving, but never reported to federal immigration officials.

DAVE ALBO, VIRGINIA STATE DELEGATE: They should have notified ICE and ICE should have come down and got the guy and deported him. Instead, he was allowed to leave and drive again, and then, of course, we have the tragedy.

SYLVESTER: Virginia lawmakers are now considering a proposal that would require jail officials statewide question a suspect about legal status and start deportation proceedings. Virginia is one of 11 states where local police officers have signed up for special training to enforce federal immigration law.

But there's not enough resources to go around. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told Virginia lawmakers it can't guarantee federal money or bed spaces for all the jails in the state to participate in the program.

In a statement ICE said: "Each jurisdiction has its own challenges. We work individually with each law enforcement agency to figure out the best way of tackling area specific problems."

But the problem doesn't stop there.

MICHAEL CUTLER, FORMER INS AGENT: We need more jail space for ICE. We need more judges. We need everything that this would cause. This is a series of dominoes. Each step of the way needs the resources.

SYLVESTER: Because the federal government has not been able to pass immigration reform, more states are stepping in. Last year 18 jurisdictions requested training. This year, the number is 54 and counting.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

SYLVESTER: It costs $3,000 per officer to train in the federal program, but when you add the cost of extra bed space for the illegal aliens and linking computers to the federal screening system, the cost could be as much as a million dollars per police department. The federal government has allocated only $5.5 million this year for the program, which is a drop in the bucket -- Lou.

DOBBS: And just to say it out loud, straightforwardly, just as we have with what is happening with the FDA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the funding of ICE and the Citizenship and Immigration Services and a host of other agencies, this administration has absolutely refused to fund the enforcement of U.S. law. It is no accident. It is not simply negligence. It is a committed, committed decision to not enforce this nation's laws.

SYLVESTER: And, Lou, states are willing to step in and fill the void. But in this case, they're finding that even here they don't have the federal funds -- Lou.

DOBBS: Right.

And the American people are facing a straightforward choice that's going to have to be made, I'm afraid, fairly soon.

Lisa, thank you very much.

Lisa Sylvester reporting from Washington.


This is exactly what Hazleton is trying to do, step in where the Government has failed them by inaction.
Any crime committed or death cause by an illegal, is Additive, if they were not here, these crimes would not have happened.
Checking status would have prevented these 2 deaths.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

cjhowe,

I'm really not sure what it is you are advocating here, except for a total abolition of the borders of the United States, and basically destruction of the United States.

1. If you "got your way", and American labor reduced their wage "demands" to that of illegals, bye bye middle class. You seem to forget that illegals don't pay taxes, and the $7/hour they get under the table is about $11/hour legal labor. Sure, eliminate taxes, but that's not happening now. What would happen is the rich get richer, poor have no job to go to that betters them, and the middle class are forced to take wages that they can't afford to live on. Hello, Third World.

2. Free trade should exist with goods, not necessarily with labor.

3. Not every illegal who comes to the United States is here to better themselves. These folks HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW. Why should they? They can't be prosecuted for minor offenses.

4. While cultural differences should be celebrated, cultural differences that can kill people are not good. Many Hispanic males believe that drinking heavily makes them "men". Then they get behind the wheel of a car, with no license, no insurance, no nothing, hit and kill people, and really can't be prosecuted for it, because NOBODY KNOWS WHO THEY ARE! So, the response is to TRAMPLE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS BY SETTING UP "DUI ROADBLOCKS", which don't do a damn thing to stop the illegal from drinking, but infringe upon the right of a legal citizen to travel freely, or enjoy a few adult beverages. (I could give you a study that the majority of people arrested at DUI stops are .08 and .09 BAC).

Any libertarian should be appaled at a "DUI Checkpoint" or "Safety Checkpoint". Let's trample the 4th Amendment because we won't enforce immigration law.

5. I am also outraged that a fellow Ron Paul supporter would accuse me and other Ron Paul supporters of being racist just because we believe in the soveriegnty of the United States. It's appaling and disgusting that you would sink to such levels to promote your views.

6. On racism. If you understood the level of racism in Mexico, you might understand the reasoning behind the mass migration to the U.S. Wealthy and powerful Mexicans see themselves as some European royalty, and despise the average Mexican citizen living in dirt poor conditions. These people are usually the descendants of the Indian cultures, or mixed with some lower-class Spanish, and are not viewed as people who should succeed in Mexican society. In some ways, the Mexican government wants these people to move to the United States (exporting poverty), plus, when the families get the money sent back from the worker in the U.S., the Mexican government has one less family to provide for. Unlike other cultures that understood they were kicked out of their countries, and wanted to become Americans, these Mexicans see themselves as Mexicans. Add to that the Atzalan movement and La Raza, and we have ourselves a major problem on our hands that we did not invite.

[cjhowe]

cjhowe,

I'm really not sure what it is you are advocating here, except for a total abolition of the borders of the United States, and basically destruction of the United States.

1. If you "got your way", and American labor reduced their wage "demands" to that of illegals, bye bye middle class. You seem to forget that illegals don't pay taxes, and the $7/hour they get under the table is about $11/hour legal labor. Sure, eliminate taxes, but that's not happening now. What would happen is the rich get richer, poor have no job to go to that betters them, and the middle class are forced to take wages that they can't afford to live on. Hello, Third World.

They don't have to accept lower wages for their labor. There are several ways to compete. You can improve the perceived value of your labor, you can improve your skills or you can change the market in which you're competing in, just to name a few. But, if Americans decide to sit on their duff or waste their day's labor marching up and down cussing down their customers, then yeah, that is third world.



2. Free trade should exist with goods, not necessarily with labor.

The origination cost of ALL goods is zero. Any price you pay for anything, is simply the price for labor to bring the good from the earth to the end consumer.


3. Not every illegal who comes to the United States is here to better themselves. These folks HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW. Why should they? They can't be prosecuted for minor offenses.

They're not organized, they're individuals. We should be dealing with issues of the individual, not the group.


4. While cultural differences should be celebrated, cultural differences that can kill people are not good. Many Hispanic males believe that drinking heavily makes them "men". Then they get behind the wheel of a car, with no license, no insurance, no nothing, hit and kill people, and really can't be prosecuted for it, because NOBODY KNOWS WHO THEY ARE! So, the response is to TRAMPLE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS BY SETTING UP "DUI ROADBLOCKS", which don't do a damn thing to stop the illegal from drinking, but infringe upon the right of a legal citizen to travel freely, or enjoy a few adult beverages. (I could give you a study that the majority of people arrested at DUI stops are .08 and .09 BAC).

I resent the notion that this is a problem that is based on one's alien status. However, your solution does nothing to solve the problem. You keep them as blank faces. Changing the immigration laws to simply documenting all entrants would give all immigrants a face in our country and thus, could be prosecuted for their actions just like everybody else.


Any libertarian should be appaled at a "DUI Checkpoint" or "Safety Checkpoint". Let's trample the 4th Amendment because we won't enforce immigration law.

To quote RP from the Colbert Report. "I'd rather be safe and free".



5. I am also outraged that a fellow Ron Paul supporter would accuse me and other Ron Paul supporters of being racist just because we believe in the soveriegnty of the United States. It's appaling and disgusting that you would sink to such levels to promote your views.

I didn't call anyone a racist, I called you a bigot. It's quite appropriate actually, especially in light of your response.


6. On racism. If you understood the level of racism in Mexico, you might understand the reasoning behind the mass migration to the U.S. Wealthy and powerful Mexicans see themselves as some European royalty, and despise the average Mexican citizen living in dirt poor conditions. These people are usually the descendants of the Indian cultures, or mixed with some lower-class Spanish, and are not viewed as people who should succeed in Mexican society. In some ways, the Mexican government wants these people to move to the United States (exporting poverty), plus, when the families get the money sent back from the worker in the U.S., the Mexican government has one less family to provide for. Unlike other cultures that understood they were kicked out of their countries, and wanted to become Americans, these Mexicans see themselves as Mexicans. Add to that the Atzalan movement and La Raza, and we have ourselves a major problem on our hands that we did not invite.

This isn't an issue of relativity. It's an issue of principles. Our laws should be aligned with our principles. Do I need to quote the poem that is on the Statue of Liberty again? Those are our principles.

[PennCustom4RP]

. Do I need to quote the poem that is on the Statue of Liberty again? Those are our principles.

Do you know for fact that these are the US principles? Show me in US law that this country is here to accept the riff raff of the world. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French to mark the Centennial of the US. Who wrote this? Did this inscription come with the Statue, some flowery prose from a Frenchman? Even if they are, these 'principles' as you call them, refer to Legal immigration, at a time when the Nation was still young, Reconstruction following the Civil War and expansion Westward was ongoing.
It is no coincidence that the Statue of Liberty is in the same harbor where Ellis Island is, a major port of entry for Legal immigrants coming to the US, and all of these immigrants had to pass strict scrutiny regarding health, know criminal past, even morality, etc, or they would be denied entry and sent back to their place of origin. How do you think Geneology.com even operates? It does so from immigration records. None of these factors are known of the illegals that come here, as they are undocumented.
However you imagine it should be, there is a border to the South, and one to the North, with a law that states, Do Not Cross Without Permission.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

They don't have to accept lower wages for their labor. There are several ways to compete. You can improve the perceived value of your labor, you can improve your skills or you can change the market in which you're competing in, just to name a few. But, if Americans decide to sit on their duff or waste their day's labor marching up and down cussing down their customers, then yeah, that is third world.

In an ideal enviornment what you say is true. However, in the real world, this isn't necessarily going to happen. In the construction industry, for example, an American worker may be the best at installing drywall for example. He'll work for $25/hour. let's say. Here comes an illegal, who does the same work, not as well, but he can get it done cheaper. He'll work for $18/hour TAX FREE. The American, WHO IMPROVED HIS SKILL cannot find work because he's been outpriced. What does he do? Learn more construction skills? Become the best at what he does? That's great, but when you're undercut, there's not a lot you can do, other than take less for your labor.

You complain about American workers cursing at their customers. Yes, there is a problem with customer service in America, no doubt. However, if I go to a fast food place (try to avoid most times), and my order is screwed up, I should be able to communicate with a manager who speaks English, and not have to speak Espanol IN MY OWN COUNTRY! Not to mention, fast food used to be a great place for many black kids to learn work skills and move up to management. White, suburban kids would work to pay their car insurance, or whatever. Teenagers lost a place of employment. Don't think it's a problem? When illegals undercut teenage labor, it's a problem. Don't give me teenagers won't work for crap. The illegals are working for less than minimum under the table. This is actually a perfect example of why raising the minimum wage does nothing to help anyone.


The origination cost of ALL goods is zero. Any price you pay for anything, is simply the price for labor to bring the good from the earth to the end consumer.

I'm assuming you're getting at is, if you have a job that's illegal proof, it's good for you because the illegal labor keeps the prices down?

That's not good for America.


They're not organized, they're individuals. We should be dealing with issues of the individual, not the group.

No? They aren't organized? What in the hell is La Raza? What the hell did you call the WALKOUT last year at many industrial plants for "immigration reform"? You are either really naive, or so doctrinaire in your "libertarian" beliefs that you are willing to see this Great Experiment fail.

While I agree that the individual illegal should be dealt with on an individual level, there are groups which advocate for ALL ILLEGALS as a group.


I resent the notion that this is a problem that is based on one's alien status. However, your solution does nothing to solve the problem. You keep them as blank faces. Changing the immigration laws to simply documenting all entrants would give all immigrants a face in our country and thus, could be prosecuted for their actions just like everybody else.

The alien status of someone has no bearing on the FACT that in the Hispanic culture, young males drink to oblivion to prove to their peers that they are men. This has been documented many times. You'd have to be BLIND to the FACT that in places with high levels of illegal immigration, drunk driving has increased astronomically. Circumstantial or not, there is a correlation. While you feel "documentation" of the illegals will minimize the problem, you seem to have no problem giving up your Constitutional rights to make things easier for an illegal. What am I missing here? I did not see RP on the Colbert Report, so I cannot possibly know the context of his quote. However, I seriously doubt RP, based upon many years in the House of Representatives as a defender of the Constitution, would support any trampling of the 4th Amendment because the culture of one GROUP has made an area of the country more prone to drunk driving. Your RP quote taken out of context does not make you a libertarian, but could see you as an advocate for a police state. It actually sounds like something Giuliani would say when defending survaillance cameras.


I didn't call anyone a racist, I called you a bigot. It's quite appropriate actually, especially in light of your response.
If being an American who believes the borders need securing makes me a bigot, so be it. Nice to know there's probably about 150 million bigots in the United States today.


This isn't an issue of relativity. It's an issue of principles. Our laws should be aligned with our principles. Do I need to quote the poem that is on the Statue of Liberty again? Those are our principles.
Our principles welcome immigrants who want to become Americans. I do not think anyone wants to curtail immigration, well maybe Tom Tancredo. No, my problem is that people DO NOT WANT TO BECOME CITIZENS, DO NOT OBEY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, FORCE AMERICAN CITIZENS TO LEARN THEIR LANGUAGE, FORCE AMERICANS TO PAY FOR THEM, and give us nothing in return, except cheap labor.

[cjhowe]

Do you know for fact that these are the US principles? Show me in US law that this country is here to accept the riff raff of the world. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French to mark the Centennial of the US. Who wrote this? Did this inscription come with the Statue, some flowery prose from a Frenchman? Even if they are, these 'principles' as you call them, refer to Legal immigration, at a time when the Nation was still young, Reconstruction following the Civil War and expansion Westward was ongoing.
It is no coincidence that the Statue of Liberty is in the same harbor where Ellis Island is, a major port of entry for Legal immigrants coming to the US, and all of these immigrants had to pass strict scrutiny regarding health, know criminal past, even morality, etc, or they would be denied entry and sent back to their place of origin. How do you think Geneology.com even operates? It does so from immigration records. None of these factors are known of the illegals that come here, as they are undocumented.
However you imagine it should be, there is a border to the South, and one to the North, with a law that states, Do Not Cross Without Permission.

A brief history. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first significant restriction on free immigration in U.S. history. Not our finest moment as it was race based and was introduced to protect the miner union's interests. The Emergency Quota Act of 1921, created the "problem" of illegal immigration by specifying quotas for certain countries (countries in the Western Hemisphere were not included in this). Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 discontinued quotas based on national origin and added limitations on Mexican nationals.

At the inauguration ceremony on October 28, 1886 President Grover Cleveland accepted the "Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World" on behalf of the American people, promising, "we will not forget that Liberty has here made her home; nor shall her chosen altar be neglected."

By creating unnecessary, burdensome, bureaucratic barriers to immigration we have forgotten liberty and the principle that all men are created equal and that their unalienable rights were granted to them by their Creator. Emma Lazarus was an American poet that beautifully captured these principles and our cherished immigrant history in words.

No one is suggesting that we shouldn't keep with the idea of "do not cross without permission". I'm simply advocating that the permission be based solely on whether the individual is a threat and their understanding of the responsibility that freedom brings. Our current immigration laws do not reflect these principles.

[PennCustom4RP]

A brief history. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first significant restriction on free immigration in U.S. history. Not our finest moment as it was race based and was introduced to protect the miner union's interests. The Emergency Quota Act of 1921, created the "problem" of illegal immigration by specifying quotas for certain countries (countries in the Western Hemisphere were not included in this). Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 discontinued quotas based on national origin and added limitations on Mexican nationals.

Still no citation of law that states these are US principles, in fact the above mentioned Acts further enforce that these are not US principles as described on the Statue.


At the inauguration ceremony on October 28, 1886 President Grover Cleveland accepted the "Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World" on behalf of the American people, promising, "we will not forget that Liberty has here made her home; nor shall her chosen altar be neglected."
Still not law, and we all know how far inaugural promises have gotten us thus far.


By creating unnecessary, burdensome, bureaucratic barriers to immigration we have forgotten liberty and the principle that all men are created equal and that their unalienable rights were granted to them by their Creator. Emma Lazarus was an American poet that beautifully captured these principles and our cherished immigrant history in words.
You have said in a previous post, that you are a 'Rule of Law' person. Maybe on any other issue, but not this one. You are NAU and LaRaza supporter, I've said it before, I'll say it again.

No one is suggesting that we shouldn't keep with the idea of "do not cross without permission". I'm simply advocating that the permission be based solely on whether the individual is a threat and their understanding of the responsibility that freedom brings. Our current immigration laws do not reflect these principles.
You contradict your own statement above, and you fail to distinguish the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
You most do advocate crossing w/o permission, you do so in every post you make on this topic. Our current immigration Laws are just that...Laws

[cjhowe]

In an ideal enviornment what you say is true. However, in the real world, this isn't necessarily going to happen. In the construction industry, for example, an American worker may be the best at installing drywall for example. He'll work for $25/hour. let's say. Here comes an illegal, who does the same work, not as well, but he can get it done cheaper. He'll work for $18/hour TAX FREE.

I am also an advocate of the abolition of the income tax. When our laws are aligned with our principles, we don't need to measure the relativity of our principles and we don't need to compromise them in light of some new protectionist's scheme. The quality of the illegal's work only needs to provide greater value to the person purchasing it.


The American, WHO IMPROVED HIS SKILL cannot find work because he's been outpriced. What does he do? Learn more construction skills? Become the best at what he does? That's great, but when you're undercut, there's not a lot you can do, other than take less for your labor.

No, he learns skills that he can obtain a satisfactory wage, whether they be in his industry or another. I don't see anyone defending the covered wagon maker, he has skills that he can't earn a satisfactory wage, no matter how refined his skill may be.


You complain about American workers cursing at their customers.

This was in reference to Man from La Mancha's story about the man doing copper work being out competed by an illegal. Instead of accepting a lower wage and having any productivity, the individual preferred to curse at the man who chose the illegal's labor over his.


Yes, there is a problem with customer service in America, no doubt. However, if I go to a fast food place (try to avoid most times), and my order is screwed up, I should be able to communicate with a manager who speaks English, and not have to speak Espanol IN MY OWN COUNTRY!

If you find it difficult to voice your complaint with a company, you should probably choose to do your business elsewhere. This is poor consumerism if you choose not to.


Not to mention, fast food used to be a great place for many black kids to learn work skills and move up to management. White, suburban kids would work to pay their car insurance, or whatever. Teenagers lost a place of employment. Don't think it's a problem? When illegals undercut teenage labor, it's a problem. Don't give me teenagers won't work for crap. The illegals are working for less than minimum under the table. This is actually a perfect example of why raising the minimum wage does nothing to help anyone.

Wow, where to begin on that tirade. I've addressed most of it already on my discussion about labor competitiveness and volition of trade of labor. We claim to support the free market, but want to promote the ideals of protectionism? This seems absurd to me.

As far as the minimum wage not helping. It's not because of illegals, it's because it undercuts the freedom to contract for one's labor. What if there is need for labor, the minimum wage is 7.25/hr, but a computer can do it for 4.50/hr. Who gets the job? The computer. Our economy has been able to absorb the harm that the minimum wage causes because we were in the best position to produce the technology that replaced the unskilled labor. I'm afraid we're not in that same position this time around and you will quickly see greater poverty because there will be less need of unskilled labor and people will use scapegoats like illegal immigration instead of increasing their overall competitiveness.




I'm assuming you're getting at is, if you have a job that's illegal proof, it's good for you because the illegal labor keeps the prices down?

That's not good for America.

Anything that allows for greater quality and quantity of goods that reach the end consumer, improves standard of living. Improved standard of living what is good for America.


No? They aren't organized? What in the hell is La Raza? What the hell did you call the WALKOUT last year at many industrial plants for "immigration reform"? You are either really naive, or so doctrinaire in your "libertarian" beliefs that you are willing to see this Great Experiment fail.

While I agree that the individual illegal should be dealt with on an individual level, there are groups which advocate for ALL ILLEGALS as a group.

The current attitude towards immigration, is proof that the Great Experiment is failing. The goal of the Great Experiment is freedom, not greatness. Greatness is simply a by-product of freedom and should never be the goal. I'm not entirely familiar with La Raza, but I understand they are proponents of legal immigration, but that immigration laws should reflect reality in terms of the economy and values towards family. It's funny you mention that. The ones who walked out were the legals. The illegals kept working.




The alien status of someone has no bearing on the FACT that in the Hispanic culture, young males drink to oblivion to prove to their peers that they are men. This has been documented many times. You'd have to be BLIND to the FACT that in places with high levels of illegal immigration, drunk driving has increased astronomically. Circumstantial or not, there is a correlation. While you feel "documentation" of the illegals will minimize the problem, you seem to have no problem giving up your Constitutional rights to make things easier for an illegal. What am I missing here? I did not see RP on the Colbert Report, so I cannot possibly know the context of his quote. However, I seriously doubt RP, based upon many years in the House of Representatives as a defender of the Constitution, would support any trampling of the 4th Amendment because the culture of one GROUP has made an area of the country more prone to drunk driving. Your RP quote taken out of context does not make you a libertarian, but could see you as an advocate for a police state. It actually sounds like something Giuliani would say when defending survaillance cameras.

Irish and Russians have this same propensity for drinking. Alcohol abuse is not an issue about alien status. If alcohol abuse has repercussions on society outside of the individual's choice on what to put in their body, it should be dealt with accordingly. The quote is referring to the belief that we can be safe from whatever evil is out there without forfeiting up our liberties. You don't need random checkpoints to deal with DUI.



If being an American who believes the borders need securing makes me a bigot, so be it. Nice to know there's probably about 150 million bigots in the United States today.

I'm not sure how much that attitude benefits you, but you are certainly entitled to be a bigot. Just recognize what you are.


Our principles welcome immigrants who want to become Americans. I do not think anyone wants to curtail immigration, well maybe Tom Tancredo. No, my problem is that people DO NOT WANT TO BECOME CITIZENS,

Immigration is not about citizenship. If the American principles of freedom were pervasive, I should be free to be an American and trade my labors in other parts of the world.


DO NOT OBEY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,

Someone that does not obey the laws should be dealt with accordingly. However, if our laws do not reflect our principles, we should change our laws


FORCE AMERICAN CITIZENS TO LEARN THEIR LANGUAGE,

No one is forcing you to learn their language. You do not have to communicate with them if you don't want to. There is no force here.


FORCE AMERICANS TO PAY FOR THEM,

The only people _forcing you to pay for them are the people you've elected to Congress.


and give us nothing in return, except cheap labor.
If that is all they are providing us, what is it that you're providing?

[cjhowe]

Still no citation of law that states these are US principles, in fact the above mentioned Acts further enforce that these are not US principles as described on the Statue.


Still not law, and we all know how far inaugural promises have gotten us thus far.

.
You have said in a previous post, that you are a 'Rule of Law' person. Maybe on any other issue, but not this one. You are NAU and LaRaza supporter, I've said it before, I'll say it again.

You contradict your own statement above, and you fail to distinguish the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
You most do advocate crossing w/o permission, you do so in every post you make on this topic. Our current immigration Laws are just that...Laws

Our current immigration laws are laws that do not align with our principles. Should people be punished under the law? Yes. Should we change the law? Yes. This is no different than what we discussed about drug laws. Should you be punished under the law for smoking pot? Yes. Should we change the laws so that you can? Yes.

As far as NAU. I would be for the NAU if the principles of our government were WHOLLY preserved. Since this is entirely improbable, I am opposed to it. I don't understand why LaRaza is being attacked here. As I understand it, they are a pro-civil liberty organization. Are you anti NAACP too? I'm sure some things on their agenda may encroach on others civil liberties, but the basic principle of protecting civil liberties should be supported.

[PennCustom4RP]

Our current immigration laws are laws that do not align with our principles. Should people be punished under the law? Yes. Should we change the law? Yes. This is no different than what we discussed about drug laws. Should you be punished under the law for smoking pot? Yes. Should we change the laws so that you can? Yes.

Chris, this isnt the point. It doesnt matter what you believe 'should be', what matters is that the laws remain as they are, and need to be enforced. If/When the laws change, then you can have this debate.


As far as NAU. I would be for the NAU if the principles of our government were WHOLLY preserved. Since this is entirely improbable, I
am opposed to it.

Ok, If you say so...but the opinions you post are consistently to the contrary. But really what your saying is you'd be for it if, what you believe to be the 'principles' of the US, though not Law, be preserved. This is entirely your opinion as to what US principles are, and not supported as by the previous Acts you posted.


I don't understand why LaRaza is being attacked here. As I understand it, they are a pro-civil liberty organization.
Do you feel LaRaza is being attacked because I associate you with it?

or

http://www.nclr.org/content/policy/detail/1063/
National Council of La Raza: Policies

Which states the same agenda as you do..consistently through all these illegal immigration threads.


Are you anti NAACP too? I'm sure some things on their agenda may encroach on others civil liberties, but the basic principle of protecting civil liberties should be supported.

Yes...where is the NAAWP...oh thats right, can't have white folks getting together to protect their civil liberties...would be a racist organization.
The ACLU is on my list too, they have forgotten what the 'A' stands for in ACLU.

[cjhowe]

Chris, this isnt the point. It doesnt matter what you believe 'should be', what matters is that the laws remain as they are, and need to be enforced. If/When the laws change, then you can have this debate.

This is entirely the point. I have not once advocated breaking the laws. I have only advocated that the laws are not aligned with our principles and need to change so that they are aligned with our principles of freedom, that all men are created equal and that freedom to contract one's labor is an unalienable right that can only be removed through due process.


Ok, If you say so...but the opinions you post are consistently to the contrary. But really what your saying is you'd be for it if, what you believe to be the 'principles' of the US, though not Law, be preserved. This is entirely your opinion as to what US principles are, and not supported as by the previous Acts you posted.

The rule of law is one of our principles. However, in order for our principles to be consistent, our current laws regarding immigration, drugs and other things need to change, so that they are in balance with all of our principles. Protectionism and corporatism are not our principles.


Do you feel LaRaza is being attacked because I associate you with it?

or

http://www.nclr.org/content/policy/detail/1063/
National Council of La Raza: Policies

Which states the same agenda as you do..consistently through all these illegal immigration threads.

You're certainly using the association in a demeaning way. Though I don't know why. I would agree with La Raza's stance on CLEAR. This would be the same reason with respect to local California law enforcement not enforcing federal drug laws.


Yes...where is the NAAWP...oh thats right, can't have white folks getting together to protect their civil liberties...would be a racist organization.
The ACLU is on my list too, they have forgotten what the 'A' stands for in ACLU.

We have several NAAWPs, a few examples called Congress, SCOTUS and POTUS. If white people feel their civil liberties are specifically being violated they have the power to easily remedy it. The SCOTUS branch of the NAAWP recently ruled contrary to Brown v Board of Education in order to protect white civil liberties.

[PennCustom4RP]

This is entirely the point. I have not once advocated breaking the laws. I have only advocated that the laws are not aligned with our principles and need to change so that they are aligned with our principles of freedom, that all men are created equal and that freedom to contract one's labor is an unalienable right that can only be removed through due process.

You have time and time again stated, in numerous threads concerning this issue, that illegal is a status,not an activity, that these illegals are not stealing from us by using services they are not supposed to be using, by working here, and not paying taxes, when they are not supposed to be here at all, these are all crimes. If this is not advocating the breaking of laws, I don't know what is.


The rule of law is one of our principles. However, in order for our principles to be consistent, our current laws regarding immigration, drugs and other things need to change, so that they are in balance with all of our principles. Protectionism and corporatism are not our principles.

The is NO 'However' 'The Rule of Law' is what is currently on the books, and what needs to be enforced. Not how you would wish the laws to be. These laws ARE consistent for those who wish to emigrate here Legally.
You keep spouting 'our' principles, but have yet to give me any instance of these being of any Law Don't assume that your/the US principles are the same, as you yourself have provided Acts, which are Laws, that differ from your opinion.


You're certainly using the association in a demeaning way. Though I don't know why.

Not meant to be demeaning, was just a question. But the answer is clear.


I would agree with La Raza's stance on CLEAR. This would be the same reason with respect to local California law enforcement not enforcing federal drug laws.

Of course you would, because you know that the Federal Govt is doing nothing, so you, like LaRaza don't want the State or Local municipalities to be able to enforce anything, therefor the Illegals are permitted to keep coming in, Carte Blanche, unhindered.
So by association with this issue, you are a LaRaza supporter.


We have several NAAWPs, a few examples called Congress, SCOTUS and POTUS. If white people feel their civil liberties are specifically being violated they have the power to easily remedy it.

Thats bull, these entities are by and large giving away America, voting for Amnesty, claiming we need these illegals because Americans won't do the job...they forget to complete the sentence... for a decent wage.
You can give me your free trade argument again and again, like you have to all of us on this thread, It doesnt hold an ounce. The fact is that the American employers are going to pay the very least they can get away with, regardless, if they can hire 3 illegals to do the job of one American for less money, they will. You can blow smoke up my ass all day, you'll not change my mind


The SCOTUS branch of the NAAWP recently ruled contrary to Brown v Board of Education in order to protect white civil liberties.
I am very sure there were some black folks cheering that recent ruling on too. They didn't want to be bused across town for diversity.

Hey, why don't we just annex Mexico, problem solved.

[cjhowe]

You have time and time again stated, in numerous threads concerning this issue, that illegal is a status,not an activity, that these illegals are not stealing from us by using services they are not supposed to be using, by working here, and not paying taxes, when they are not supposed to be here at all, these are all crimes. If this is not advocating the breaking of laws, I don't know what is.

To be in America, not of an approved status is a crime that is on the books and should be enforced. The law runs contrary to the principles of freedom and should be changed, but while it is on the books, it should be enforced. Just like your experimentation with illegal drugs is a crime that is on the books and should be enforced. However, because the law runs contrary to our principles of freedom, the law should be changed, but while it is on the books, it should be enforced. They are not stealing, they pay every tax that you do with the exception of FICA and SS. Because of the wage they are accepting, they likely would not owe FICA if their wages were reported and they are not eligible to receive SS benefits, so why should they pay? Those supporting RP for President want to do away with FICA entirely and give everyone the option to opt out of SS because they run contrary to the principles of freedom and the laws should be changed. Every other tax they pay. There is no advocation of breaking the laws. If you wish to enjoin an individuals ability to work in America, you need to charge them with a crime and prosecute them for it. Same as you and the illegal drugs. If we wish to enjoin you from breaking our drug laws, we need to charge you with a crime and prosecute you for it. Why do you have a double standard?


The is NO 'However' 'The Rule of Law' is what is currently on the books, and what needs to be enforced. Not how you would wish the laws to be. These laws ARE consistent for those who wish to emigrate here Legally.
You keep spouting 'our' principles, but have yet to give me any instance of these being of any Law Don't assume that your/the US principles are the same, as you yourself have provided Acts, which are Laws, that differ from your opinion.

I agree, enforce what is on the books, but when laws run contrary to our principles, we need to change the laws. Enforce the immigration and drug laws while they are on the books, but change the laws because they run contrary to freedom.


Not meant to be demeaning, was just a question. But the answer is clear.



Of course you would, because you know that the Federal Govt is doing nothing, so you, like LaRaza don't want the State or Local municipalities to be able to enforce anything, therefor the Illegals are permitted to keep coming in, Carte Blanche, unhindered.
So by association with this issue, you are a LaRaza supporter.

That's a ridiculous conclusion. With that train of thought, I could come to the conclusion that with your association with the issue you're a KKK supporter. Note, I'm not making coming to that conclusion, just suggesting that they take similar scruples to come to.


Thats bull, these entities are by and large giving away America, voting for Amnesty, claiming we need these illegals because Americans won't do the job...they forget to complete the sentence... for a decent wage.
You can give me your free trade argument again and again, like you have to all of us on this thread, It doesnt hold an ounce. The fact is that the American employers are going to pay the very least they can get away with, regardless, if they can hire 3 illegals to do the job of one American for less money, they will. You can blow smoke up my ass all day, you'll not change my mind

Thank you for admitting to being a bigot on this issue.


I am very sure there were some black folks cheering that recent ruling on too. They didn't want to be bused across town for diversity.

Hey, why don't we just annex Mexico, problem solved.

What do you think we've been doing for the last 175 years? California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming were all purchased/annexed in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. After Texas independence from Mexico, the US annexed what is now Texas, parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Kansas. But I digress. We don't continue to annex Mexico because the government of Mexico has substantially different principles than does the U.S.

[Man from La Mancha]

We don't continue to annex Mexico because the government of Mexico has substantially different principles than does the U.S.

Like jailing and deporting and torturing illegals in Mexico. Or not letting foreigners work or own land. Yea that's the ticket. Maybe Mexicans should spend a little more time kicking out their Spanish conquerers that are still ruling the country than trying to change ours.
.

[PennCustom4RP]

To be in America, not of an approved status is a crime that is on the books and should be enforced. The law runs contrary to the principles of freedom and should be changed, but while it is on the books, it should be enforced.
Again Chris, you want no way possible for the laws to be enforced, unless its Federal, which they refuse to do...again your circular argument.


Just like your experimentation with illegal drugs is a crime that is on the books and should be enforced.
Chris Im 42 yrs old, no current illegal drug use in 25 years, you tell me you never had an underage beer and I'll call BS...youre equating apples to oranges..more of your same weak circular argument.

However, because the law runs contrary to our principles of freedom, the law should be changed, but while it is on the books, it should be enforced.
Ok, contradict yourself some more, and here you are with the 'our' principles nonsense that you have already shot down with your own inclusion of Acts concerning Legal Immigration, which are Law, and have yet to cite me any law to the contrary that support these principles that you claim to be 'ours'. This is your own personal opinion, not a consensus, and thus far you have vomited this dribble in 3 consecutive replies. Enough Chris.


Again as stated above...and the law hasnt been changed, you cant conclude what should be, only what is.


They are not stealing, they pay every tax that you do with the exception of FICA and SS. Because of the wage they are accepting, they likely would not owe FICA if their wages were reported and they are not eligible to receive SS benefits, so why should they pay?

Blah Blah Blah...more of your regurgitation.


Those supporting RP for President want to do away with FICA entirely and give everyone the option to opt out of SS because they run contrary to the principles of freedom and the laws should be changed. Every other tax they pay.
It hasnt been done, you can't base a present day argument on what you might like to see in the future.

There is no advocation of breaking the laws.
I stand by what Ive said, you advocate.

If you wish to enjoin an individuals ability to work in America, you need to charge them with a crime and prosecute them for it. Same as you and the illegal drugs. If we wish to enjoin you from breaking our drug laws, we need to charge you with a crime and prosecute you for it. Why do you have a double standard?
Not according to you or LaRaza, you wish for now way to even ask about status. Go ahead, enforce the drug law, you'll be hard pressed to meet your burden that Ive committed any crime, not the same can be said in meeting the burden that an illegal has committed a crime. No double standard here.



I agree, enforce what is on the books, but when laws run contrary to our principles, we need to change the laws. Enforce the immigration and drug laws while they are on the books, but change the laws because they run contrary to freedom.

Bullshit Chris, you don't agree about enforcing the law, as youve stated more times that I care to count.


That's a ridiculous conclusion. With that train of thought, I could come to the conclusion that with your association with the issue you're a KKK supporter. Note, I'm not making coming to that conclusion, just suggesting that they take similar scruples to come to.

Thank you for admitting to being a bigot on this issue.

Ok so now youve called me a Klan supporter and a bigot, just like you have called many others who have discussed this with you...not once ever have I mentioned the Klan in this entire debate, no where have I made a racial slur, only you have.
Typically weak assertion when your argument fails, act like a minority and cry racism...Sharpton and Jesse should be stopping by you house any day now and have you on TV



What do you think we've been doing for the last 175 years? California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming were all purchased/annexed in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. After Texas independence from Mexico, the US annexed what is now Texas, parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Kansas. But I digress. We don't continue to annex Mexico because the government of Mexico has substantially different principles than does the U.S.

I knew youd like that.

Chris you live in an unrealistic fantasy world. All I can do is agree to disagree with you.

[cjhowe]

Again Chris, you want no way possible for the laws to be enforced, unless its Federal, which they refuse to do...again your circular argument.

Since it's Federal law that has jurisdiction over immigration, yes I want it to be Federal enforcement.


Chris Im 42 yrs old, no current illegal drug use in 25 years, you tell me you never had an underage beer and I'll call BS...youre equating apples to oranges..more of your same weak circular argument.

Good point, statute of limitations on federal crimes is 5 years if I'm not mistaken. The crime of illegal immigration is "improper entry of an alien". There is an additional regulatory statute of unlawful presence, however one does not have this status until a judge declares it. Unlawful presence has not been criminalized. This is what makes the Hazelton's ordinances a violation of due process. It either allows landlords to determine unlawful presence status, places the burden on determining whether the statute of limitation for the criminalized improper entry has not expired or it determines that the government is the granter of right to tenant by having a roster of eligible tenants instead of a list of ineligible tenants.


Ok, contradict yourself some more, and here you are with the 'our' principles nonsense that you have already shot down with your own inclusion of Acts concerning Legal Immigration, which are Law, and have yet to cite me any law to the contrary that support these principles that you claim to be 'ours'. This is your own personal opinion, not a consensus, and thus far you have vomited this dribble in 3 consecutive replies. Enough Chris.

I didn't want to address this directly at you because I fear it makes you look foolish. Are you suggesting that the following are not our principles?

Freedom
Recognition that all men are created equal.
It is the responsibility of our government to protect the unalienable rights of all men.



Again as stated above...and the law hasnt been changed, you cant conclude what should be, only what is.

I can and I did.


Blah Blah Blah...more of your regurgitation.


It hasnt been done, you can't base a present day argument on what you might like to see in the future.

This is nonsensical. I have not said one single time that we should not enforce the law. If the law is on the books, it should be enforced to the fullest extent that due process can accommodate.


I stand by what Ive said, you advocate.

Not according to you or LaRaza, you wish for now way to even ask about status. Go ahead, enforce the drug law, you'll be hard pressed to meet your burden that Ive committed any crime, not the same can be said in meeting the burden that an illegal has committed a crime. No double standard here.

Well, your self confession is evidence, but the statute of limitations has expired for that, much as it has for roughly 80% of those you wish to discriminate against. The crime is illegal entry. You can witness someone illegally entering this country. Law enforcement can upon investigation of a specific crime, confirm someone's legal status, sure. However, it would be quite difficult to begin an investigation solely on illegal entry that is based on evidence of criminal behavior instead of being based on discrimination of race, religion, national origin, sex, handicap or family status. We should not tolerate government abuse of civil rights in this manner.



Bullshit Chris, you don't agree about enforcing the law, as youve stated more times that I care to count.

I guess you don't even care to count to one then. I have never said that laws should not be enforced.


Ok so now youve called me a Klan supporter and a bigot, just like you have called many others who have discussed this with you...not once ever have I mentioned the Klan in this entire debate, no where have I made a racial slur, only you have.
Typically weak assertion when your argument fails, act like a minority and cry racism...Sharpton and Jesse should be stopping by you house any day now and have you on TV

I only called you a KKK supporter if your argument that agreeing with an organization's stance on an issue makes you a supporter of that organization is correct. I think that it is an incorrect assertion, so I'm not calling you a KKK supporter. I'm not calling you a racist, however because you are intolerant of opinions that differ with your prejudiced viewpoints, I am calling you a bigot.



I knew youd like that.

Chris you live in an unrealistic fantasy world. All I can do is agree to disagree with you.

I don't see the fantasy. Regardless of whether these immigrants were in their own country or in ours, they would be competing. We do not live in a walled garden. Protectionism only improves the short term prosperity of one group at the expense of a higher standard of living for all individuals.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Okay Chris, here's a real world example.

Let's assume you own 10,000 acres of land, and you really only do anything with 1,000 of those acres. I see this, and I decide to tresspass on 1 of those 9,000. I really don't do anything "wrong", other than squat on your land. I see that the land appears to be open, and invite my friends to live with me and near me. I also see that I can work near where I live. Knowing I don't have any legal address or legal standing, I offer to work for a lot less than the average employee and don't care about benefits. I suggest to my friends that they do this as well.

Seeing that nobody has really complained about me and my friends being there, we start to get bolder. More people like me enter your land. We start to destroy parts of your land, bother other neighbors, force legal workers out of jobs because we work for less. We start demanding that our children are allowed to attend local schools. We start demanding government services. We also demand that the land we squatted on becomes ours because nobody cared.

Following your logic, the only "crime" my friends and I committed was "tresspassing".

[cjhowe]

Okay Chris, here's a real world example.

Let's assume you own 10,000 acres of land, and you really only do anything with 1,000 of those acres. I see this, and I decide to tresspass on 1 of those 9,000. I really don't do anything "wrong", other than squat on your land. I see that the land appears to be open, and invite my friends to live with me and near me. I also see that I can work near where I live. Knowing I don't have any legal address or legal standing, I offer to work for a lot less than the average employee and don't care about benefits. I suggest to my friends that they do this as well.

Seeing that nobody has really complained about me and my friends being there, we start to get bolder. More people like me enter your land. We start to destroy parts of your land, bother other neighbors, force legal workers out of jobs because we work for less. We start demanding that our children are allowed to attend local schools. We start demanding government services. We also demand that the land we squatted on becomes ours because nobody cared.

Following your logic, the only "crime" my friends and I committed was "tresspassing".

That is a nonsensical analogy. One, only citizens can vote, so only citizens can _demand services from their government. And two to transpose your argument to immigration is a gross abuse of eminent domain, one that has NEVER been accepted. If the immigrant has the invitation of the property owner to be there (living or working) how is it trespassing?

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

That is a nonsensical analogy. One, only citizens can vote, so only citizens can _demand services from their government. And two to transpose your argument to immigration is a gross abuse of eminent domain, one that has NEVER been accepted. If the immigrant has the invitation of the property owner to be there (living or working) how is it trespassing?

You are very wrong on many levels.

You truly believe that only citizens can vote? Are you not aware that in many areas with large influxes of illegals, there is a movement in place to allow any parents with children in school, regardless of citizenship status, the right to vote on school issues. That would include bonds, property tax votes, or anything else related to schools. And you would be okay with this?

Illegals have the RIGHT to attend government schools, BECAUSE there was a Supreme Court case which gave the illegals that right. So, one can say they demanded that government "service". Do illegals take advantage of the welfare state? Of course they do. If we were to grow a pair and take away these things, as we should, you would hear howling from illegals and their sponsors.

The invitation, in order for your answer to be valid, would have had to occur before the illegal crossed the border. Otherwise, it's a chicken-egg argument. How is the presence of the illegal, before any invitation to live or work, or without the proper visa or clearance not tresspassing?

Fact is, all of our property taxes are going up because of services used by illegals. I DID NOT INVITE THE ILLEGALS HERE.

In all your arguments, Chris, if the world was Utopia, I think the majority of us can agree with you in some way. The fact is, the world will never be Utopia. The closest we would ever get to your idyllic paradise would be "one-world government", which is just plain scary.

[cjhowe]

You are very wrong on many levels.

You truly believe that only citizens can vote? Are you not aware that in many areas with large influxes of illegals, there is a movement in place to allow any parents with children in school, regardless of citizenship status, the right to vote on school issues. That would include bonds, property tax votes, or anything else related to schools. And you would be okay with this?

Illegals have the RIGHT to attend government schools, BECAUSE there was a Supreme Court case which gave the illegals that right. So, one can say they demanded that government "service". Do illegals take advantage of the welfare state? Of course they do. If we were to grow a pair and take away these things, as we should, you would hear howling from illegals and their sponsors.

The invitation, in order for your answer to be valid, would have had to occur before the illegal crossed the border. Otherwise, it's a chicken-egg argument. How is the presence of the illegal, before any invitation to live or work, or without the proper visa or clearance not tresspassing?

Fact is, all of our property taxes are going up because of services used by illegals. I DID NOT INVITE THE ILLEGALS HERE.

In all your arguments, Chris, if the world was Utopia, I think the majority of us can agree with you in some way. The fact is, the world will never be Utopia. The closest we would ever get to your idyllic paradise would be "one-world government", which is just plain scary.

This argument always amazes me. You admit to agreeing with my principles on the issue but insist that it isn't pragmatic. However it was pragmatic up until the mid 1960s when we decided we needed another group to hate since we could no longer hate on blacks.

You don't need a one world government to obtain liberty for people within a securable border, you simply need to respect the liberties of everyone within it and understand what it is the border is being secured from. Our borders do not need securing from people who are willing to accept a lower wage for their labor. Our borders do need securing from those that wish to threaten freedom. Free flow of labor over borders does not threaten your life, liberty or your property. Yet our current immigration policy threatens the liberties of those in the "out" group.

It is my opinion that Americans who hold to strengthening or maintaining our immigrations laws as they are today, take for granted the responsibility that comes with the freedom that they enjoy.

[Lord Xar]

This argument always amazes me. You admit to agreeing with my principles on the issue but insist that it isn't pragmatic. However it was pragmatic up until the mid 1960s when we decided we needed another group to hate since we could no longer hate on blacks.

You don't need a one world government to obtain liberty for people within a securable border, you simply need to respect the liberties of everyone within it and understand what it is the border is being secured from. Our borders do not need securing from people who are willing to accept a lower wage for their labor. Our borders do need securing from those that wish to threaten freedom. Free flow of labor over borders does not threaten your life, liberty or your property. Yet our current immigration policy threatens the liberties of those in the "out" group.

It is my opinion that Americans who hold to strengthening or maintaining our immigrations laws as they are today, take for granted the responsibility that comes with the freedom that they enjoy.

Naw.. you got it all wrong.. this is the SAME argument as "more security, less liberty"... you are pulling the same wool over everyones eyes... - Seriously, are you part of the ACLU or ARA or perhaps you are an anarchist. I think you are seperating alot of things and drawing deductions on everything but actual factual data. You are the great disseminator of "my opinion" and "this is how I feel so you are wrong" type of garbage... Lets try this... stop trying to tell everyone their wrong, and listen just for a little bit. Instead of reading a post and responding SOOOOO quickly to prove your point, and them wrong.. analyze where they are coming from... you seem a very controlling type in your seemingly wanting view of liberty..

In case you didn't know, the "OUT" group are NOT citizens... period.

You want a complete and obvious stripping of america. I have some questions for you:

What religion are you ?
Do you agree with the North America Union?

Everyone, do NOT listen to this chump. He is using Ron Pauls message and manipulating it to try and twist YOUR beliefs to his own. He is slowly and surely trying to marginalize your beliefs so you can accept his own. The more I read this guys posts, the more I am taken to believe he is a schill here

**************

Here is an interesting little article I found. I am sure CJHOW could find fault with it, or make excuses or pull some obscure reference that is not pertinent but somehow word his stance to make you believe it is -- he might also try to tell you that the earth is flat and that socialism/anarchy/communism are cool things.... all under the guise of true liberty, of course.

*************

ILLEGAL ALIEN "CONTRIBUTIONS" TO THE U.S.
2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

CRIME
95 % of Warrants in LOS ANGELES are for ILLEGAL ALIENS
83 % of Warrants for MURDER in Phoenix Arizona are FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
86 % of Warrants for MURDER in Albuquerque New Mexico are for ILLEGAL ALIENS
75 % of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Albuquerque are ILLEGAL ALIENS
24.9 % OF ALL INMATES in California detention centers are Mexican Nationals here ILLEGALLY
40.1 % of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican Nationals here ILLEGALLY
29 % (630,000) Convicted ILLEGAL ALIENS felons fill our state and federal prisons at the cost of $1.5
Billion Annually
53 % Plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas
are perpertrated by ILLEGAL ALIENS
50 % Plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are ILLEGAL ALIENS
71 % Plus of all apprehended Cars stolden in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California were
stolden by ILLEGAL ALIENS or "Transport Coyotes "
47 % of cited / stopped Drivers in California have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for the
vehicle of that 47 %, over 92 % were ILLEGAL ALIENS
63 % of cited / stopped Drivers in Arizona have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for the
vehicle of that 63 %, over 97 % are ILLEGAL ALIENS
66 % of cited / stopped Drivers in New Mexico have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for
the vehicle Of that 66 %, over 98 % were ILLEGAL ALIENS

BIRTHS
380,000 Plus "ANCHOR BABIES" were born in the U.S. in 2005 to ILLEGAL ALIEN PARENTS, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S. Citizens 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid for by American taxpayers.
66 % OF all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid by taxpayers

HOUSING
300,000 plus illegal aliens in Los Angeles Country are living in garages
Nearly 60 % of all occupants of HUD properties in the United States are illegal aliens.

TV & RADIO STATIONS
14 out of 31 TV stations in L.C. are Spanish only16 out of 28 TV stations in Phoenix are Spanish only
15 out of 24 TV stations in Albuquerque are Spanish only 21 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish only
17 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish only 17 radio stations in Albuquerque are Spanish only

SCHOOLS
34% plus of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens and 24% plus are non-English speaking
39% plus of California students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens and 42% plus are non-English speaking
In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English - 3.9 million speak Spanish

SOCIAL SERVICES
43 % of all Food Stamps issued are to illegal aliens
41 % of all Unemployment Checks in the United States are to illegal aliens
58 % of all Welfare payments in the United States are issued to illegal aliens
Less than 2 % of illegal aliens are picking crops but 41 % are on welfare

POPULATION
Over 70% of the U.S. annual population growth (and over 90% of CA, FL, and NY) results from immigration

EMPLOYER PROFITS
The estimated profit to U.S. corporations and businesses employing illegal aliens in 2005 was more than 2.36 trillion

TAXES
62 % of all "undocumented immigrants" in the U.S. are working for cash and not paying taxes, predominantly illegal aliens are working without a green card
The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 (last known calculation by Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University) was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay), $70 Billion per year. [What are the 2006 costs?]
The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average illegal alien is $55,000 cost to the American taxpayer in a 5-year span. You personally pay $11,000 every year to illegal aliens.

JOBS (per Center for Immigration Studies - September 2006): Between 2000 and 2005, 4.1 million immigrant workers arrived in the U.S., accounting for 86% of the net inrease in the total number of employed persons (16 & older), the highest share ever recorded in the U.S. Of the 4.1 million, between 1.4 and 2.7 million are estimated to be illegal aliens. Also, between 2000 and 2005, the number of young (16 to 34) native-born men employed declined by 1.7 million - at the same time, the number of new male immigrant workers increased by 1.9 million. [Do you still believe the gov't employment rate stats?]

ACTION: Please share this data with elected officials, particularly those who spew the PCBS about all the "contributions of illegal aliens to our society" AND "our economy would collapse without them"! However, NONE of this will matter IF our borders are not secured OR Pres. Bush succeeds in abolishing them (via his SPP, NAU, NAFTA Hwy), and illegal alien murders, drug smugglers and terrorists continue to be welcomed into our country

http://www.savage-productions.com/illegal_alien_contributions.html

[PennCustom4RP]

Naw.. you got it all wrong.. this is the SAME argument as "more security, less liberty"... you are pulling the same wool over everyones eyes... - Seriously, are you part of the ACLU or ARA or perhaps you are an anarchist. I think you are seperating alot of things and drawing deductions on everything but actual factual data. You are the great disseminator of "my opinion" and "this is how I feel so you are wrong" type of garbage... Lets try this... stop trying to tell everyone their wrong, and listen just for a little bit. Instead of reading a post and responding SOOOOO quickly to prove your point, and them wrong.. analyze where they are coming from... you seem a very controlling type in your seemingly wanting view of liberty..

In case you didn't know, the "OUT" group are NOT citizens... period.

You want a complete and obvious stripping of america. I have some questions for you:

What religion are you ?
Do you agree with the North America Union?

[I]Everyone, do NOT listen to this chump. He is using Ron Pauls message and manipulating it to try and twist YOUR beliefs to his own. He is slowly and surely trying to marginalize your beliefs so you can accept his own. The more I read this guys posts, the more I am taken to believe he is a schill here

Yeah I can agree with that.

[cjhowe]

Naw.. you got it all wrong.. this is the SAME argument as "more security, less liberty"... you are pulling the same wool over everyones eyes... - Seriously, are you part of the ACLU or ARA or perhaps you are an anarchist. I think you are seperating alot of things and drawing deductions on everything but actual factual data. You are the great disseminator of "my opinion" and "this is how I feel so you are wrong" type of garbage... Lets try this... stop trying to tell everyone their wrong, and listen just for a little bit. Instead of reading a post and responding SOOOOO quickly to prove your point, and them wrong.. analyze where they are coming from... you seem a very controlling type in your seemingly wanting view of liberty..

In case you didn't know, the "OUT" group are NOT citizens... period.

I don't know which part of

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
...you don't understand. All men are created equal, not just citizens. In addition, many in the "out" group ARE citizens of the U.S. You see too many browns living or working together, you want to start up an investigation.


You want a complete and obvious stripping of america. I have some questions for you:

What religion are you ?

I have no current beliefs in the supernatural, but am open to any evidence you may have.


Do you agree with the North America Union?

As I've already stated, in this thread, I would be fine with the NAU, provided it didn't sacrifice any of our founding principles. As I don't see this is possible, I am opposed to it. American borders are the artificial lines drawn on a map that we recognize as the American government's responsibility to protect our unalienable rights. It matters not to me if that line is the Rio Grande River, the Panama Canal, the two great oceans or the farthest reaches of our solar system, so long as it doesn't retreat from their current position.


Everyone, do NOT listen to this chump. He is using Ron Pauls message and manipulating it to try and twist YOUR beliefs to his own. He is slowly and surely trying to marginalize your beliefs so you can accept his own. The more I read this guys posts, the more I am taken to believe he is a schill here

**************

I have never represented my view of immigration is Ron Paul's view. I have represented it as the view of libertarianism, however. From what I can tell from what RP said at the NH debate, he wants to end the welfare state for illegals and then determine proper immigration reform. I would argue that you enact proper immigration reform that is aligned with our principles, and that will force us to end the welfare state for all.


Here is an interesting little article I found. I am sure CJHOW could find fault with it, or make excuses or pull some obscure reference that is not pertinent but somehow word his stance to make you believe it is -- he might also try to tell you that the earth is flat and that socialism/anarchy/communism are cool things.... all under the guise of true liberty, of course.

Could you find a link to the actual report. I find it suspect that an INS/FBI report even exists in 2006 for any quarter, seeing as the INS was broken up in March 2003 with previous responsibilities being assigned to the Immigration and Custom Enforcement branch and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services branch of the Department of Homeland Security.

Nothing of what I've written could be construed as socialism or communism, everything that I've written on any subject has been about the responsibility of government to protect the unalienable rights of everyone so that every individual can accept SELF responsibility. As far as anarchy, I have never once advocated breaking the law or even encouraged civil disobedience. I have simply advocated changing the laws so that they are in tune and aligned with the principles of freedom.


*************

ILLEGAL ALIEN "CONTRIBUTIONS" TO THE U.S.
2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

CRIME
95 % of Warrants in LOS ANGELES are for ILLEGAL ALIENS
83 % of Warrants for MURDER in Phoenix Arizona are FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
86 % of Warrants for MURDER in Albuquerque New Mexico are for ILLEGAL ALIENS
75 % of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Albuquerque are ILLEGAL ALIENS
24.9 % OF ALL INMATES in California detention centers are Mexican Nationals here ILLEGALLY
40.1 % of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican Nationals here ILLEGALLY
29 % (630,000) Convicted ILLEGAL ALIENS felons fill our state and federal prisons at the cost of $1.5
Billion Annually
53 % Plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas
are perpertrated by ILLEGAL ALIENS
50 % Plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are ILLEGAL ALIENS
71 % Plus of all apprehended Cars stolden in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California were
stolden by ILLEGAL ALIENS or "Transport Coyotes "
47 % of cited / stopped Drivers in California have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for the
vehicle of that 47 %, over 92 % were ILLEGAL ALIENS
63 % of cited / stopped Drivers in Arizona have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for the
vehicle of that 63 %, over 97 % are ILLEGAL ALIENS
66 % of cited / stopped Drivers in New Mexico have NO License, NO Insurance, and NO Registration for
the vehicle Of that 66 %, over 98 % were ILLEGAL ALIENS

BIRTHS
380,000 Plus "ANCHOR BABIES" were born in the U.S. in 2005 to ILLEGAL ALIEN PARENTS, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S. Citizens 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid for by American taxpayers.
66 % OF all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid by taxpayers

HOUSING
300,000 plus illegal aliens in Los Angeles Country are living in garages
Nearly 60 % of all occupants of HUD properties in the United States are illegal aliens.

TV & RADIO STATIONS
14 out of 31 TV stations in L.C. are Spanish only16 out of 28 TV stations in Phoenix are Spanish only
15 out of 24 TV stations in Albuquerque are Spanish only 21 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish only
17 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish only 17 radio stations in Albuquerque are Spanish only

SCHOOLS
34% plus of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens and 24% plus are non-English speaking
39% plus of California students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens and 42% plus are non-English speaking
In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English - 3.9 million speak Spanish

SOCIAL SERVICES
43 % of all Food Stamps issued are to illegal aliens
41 % of all Unemployment Checks in the United States are to illegal aliens
58 % of all Welfare payments in the United States are issued to illegal aliens
Less than 2 % of illegal aliens are picking crops but 41 % are on welfare

POPULATION
Over 70% of the U.S. annual population growth (and over 90% of CA, FL, and NY) results from immigration

EMPLOYER PROFITS
The estimated profit to U.S. corporations and businesses employing illegal aliens in 2005 was more than 2.36 trillion

TAXES
62 % of all "undocumented immigrants" in the U.S. are working for cash and not paying taxes, predominantly illegal aliens are working without a green card
The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 (last known calculation by Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University) was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay), $70 Billion per year. [What are the 2006 costs?]
The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average illegal alien is $55,000 cost to the American taxpayer in a 5-year span. You personally pay $11,000 every year to illegal aliens.

JOBS (per Center for Immigration Studies - September 2006): Between 2000 and 2005, 4.1 million immigrant workers arrived in the U.S., accounting for 86% of the net inrease in the total number of employed persons (16 & older), the highest share ever recorded in the U.S. Of the 4.1 million, between 1.4 and 2.7 million are estimated to be illegal aliens. Also, between 2000 and 2005, the number of young (16 to 34) native-born men employed declined by 1.7 million - at the same time, the number of new male immigrant workers increased by 1.9 million. [Do you still believe the gov't employment rate stats?]

ACTION: Please share this data with elected officials, particularly those who spew the PCBS about all the "contributions of illegal aliens to our society" AND "our economy would collapse without them"! However, NONE of this will matter IF our borders are not secured OR Pres. Bush succeeds in abolishing them (via his SPP, NAU, NAFTA Hwy), and illegal alien murders, drug smugglers and terrorists continue to be welcomed into our country

http://www.savage-productions.com/illegal_alien_contributions.html

[tati4freedom]

Listen,

As a Latina whose family came from Texas and never needed to immigrate, I can tell you that although the Latino community is divided, almost half of us are pissed off at the illegal immigration situation. Illegals and the people who employ them are helping to break the backbone of the working class and the middle class. I'm not down for paying a cent to school, medically treat, fund with foods stamps or otherwise give ANY preferential treatment to illegals from whatever country they come. We CAN'T AFFORD it. Besides, you know the population who is really pissed off? The LEGAL immigrants that we invite into our country. They jumped through hoops, waited in line, respected our laws and our process, not like these Mojados who have no respect. If we want to help them, let's get out of the U.N., drop NAFTA and other dangerous policies, and let the Mexicans rebuild their economy and have a country worth living in. I'm sorry, but I agree with Ron Paul, "No amnesty." It's not about hating the illegals, it's about taking care of Americans.

[Man from La Mancha]

Listen,

As a Latina whose family came from Texas and never needed to immigrate, I can tell you that although the Latino community is divided, almost half of us are pissed off at the illegal immigration situation. Illegals and the people who employ them are helping to break the backbone of the working class and the middle class. I'm not down for paying a cent to school, medically treat, fund with foods stamps or otherwise give ANY preferential treatment to illegals from whatever country they come. We CAN'T AFFORD it. Besides, you know the population who is really pissed off? The LEGAL immigrants that we invite into our country. They jumped through hoops, waited in line, respected our laws and our process, not like these Mojados who have no respect. If we want to help them, let's get out of the U.N., drop NAFTA and other dangerous policies, and let the Mexicans rebuild their economy and have a country worth living in. I'm sorry, but I agree with Ron Paul, "No amnesty." It's not about hating the illegals, it's about taking care of Americans.


Well said!!



I would discount most of what cjhowe says, he lives in a land of delusions. He is either an illegal or is married to one or has a girlfriend or friends that are or is profiting from their labor. You will never change the total illogical stands he takes.


State & County QuickFacts demographics of each state
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html


Crimes in each state
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

.

[cjhowe]

Listen,

As a Latina whose family came from Texas and never needed to immigrate, I can tell you that although the Latino community is divided, almost half of us are pissed off at the illegal immigration situation. Illegals and the people who employ them are helping to break the backbone of the working class and the middle class. I'm not down for paying a cent to school, medically treat, fund with foods stamps or otherwise give ANY preferential treatment to illegals from whatever country they come. We CAN'T AFFORD it. Besides, you know the population who is really pissed off? The LEGAL immigrants that we invite into our country. They jumped through hoops, waited in line, respected our laws and our process, not like these Mojados who have no respect. If we want to help them, let's get out of the U.N., drop NAFTA and other dangerous policies, and let the Mexicans rebuild their economy and have a country worth living in. I'm sorry, but I agree with Ron Paul, "No amnesty." It's not about hating the illegals, it's about taking care of Americans.

Tati,
Thank you for your response. I can certainly appreciate your viewpoint on this issue. The one thing I don't understand is, why doesn't this outrage of disrespecting the federal law in the Latino community crossover to an outrage toward drug users? 42% of Hispanic High School students admit to using marijuana in their lifetime. That's a federal crime too. Doesn't that make them illegals too? No outrage there.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/minorities/index.html

[cjhowe]

Well said!!



I would discount most of what cjhowe says, he lives in a land of delusions. He is either an illegal or is married to one or has a girlfriend or friends that are or is profiting from their labor. You will never change the total illogical stands he takes.


State & County QuickFacts demographics of each state
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html


Crimes in each state
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

.

Yeah, that must be why I hold the position that I do, it couldn't be because it's consistent with freedom and the principle that all men are created equal or any of the other libertarian values that I hold. I'm white, trace all my ancestors lineage to 1900, where there's a great grandparent who was Canadian. Everyone else goes back to at least 1800 before there is another non-American citizen. I've never been married, have dated Latinas, but they were all here legally. I hold a graduate degree and don't have a need for non-skilled labor of any kind at the moment and most of my friends are in the same boat. It might just be that I hold the viewpoints that I do because I've taken an economics course or two, taken a civics course or two as well and when I hold a prejudiced viewpoint I search to see if it is warranted and if it's not, I try to change that viewpoint. FYI, I haven't yet found a prejudiced viewpoint that was warranted.

The by-product of freedom is greatness. There is no other philosophy that yields better results. Imagine if America decided to give freedom a chance again.

[Man from La Mancha]

Yeah, that must be why I hold the position that I do, it couldn't be because it's consistent with freedom and the principle that all men are created equal or any of the other libertarian values that I hold. I'm white, trace all my ancestors lineage to 1900, where there's a great grandparent who was Canadian. Everyone else goes back to at least 1800 before there is another non-American citizen. I've never been married, have dated Latinas, but they were all here legally. I hold a graduate degree and don't have a need for non-skilled labor of any kind at the moment and most of my friends are in the same boat. It might just be that I hold the viewpoints that I do because I've taken an economics course or two, taken a civics course or two as well and when I hold a prejudiced viewpoint I search to see if it is warranted and if it's not, I try to change that viewpoint. FYI, I haven't yet found a prejudiced viewpoint that was warranted.

The by-product of freedom is greatness. There is no other philosophy that yields better results. Imagine if America decided to give freedom a chance again.

Thanks for the non offensive reply. The bottom line is that illegals have broken our laws and must not to be rewarded for doing so.

.

[cjhowe]

Thanks for the non offensive reply.

Yeah, it's too bad that I couldn't return the thanks.



The bottom line is that illegals have broken our laws and must not to be rewarded for doing so.

.

I agree, those 40+% of high school students in that drug report link shouldn't be able to find work or housing. They shouldn't even be able to find shelter with their family. And we should look for ways to discriminate against the young adults in America because odds are they've broken our drug laws. No rewards for any of those illegals.

[tati4freedom]

Sorry CJ,

I believe you are comparing apples and oranges. Smoking marijuana is against the law, this is true, but a victimless crime is not the same as a crime where everyone pays. Illegal immigrants don't just come to this country to do the jobs no one wants, they come here and take jobs that used to be union jobs, such as meatpacking jobs, manufacturing jobs and construction jobs. Americans DO want these jobs and they want to be paid decently for them. Americans are also harmed when they can't get emergency medical services because of illegals, and hospitals are going bankrupt for having to provide service to people who have no right to be here. Shall I keep going? How about the taxes I have to pay for schools that are overcrowded because of children of illegals. We vote on bonds for school every year and it is hurting the tax payer; all of our social service systems are stretched to the limit and our working and middle class are paying the price.

I'd also like to see Marijuana and other drugs legalized or state regulated so the tax payer can stop paying money for jailing victimless users. I AM outraged about that...it's ridiculous to jail someone doing drugs for as much time as a murderer or rapist. So comparing drug use in teenagers to 40 million illegal aliens is just absurd.

[tati4freedom]

"I agree, those 40+% of high school students in that drug report link shouldn't be able to find work or housing. They shouldn't even be able to find shelter with their family. And we should look for ways to discriminate against the young adults in America because odds are they've broken our drug laws. No rewards for any of those illegals."

This guy is a socialist troll. Or a complete idiot.

[PennCustom4RP]

Sorry CJ,
I believe you are comparing apples and oranges.

Hey, they are both fruit right? So they must be the same...hahaha.

Read any of cjhowes posts regarding illegal immigration, all the same crap...most times he even fails to make any distinction between illegal and legal.
Youll be better served to not even engage in his circular arguments, just will waste your time, and I agree with your last statement in your subsequent post.
Not to get off topic on the Hazleton issue, not that hasnt already happened, but...
In regard to drug use, is drug use a crime? Who has been arrested for smoking pot or doing any drug? The crime lies in the trafficking, manufacturing, distribution, possession, driving while under the influence and paraphernalia regarding the drug, etc. Without proof of any of the aforementioned, no crime. I guess a 'contact high' is illegal too. Maybe Cj needs to indulge a little..;-)

[cjhowe]

Sorry CJ,

I believe you are comparing apples and oranges. Smoking marijuana is against the law, this is true, but a victimless crime is not the same as a crime where everyone pays. Illegal immigrants don't just come to this country to do the jobs no one wants, they come here and take jobs that used to be union jobs, such as meatpacking jobs, manufacturing jobs and construction jobs.
Americans DO want these jobs and they want to be paid decently for them.

These used to be jobs that required special skills. Because of advancements in technology, not so much anymore. The market decides what the going wage for a particular job is, not decency. Your argument is akin to saying that you should be able to sell your 15 year old computer for the 2500 bucks you originally paid for it even though others in the market are selling it for 5 dollars. If a job no longer requires the expertise of someone making $X/ hour, it shouldn't pay $X/ hour. Americans not accepting a lower wage for these no longer skilled jobs means they don't want the job.



Americans are also harmed when they can't get emergency medical services because of illegals, and hospitals are going bankrupt for having to provide service to people who have no right to be here.

In all industries there is an expected number of firms that will default for a variety of reasons. This is not uncommon. The majority of hospitals that go under in today's marketplace is due to mismanagement and negligence. The next time you hear about a hospital about to close, take a drive by. In the parking lot for the administrative personnel, take a survey of the value of the automobiles there.


Shall I keep going? How about the taxes I have to pay for schools that are overcrowded because of children of illegals. We vote on bonds for school every year and it is hurting the tax payer; all of our social service systems are stretched to the limit and our working and middle class are paying the price.

I love how this is always phrased, "children of illegals". The fact of the matter is, the child isn't illegal. The child has followed all the laws as they currently stand. You wish to deny a natural born citizen of the United States equal access to education? In addition, even the illegal families are paying the school taxes. Included in their rent the landlord is including the overhead expense of property tax. Included in the products they buy in the local area, the business owner is including a markup to cover the overhead expense of his property taxes. And before you say that they don't pay out as much as their child takes up, you're right, but only the wealthiest families and those without children do pay out as much as they consume in educational services.


I'd also like to see Marijuana and other drugs legalized or state regulated so the tax payer can stop paying money for jailing victimless users. I AM outraged about that...it's ridiculous to jail someone doing drugs for as much time as a murderer or rapist. So comparing drug use in teenagers to 40 million illegal aliens is just absurd.
There are 40 million illegal aliens? Even the most discredited survey only attempts to put the number at 20 million. In any case, as long as there is drug prohibition, drug use is not a victimless crime. Drug use provides the currency for which gangs are able to exist as well as the currency that allows terrorism to exist. Drug prohibition and labor prohibition have much more in common than you think.

"I agree, those 40+% of high school students in that drug report link shouldn't be able to find work or housing. They shouldn't even be able to find shelter with their family. And we should look for ways to discriminate against the young adults in America because odds are they've broken our drug laws. No rewards for any of those illegals."

This guy is a socialist troll. Or a complete idiot.

How do you get socialism out of that tongue in cheek comment? Anyway, you're the one advocating unions. Unions are socialized labor, and in practice they are so inept that they don't even get the benefits of socialism.

[cjhowe]

Hey, they are both fruit right? So they must be the same...hahaha.

Read any of cjhowes posts regarding illegal immigration, all the same crap...most times he even fails to make any distinction between illegal and legal.
Youll be better served to not even engage in his circular arguments, just will waste your time, and I agree with your last statement in your subsequent post.
Not to get off topic on the Hazleton issue, not that hasnt already happened, but...
In regard to drug use, is drug use a crime? Who has been arrested for smoking pot or doing any drug? The crime lies in the trafficking, manufacturing, distribution, possession, driving while under the influence and paraphernalia regarding the drug, etc. Without proof of any of the aforementioned, no crime. I guess a 'contact high' is illegal too. Maybe Cj needs to indulge a little..;-)

You must have some sort of magic stash if you can use drugs without being in possession of them.