Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 112 of 112

Thread: Laura Ingraham "super disappointed" in Rand Paul for opposing mass deportation

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Cutlerzzz View Post
    ITT

    -It is practical, moral, and constitutional for the government to determine who private business can and can't hire.
    This is so totally indefensible to me that I can't imagine how anybody justifies it. How is it moral or constitutional for the federal government even to know if I'm engaged in any private business at all, or what it is if I am, or whether I pay other people to do work for me, or who they are if I do, much less tell me how to go about it?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru View Post
    How is Rand Paul's position "total amnesty?"
    His position is if you come here illegally you can stay forever without any legal consequence. That is amnesty. It rewards everyone who broke the law at the expense of those who didn't and sends the message to future illegals that as long as enough of you sneak in, you'll eventually be granted amnesty too.

    It is poor policy and it isn't even sound politics. Mexicans vote overwhelmingly Democratic not because they want more poor Mexicans to compete with them in the job market but because Poor Low income voters tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Importing Mexicans en masse is about as stupid a policy as the Republicans could possibly come up with, yet that is what the Democrats have suckered them in to supporting. And it goes beyond just the votes of the individual Mexican immigrants coming in. Mexicans have a higher birthrate than everyone else, meaning its not just more votes today, but even more votes in the decades to come.

    There is nothing wrong with advocating "immigration reform". American in fact is in desperate need of immigration reform. But if "immigration reform" all you mean is doing whatever we can do to flood American with as many poor Mexicans as possible, then I want nothing to do with your reform. Let the Democrats run on a platform of turning the rest of America in to Southern California and Southwest Texas. Not even people in Southern California or SW Texas would find that prospect appealing.

    BTW- Rand's more recent comments in response to Jeb Bush's "love" speech struck a far more sensible tone. So I don't know really what to think when it comes to Rand and immigration. Sometimes he says things that sound pro-Amnesty and sometimes he says things that sound more like his Dad. When the rubber hit the road he did come out against the Gang of Eight Bill, and he's expressed his view that the House should not bring any immigration bill to the floor, so in terms of actions he's never really done anything objectionable. I don't know if he is trying to play both sides of the fence or what or what. I think it would take an interview by somebody outside the MSM who understands the right questions to ask for us to really get an idea of what Rand truly believes, but I don't see that ever happening. So we'll probably have to just wait until he's President.
    Last edited by RonPaulMall; 04-19-2014 at 11:56 AM.

  4. #93
    Wow, it's quite interesting how the NAP or any semblance of libertarian philosophy gets thrown out the window when the topic of immigration is at hand. I know there are many forum members and Ron Paul supporters who aren't libertarians, but I still wonder about the few who probably consider themselves to be and who also hold these beliefs.

    The conservative belief that rights (which are natural) only apply to citizens is wrong. (Classical) Liberalism (which if you believe in the reason for the existence of the U.S Constitution, you should adhere to in some form) derives rights from human nature and not government. There is no victim in immigration, and consequently the government uses force against a non-aggressor, making the government the aggressor (per usual.)

    Economic protectionism is outdated and wrong. Free-markets are the moral conclusion from both deontological and consequentialist perspectives of libertarian thought.

    The only valid argument is that immigrants (just like citizens) should not get special benefits, such as welfare.

    Remember, the word "citizen" wasn't defined in the U.S Constitution until the 14th Amendment.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    This is so totally indefensible to me that I can't imagine how anybody justifies it. How is it moral or constitutional for the federal government even to know if I'm engaged in any private business at all, or what it is if I am, or whether I pay other people to do work for me, or who they are if I do, much less tell me how to go about it?
    I can't say for sure, but his whole post looks like satire to me. I find it hard to believe he was serious.
    Addendum: I looked up ITT, it stands for "in this thread". He was listing all the arguments made in this thread. Maybe you knew that, obviously I didn't.
    Last edited by Henry Rogue; 04-19-2014 at 12:21 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.

  6. #95
    I think the issue of immigration is a good way to separate pie-in-the-sky idealists from feet-on-the-ground realists. When I identified as a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, I was a pretty ardent Open Borders advocate, but now I think immigration restrictions are a fantastic idea and would like to see them more stringently enforced.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    I can't say for sure, but his whole post looks like satire to me. I find it hard to believe he was serious.
    Addendum: I looked up ITT, it stands for "in this thread". He was listing all the arguments made in this thread. Maybe you knew that, obviously I didn't.
    The ITT threw me off too. I also looked it up, and found a list that included "I think that," which looked like the one that made sense in context.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulMall View Post
    His position is if you come here illegally you can stay forever without any legal consequence. That is amnesty. It rewards everyone who broke the law at the expense of those who didn't and sends the message to future illegals that as long as enough of you sneak in, you'll eventually be granted amnesty too.

    It is poor policy and it isn't even sound politics. Mexicans vote overwhelmingly Democratic not because they want more poor Mexicans to compete with them in the job market but because Poor Low income voters tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Importing Mexicans en masse is about as stupid a policy as the Republicans could possibly come up with, yet that is what the Democrats have suckered them in to supporting. And it goes beyond just the votes of the individual Mexican immigrants coming in. Mexicans have a higher birthrate than everyone else, meaning its not just more votes today, but even more votes in the decades to come.

    There is nothing wrong with advocating "immigration reform". American in fact is in desperate need of immigration reform. But if "immigration reform" all you mean is doing whatever we can do to flood American with as many poor Mexicans as possible, then I want nothing to do with your reform. Let the Democrats run on a platform of turning the rest of America in to Southern California and Southwest Texas. Not even people in Southern California or SW Texas would find that prospect appealing.

    BTW- Rand's more recent comments in response to Jeb Bush's "love" speech struck a far more sensible tone. So I don't know really what to think when it comes to Rand and immigration. Sometimes he says things that sound pro-Amnesty and sometimes he says things that sound more like his Dad. When the rubber hit the road he did come out against the Gang of Eight Bill, and he's expressed his view that the House should not bring any immigration bill to the floor, so in terms of actions he's never really done anything objectionable. I don't know if he is trying to play both sides of the fence or what or what. I think it would take an interview by somebody outside the MSM who understands the right questions to ask for us to really get an idea of what Rand truly believes, but I don't see that ever happening. So we'll probably have to just wait until he's President.
    It's good to see some (mixed) signs Rand is backing off of supporting any bill, as no immigration reform is preferable to reform, that will probably be used as a cover to introduce more tyranny on all of us. Rand on immigration is following his general tactical playbook of saying things that please (or at least disarm) the dominant neocon framework, while holding back on substance, which may practically go another way. It's harder to cleanly do in this case, as it is one of the cultural issues that gets many people wound up. No, the election choice of most voters won't turn the topic, but among single issue people, on balance a dual position that supports legal immigration and a protected borders position (i.e., no amnesty) is the net vote winner.

    Protected borders is a NAP-compliant position, in that a government has a proper defensive role with regards to its borders, as part of its delegated power to defend life, liberty and property. All people have rights, but a particular government's obligation to honor or protect those rights can be reasonably restricted to those persons or families who have voluntarily made themselves participants, or citizens, under that government though acts of allegiance, such as completing a naturalization or resident process.

    A foreigner who is visiting the country is not a citizen, nor is a foreign worker with an expired visa a citizen, nor is an invading soldier a citizen, simply because he is physically 'here.' None have undertaken to switch allegiance to the country, so as to oblige the government to provide automatic access to its protections and resources. So there are victims in illegal immigration, namely the native allegiant citizens, who are expected to involuntarily support (through their delegated government) a population who has not entered voluntary allegiance to that government. Their non-performance of the legal process makes them aliens and aggressors until they rectify the situation, every bit as much as people taking up residence without entering into a lease agreement are not legal tenants, but trespassers.

    Of course, due to logistical issues it may be impracticable to remove them, a point well expressed earlier, but it does not follow that compounding the problem by granting amnesty is a practical solution, let alone a libertarian approach. As is plain from the Reagan amnesty example from the '80's, amnesty simply encouraged a larger expression of illegal immigration, and a larger population of non-allegiant aliens who have forced access to American resources. A new round of amnesty would likely trigger another, probably bigger wave.

    The actual practical way out would be to adopt the "individual responsibility" approach of the INA poster (jllundqu, post 59) earlier in the thread, where current aliens are given a choice of either never receiving amnesty or any form of legal status, OR self-deporting and going through the process. This approach 1) puts the obligation on the alien to put things right, 2) does NOT obligate anybody to support impractical mass-deportation or 2,000 mile fence schemes, 3) would not encourage further waves of illegal immigration by setting aside completion of the established naturalization laws, and 4) makes it clear that full recognition, rights and benefits as an American, requires formally volunteering to be an American--anything less, is the equivalent of extended trespassing.
    Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 04-28-2014 at 11:15 AM.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by menciusmoldbug View Post
    I think the issue of immigration is a good way to separate pie-in-the-sky idealists from feet-on-the-ground realists. When I identified as a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, I was a pretty ardent Open Borders advocate, but now I think immigration restrictions are a fantastic idea and would like to see them more stringently enforced.
    Philosophy aside, some of the policy ideas I heard are lousy. Punishing small businesses for hiring illegal aliens seems like bad planning to me. Besides the pressures it puts on business, seems like the majority of illegal aliens would end up on the public teat. What's the best way to discourage illegal immigration in your opinion?
    Last edited by Henry Rogue; 04-19-2014 at 03:58 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    Wow, it's quite interesting how the NAP or any semblance of libertarian philosophy gets thrown out the window when the topic of immigration is at hand. I know there are many forum members and Ron Paul supporters who aren't libertarians, but I still wonder about the few who probably consider themselves to be and who also hold these beliefs.

    The conservative belief that rights (which are natural) only apply to citizens is wrong. (Classical) Liberalism (which if you believe in the reason for the existence of the U.S Constitution, you should adhere to in some form) derives rights from human nature and not government. There is no victim in immigration, and consequently the government uses force against a non-aggressor, making the government the aggressor (per usual.)

    Economic protectionism is outdated and wrong. Free-markets are the moral conclusion from both deontological and consequentialist perspectives of libertarian thought.

    The only valid argument is that immigrants (just like citizens) should not get special benefits, such as welfare.

    Remember, the word "citizen" wasn't defined in the U.S Constitution until the 14th Amendment.
    Southern California used to be one of the most desirable places in America for a middle class family to live. It is now one of the worst. Are the people that had flee their homeland not "victims" of current government policy?

    Immigration does not happen in a vacuum. As respected anarcho-capitalist philosopher Han-Hermann Hoppe notes, the current system amounts to forced integration. In a Libertarian society there would not be tens of millions of Mexican immigrants streaming across the borders every decade because private property rights would keep them out. Government policy perverts the natural order, and in this case it is quite obviously perverting it for a reason. In a Democracy, the poor, third world immigrants are the best type of "citizens" a politician can have. We are in a war, and unbridled immigration is the best weapon the government elites have at their disposal. If left unchecked, the liberty movement becomes an irrelevancy, because the entire country will become like Southern California or Southwest Texas and you no longer have a country worth fighting for.

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    Philosophy aside, some of the policy ideas I heard are lousy. Punishing small businesses for hiring illegal aliens seems like bad planning to me. Besides the pressures it puts on business, seems like the majority of illegal aliens would end up on the public teat.
    100% agreed, I hope my comments won't be interpreted as support for E-Verify or any other such horrid schemes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    What's the best way to discourage illegal immigration in your opinion?
    Depends on what you mean by "best," and I don't think there's wide understanding of or agreement on the meaning of the word in this context.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulMall View Post
    Southern California used to be one of the most desirable places in America for a middle class family to live. It is now one of the worst. Are the people that had flee their homeland not "victims" of current government policy?

    Immigration does not happen in a vacuum. As respected anarcho-capitalist philosopher Han-Hermann Hoppe notes, the current system amounts to forced integration. In a Libertarian society there would not be tens of millions of Mexican immigrants streaming across the borders every decade because private property rights would keep them out. Government policy perverts the natural order, and in this case it is quite obviously perverting it for a reason. In a Democracy, the poor, third world immigrants are the best type of "citizens" a politician can have. We are in a war, and unbridled immigration is the best weapon the government elites have at their disposal. If left unchecked, the liberty movement becomes an irrelevancy, because the entire country will become like Southern California or Southwest Texas and you no longer have a country worth fighting for.

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RonPaulMall again.

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by menciusmoldbug View Post
    100% agreed, I hope my comments won't be interpreted as support for E-Verify or any other such horrid schemes.



    Depends on what you mean by "best," and I don't think there's wide understanding of or agreement on the meaning of the word in this context.
    Yes, my question was vague. What legislation could realistically be passed, that (1) results in a significant reduction in illegal immigration? (2) Improves economic conditions, specifically unemployment? I believe that is the main problem attributed to Illegal immigration, are there any others? Crime, subsidation, and currency fleeing the country, pehaps.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    Yes, my question was vague. What legislation could realistically be passed, that (1) results in a significant reduction in illegal immigration? (2) Improves economic conditions, specifically unemployment?
    With the current makeup of the House/Senate/Presidency? There probably isn't any.

    http://redcardsolution.com/

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    I believe that is the main problem attributed to Illegal immigration, are there any others? Crime, subsidation, and currency fleeing the country, pehaps.
    It's true that illegal immigration is often used as a scapegoat for unemployment, but I believe the relationship is often overstated. The larger problems are mostly difficult-to-measure externalities, imo.

    http://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/JonesADR

    http://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/JonesADBSlides

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulMall View Post
    Southern California used to be one of the most desirable places in America for a middle class family to live. It is now one of the worst. Are the people that had flee their homeland not "victims" of current government policy?
    Certainly a lot of it had to do with California's politics, particularly its record of high economic regulation and low freedom otherwise. These people are victims of government, not immigrants.


    Immigration does not happen in a vacuum. As respected anarcho-capitalist philosopher Han-Hermann Hoppe notes, the current system amounts to forced integration. In a Libertarian society there would not be tens of millions of Mexican immigrants streaming across the borders every decade because private property rights would keep them out. Government policy perverts the natural order, and in this case it is quite obviously perverting it for a reason. In a Democracy, the poor, third world immigrants are the best type of "citizens" a politician can have. We are in a war, and unbridled immigration is the best weapon the government elites have at their disposal. If left unchecked, the liberty movement becomes an irrelevancy, because the entire country will become like Southern California or Southwest Texas and you no longer have a country worth fighting for.

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html
    This is very much akin to leftist logic when they want government to interfere with the economy. The government and corporations are in bed with each other, so more government. So, by that logic, the government promotes immigration, so we need more government. I'm certain Hans-Hermann Hoppe doesn't promote increasing militarization of the border, massive deportations, etc, etc that have been described by persons in this thread. His answer is likely to remove government which induces these problems in the first place.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    This is so totally indefensible to me that I can't imagine how anybody justifies it. How is it moral or constitutional for the federal government even to know if I'm engaged in any private business at all, or what it is if I am, or whether I pay other people to do work for me, or who they are if I do, much less tell me how to go about it?
    Because the law says so.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    Certainly a lot of it had to do with California's politics, particularly its record of high economic regulation and low freedom otherwise. These people are victims of government, not immigrants.
    Tell me, Quark, are you familiar with the form of government known as "democracy"? Do you know how it is usually defined? Do you understand how politicians and policies are selected in a democracy?

    California's record of high economic regulation and low freedom otherwise is a result of Mexican immigration. California has, in a very real and meaningful sense, been invaded and taken over. The state is now run much less competently than it was before this enormous wave of immigrants hit it. Most parts of the state are a far less pleasant place to live and raise a family than they used to be.

    Importing arbitrary numbers of voters into a democracy who are much more favorable towards big government than the native population will produce bigger government. When these voters are also roughly half a standard deviation dumber than the native population, on average, the quality of the big government in question will go down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    This is very much akin to leftist logic when they want government to interfere with the economy. The government and corporations are in bed with each other, so more government. So, by that logic, the government promotes immigration, so we need more government. I'm certain Hans-Hermann Hoppe doesn't promote increasing militarization of the border, massive deportations, etc, etc that have been described by persons in this thread. His answer is likely to remove government which induces these problems in the first place.
    Sometimes bigger government is better. If your argument rests on the axiom that smaller government is always preferable to bigger government, then you have a problem.

    http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/...archo-tyranny/
    Last edited by menciusmoldbug; 04-19-2014 at 10:42 PM.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Cutlerzzz View Post
    Because the law says so.
    Laws can be immoral and unconstitutional. I'll repeat the question:

    "How is it moral or constitutional for the federal government even to know if I'm engaged in any private business at all, or what it is if I am, or whether I pay other people to do work for me, or who they are if I do, much less tell me how to go about it?"

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by menciusmoldbug View Post
    Laws can be immoral and unconstitutional. I'll repeat the question:

    "How is it moral or constitutional for the federal government even to know if I'm engaged in any private business at all, or what it is if I am, or whether I pay other people to do work for me, or who they are if I do, much less tell me how to go about it?"
    Because the law says so. The law MUST be follow at all costs. It might occasionally entail some things I don't care for (Slavery, Jim Crow, Indian Removal, Iraqi Sanctions, arrests for victimless crimes), but as a whole, the people in Washington usually get it right. Who are you to question them?

    If you don't like the law, vote to change it, and if you don't have faith in Democracy, then you must not believe in freedom.

  22. #109
    Supporting Member
    North Carolina



    Posts
    2,946
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    The federal government's positions of immigration and overstaying visas tells you how much they value your citizenship. Soft positions on immigration just mean we are going to get lots more of it. But that's alright citizens of the world?
    Equality is a false god.

    Armatissimi e Liberissimi

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Cutlerzzz View Post
    Because the law says so. The law MUST be follow at all costs. It might occasionally entail some things I don't care for (Slavery, Jim Crow, Indian Removal, Iraqi Sanctions, arrests for victimless crimes), but as a whole, the people in Washington usually get it right. Who are you to question them?

    If you don't like the law, vote to change it, and if you don't have faith in Democracy, then you must not believe in freedom.
    Ah, apologies, didn't pick up on the fact that you were kidding the first time around. I'm sure you realize that there are in fact quite a lot of people who, when asked a question similar to erowe1's, would sincerely respond as you did. Respect for authority and the law is deeply ingrained in the vast majority of people, regardless of what the authority/law happens to be. Good book that touches on the subject:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Po.../dp/1137281650

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by menciusmoldbug View Post
    Ah, apologies, didn't pick up on the fact that you were kidding the first time around. I'm sure you realize that there are in fact quite a lot of people who, when asked a question similar to erowe1's, would sincerely respond as you did. Respect for authority and the law is deeply ingrained in the vast majority of people, regardless of what the authority/law happens to be. Good book that touches on the subject:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Po.../dp/1137281650
    I +repped him once I got it.

    I hear people say things like "What part of illegal don't you understand?" and I have trouble responding because of the sense that they must be devoid of any moral compass.

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I +repped him once I got it.

    I hear people say things like "What part of illegal don't you understand?" and I have trouble responding because of the sense that they must be devoid of any moral compass.
    They are certainly not devoid of a moral compass - not even the purest psychopaths lack a moral compass. The trouble is that they possess little understanding of or control over said compass. Because so many people lack the intellect to refine their moral sentiments through reason and reflection, they quite simply inherit their moral compass from authority figures in their lives and culture. It is perfectly normal and natural to presume that the laws in a society are just - if people were prone to assuming otherwise, then civil society could not be. And indeed, I would agree that a huge number of the laws that currently exist in our society are perfectly sensible and just. But of course this does not demonstrate that they all are, or that a law's existence may serve as evidence that it is moral and should be followed.

    If a man is blessed with the good fortune to be a member of the cognitive elite, I believe he has a duty to ensure that the masses in his society are justified in having faith that the laws which govern them are sensible and deserve to be followed.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Rand Paul on The Laura Ingraham Show 1/27
    By jct74 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 08:55 PM
  2. Rand Paul on The Laura Ingraham Show 6/1/15
    By jct74 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-01-2015, 11:41 AM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-04-2012, 01:03 AM
  4. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 09:13 PM
  5. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-09-2007, 11:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •