Do a search using the terms "felony conviction/passport", the results should be enough to prove Damian's statement to anyone who questions it...Originally Posted by DamianTV
Actually, I'll change it just slightly. If it is your property, then I will ask your permission. But I sure a $#@! will not ask the Govt for permission to again ask for your permission. Hence, if it isnt your property, it isnt your permission to grant.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
-Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by DamianTV; 01-28-2015 at 04:42 AM.
1776 > 1984
The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.
The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide
Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled
A large piece of this tyrannical puzzle is that they feel they are legitimate in impairing contracts. To wit: deciding the terms of contracts, ignoring clauses of a contract, and arbitrarily deciding the legitimacy or validity of a given contract. Why shouldn't they? The people have accepted this as normal. They often cheer for it when it [supposedly] suits their ignorant inclinations.
The principle is what it all stands on. It doesn't matter if they are invalidating a natural and valid contractual authority of all people such as deciding that person 'A' cannot employ person 'B' or if they are absolving certain corporations of legal responsibility, subsidizing their industry, and generally bastardizing honest and free trade, the principle remains the same.
This, more-so than anything, is the reason why I am an "open border-er." In fact I simply recognize that no body of men is legitimate in their quest or authority to impair legitimate contracts. I also recognize the benefits of cheap labor and if the robbed considered what could be if the government was not taxing everyone to the tune of fifty percent or more (through the litany of taxes, hidden or obvious) while making the employer match some of those funds, as they simultaneously debase the currency and cripple honest industry with inane and extreme regulations--new ones added yearly-- while driving the prices of commodities up with their tariffs and all other related policy, then one not need to be some sort of political genius to recognize what is truly the issue and what is not.
I find it somewhat humorous that even some of the apparently well read attempt to justify (in downright futility if the conversation was to be measured morally, Constitutionally, logically etc.) growing the government in an attempt to shrink the government. They'll say, "Well in theory I'd be for open borders but I'm no Utopian." Bastiat called it well. The more important thing to this matter is that it continues the established precedent of the government having the right or the authority to interfere in natural contracts. It would be a pity if the government did not get its cut, the more honest protectionist would proclaim.
ETA: Well God Bless. I didn't even read but the first page of the thread before posting.
This argument has been around at least since 1850 and has been rebutted more decisively in that time then I could even imagine to do.
An honest protectionist.
Last edited by kcchiefs6465; 01-28-2015 at 08:01 AM.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Nope!
Well, I did some homework and discovered that yes, the first federal law intended specifically to keep people out (any people at all, before this it was come and go as you like) was in 1882 and targeted Chinese specifically.
What I'm really unclear on is why any of you wouldn't call that what it is - a $#@!ing horrible skeleton in our closet - but would opt instead to explain that since this is what the founders obviously intended, racism must be ok.
Why is it that so few of us here see immigration policy for what it is - really, REALLY thinly veiled racism?
You know what - if the founders wanted it that way, then $#@! the founders.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
More like pure tribalism powered by collectivism: "us", "them", "our"...just another excuse for LE to harass me.
The first time some cop pulls me over and asks for my "National ID Card", I'm gonna be back here and take it out on all you xenophobecons.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
I care about what makes civilization work, what makes it fall and what maintains liberty within it. I care not for accusations of "racism", which is the modern synonym for heresy. Going back to the Federalist Papers, it was understood that American liberty is maintained (in part) because of the cultural and ethnic commonalities that made up the American people. Liberty will not survive a mass influx of third worlders replacing the population in a democracy. If we could have a period of negative net immigration, like every other time there was mass migration, there might be some hope. Instead, the borders have been left uncontrolled, and third world legal immigration is at an insane level. This is unprecedented, and unlike previous generations, there has been no pause in net immigration. Countering real problems with the system with "dat be waaaaaaaycis" is not an argument.
No one ITT is supporting a national ID card. That'd not something that has any widespread support anywhere AFAIK, so you'll be waiting for a long time for that scenario to play out.
How do you enforce a "closed border" policy without having some way to tell what monkeys belong in what cages?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Wrong question...Should our borders be OPEN today?
First address the open coffers.
1. Repeal all the ridiculous, leftist immigration laws that have sprung up post-1965.
2. Recreate the deportation policies of illegals that existed (and worked quite effectively) under Eisenhower on a larger scale.
3. Control the border effectively.
4. Enforce the law.
The idea that immigration is some unsolvable, immense problem is nonsense. For most of its history, America did these very things and it worked very well up until just a few generations ago. It's only in relatively recent decades that immigration has become this massive, uncontrollable problem, and that's because of bad policy. Go back to better policy that worked, and the problem is solved.
Last edited by ThePaleoLibertarian; 01-28-2015 at 04:35 PM.
But how can you tell what monkeys belong in what cages? How will you know who to deport? Nearly half of illegals are visa overstays...do we eliminate travel/student/work visas?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Visas should be far more controlled, and given out far more rarely, yes. As for who to deport, you get Border Patrol Agents to sweep through areas that are known to have large concentrations of illegal immigrants, then deport the people not born here who can't show that they have legal, current visas. It worked quite effectively (and at a pretty low cost) in the 1950s; millions of illegals were sent back over the years. It would've continued to work if it wasn't for open border leftists and their political opposition. There is absolutely no reason that it couldn't work today. In fact, considering how much documentation there is in the modern world, it would probably be considerably easier. Pat Buchanan's plan of using tax incentives to lower the desirability of illegal workers, in conjunction with Eisenhower-style deportation efforts could reverse the situation in very rapidly.
Come on, take a chill pill. Everyone knows our country was founded with some imperfections, the most glaring of which was slavery. What you've just said is the equivalent of saying, because of slavery, $#@! George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!
Andrew Jackson, 1834
I think I have the answer that will satisfy everyone. Turn off the welfare spigots and they'll stop coming...no need to restrict the borders.
I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!
Andrew Jackson, 1834
Or not, either way I agree. Less government ftw
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Yes.
First of all, I'm not so sure that's true. As long as there are businesses that hire them, there will be a flood of low skilled, third world labor regardless of if there's welfare. Immigrant drain on the welfare system is exaggerated, most immigrants legal and not are employed. My main concern about immigration is the effect on the culture, and getting rid of their access to welfare doesn't address that.
Moreover, serious welfare reform is a far more complicated political animal than immigration reform. Getting rid of welfare wholecloth has next to no popular support, whereas effective immigration policy has plenty of backing within the native population. Not only that, but getting rid of welfare would require serious free market reforms to avoid economic disaster. Obviously everyone here supports that, but politically speaking, you'd need reforms in both welfare and the economy that are almost impossible given this political climate. The simplest solution is to reintroduce immigration policy that worked for most of America's history, up until the mid-1960s where it was systematically dismantled by leftists.
That a statist like Friedman would advocate something is not necessarily a point in favor of it.
Do you consider blacks to be part of the native population?
I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!
Andrew Jackson, 1834
In America? Yeah, sure, unless they're African immigrants or something. As far as I know, black opposition to mass immigration is pretty much the same as the general population.
How about "Do you consider whites to be part of the native population"?
Nope, I don't consider red/green/yellow or pink to be indigenous either...
In fact, at this point, I consider the color "Mooch" to be the predominate species inhabiting the US today....
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Did you just admit that you are against the free exchange of ideas?
The only thing a lack of understanding of other cultures aids, is in the dehumanizing of other people groups.
Quite convenient for those in control.
I don't really care for the Founders to be honest. Some of the founders like Jefferson did have good points, but slavery is a really, REALLY big deal. The Founders thought the British were tyrannical for taxing 3% of their income and yet they owned slaves, and they were too stupid to see the truth that was right in front of them that "God created all men equal" was inconsistent with what they were doing. Not to mention that, even in governmental terms, the Founders made it bigger than the British did.
Not to mention that they actually allowed for eminent domain in the constitution. Screw them.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Uh, no. I don't know where you would get that from what was said.
Yeah, those in control are so in favor of immigration reform.The only thing a lack of understanding of other cultures aids, is in the dehumanizing of other people groups.
Quite convenient for those in control.Right. The cultural argument is one of the most reviled by the elites. If any public figure were to bring it up, they'd be an instant pariah.
Ultimately, all borders should not exist. However, when you have borders (translation, a group of thugs claiming jurisdiction over a geographical area), to open them BEFORE eliminating the government that defines them is to get the cart before the horse and subjects the inhabitants to all sorts of abuses.
"Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."
You stated your fear of immigrants' "effect on the culture."
What more is culture, other than behavioral ideas, and voluntary actions based on those ideas?
They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the Lord was my support.
For what it's worth, the "official Objectivists" - meaning the people at the Ayn Rand Institute - promote open borders. You can read about it here:
http://www.ARIwatch.com/OpenBordersA...dualRights.htm
Political systems are rooted in culture and biology. If you want to have a political system that is based on property rights, a remotely limited state and individual autonomy, you better care about cultural issues, and societal demographics. One of the biggest problems with libertarianism is the idea that the movement can "remain neutral" on these issues. Culture creates either the bulwark that maintains liberty, or the tide that destroys it. Flooding a first world democracy with genetically distinct third worlders will erode liberty, especially with multicult dogma being the order of the day.
The "free exchange of ideas" thing is just a canard. An individual or group of individuals can interact with any idea from anywhere without having to be in a democratic political union with the people expressing those ideas.
Last edited by ThePaleoLibertarian; 01-30-2015 at 07:34 PM. Reason: word in the wrong place
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us