View Poll Results: Do You Support This Reform?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I support it

    10 45.45%
  • No, I oppose it

    6 27.27%
  • I oppose it because I oppose unlimited legal immigration

    10 45.45%
  • I oppose it for some other reason

    1 4.55%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 69

Thread: Would You Support This Immigration Reform?

  1. #1

    Would You Support This Immigration Reform?

    1. No welfare benefits or voting rights for any immigrant
    2. No welfare benefits or voting rights for any children of immigrants born on US soil
    3. Secure the border, so that we can vet everyone entering, for national security purposes
    4. Unlimited legal immigration permitted (except of course for those who fail the security vetting)



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Yes Except #4
    Last edited by rg17; 07-08-2015 at 05:21 PM.

  4. #3
    4. Unlimited legal immigration permitted (except of course for those who fail the security vetting)


    Unlimited immigration permitted? Like, they have to get a permit, because there's a security vetting?
    How is that not exactly the thing we have right now?

    You seem like a reasonably intelligent person... I'm not really sure how you don't get the AC position at this point.
    "No, seriously guys, I'm gonna do the exact same thing we're doing right now, but it's gonna be TOTALLY different!"
    The fundamental AC position is to recognize that this is asinine.
    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.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Unlimited immigration permitted? Like, they have to get a permit, because there's a security vetting?
    Yes, they'd have to apply for entry and go through a vetting process - like a criminal background check.

    You might also subject them to a screening for certain infectious diseases.

    How is that not exactly the thing we have right now?
    Right now there are quotas. Only a fixed number of immigrants are permitted to enter the country each year.

    I'm saying, abolish the quotas, allow anyone to enter - so long as they aren't known criminals or carrying Ebola, etc.

    You seem like a reasonably intelligent person... I'm not really sure how you don't get the AC position at this point.
    "No, seriously guys, I'm gonna do the exact same thing we're doing right now, but it's gonna be TOTALLY different!"
    The fundamental AC position is to recognize that this is asinine.[/COLOR]
    I don't know what "AC" means, but you don't seem to understand how the current system works.

  6. #5
    No. How naive are you to believe that the country could support unlimited immigration?
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    No. How naive are you to believe that the country could support unlimited immigration?
    Absent welfare, immigrants will either earn enough to support themselves or starve to death.

    Either way, how is that a problem for the rest of us?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'm saying, abolish the quotas, allow anyone to enter - so long as they aren't known criminals or carrying Ebola, etc.
    Let's set aside for the moment the fact that you just described a quota.

    Why didn't you just say "I want to eliminate the current hard caps on numbers immigrating, but still want to keep certain people out"?
    Instead you used the word "unlimited" which is in no way applicable to what you're actually proposing.

    ETA... also, criminals according to whom?
    Kim Song Un?
    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.

  9. #8



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Absent welfare, immigrants will either earn enough to support themselves or starve to death.

    Either way, how is that a problem for the rest of us?
    Not a thing, if you don't give a crap about reinstating the principles upon which the country was founded.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  12. #10
    I support it because it is better than what we have today. However I think if the immigrants are established here, have employment and subsequently have children the children could become citizens. Maybe some type of "road" like that.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Not a thing, if you don't give a crap about reinstating the principles upon which the country was founded.
    You're talking about how the immigrants would vote?

    If so, note that I'm proposing that neither the immigrants nor even their US-born children would get the right to vote (ever).

    ...only the children's children could ever become citizens, by which time they should be plenty integrated.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 07-08-2015 at 03:06 PM.

  14. #12
    Number 3 is the kicker. You'd have to be a real glutton for punishment to want that.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Let's set aside for the moment the fact that you just described a quota.

    Why didn't you just say "I want to eliminate the current hard caps on numbers immigrating, but still want to keep certain people out"?
    Instead you used the word "unlimited" which is in no way applicable to what you're actually proposing.

    ETA... also, criminals according to whom?
    Kim Song Un?
    That isn't the kind of quota the OP is talking about, that is a filter. A quota would be "there can only be X # of immigrants per year" even if there are more who are eligible. The OP is talking about letting all those who want to come in and are eligible, no matter what that number may be.

    Our current immigration system is atrocious, we benefited from having cheap labor and it should have allowed for more legal immigration for cheap labor, even if there was a quota. But instead cheap labor couldn't get in at all legally so they all came in illegally and that along with a huge entitlement system that they had some access to is what caused the majority of our problems. If they were here legally and registered as some type of worker or quasi-citizen and we didn't have a huge entitlement system, then they would have been following all the same rules as everybody else and it would have benefited us economically without burdening our entitlement system and our legal system which is unequipped to deal with illegal immigrants.

    Imagine if people largely didn't hire illegal immigrants because there was a supply of legal immigrants willing to work cheap was there instead. If they committed a violent crime, they could have their quasi-citizen/worker privileges revoked and they could be deported. If they came back, they would have a difficult time finding employment because very few if any employers are working with illegal immigrants outside of the system.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    No. How naive are you to believe that the country could support unlimited immigration?
    Obviously there would be natural limits on what would be supportable. Immigration would top out at whatever those limits are. The question was about artificial limits imposed by the government through threats of lethal force against people (generally Americans like you and me).

  17. #15
    I like 1, 2 and 3. 4 is unacceptable.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  18. #16
    Unlimited legal immigration - an overabundant supply of unskilled labour and an already accomplished and effectuated pathway to a multicultural hegemony.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Actually in the days my grandparents migrated to America, there was unlimited legal immigration. But there are many hoops a "legal" immigrant must go through to become legal. When my Belgian husband came to the U.S. 15 years ago, he had to provide notarized police reports saying his record was clean. He had to produce letters of good standing with his banksters and other professional people in Belgium. He had a physical checking for communicable disease. Additionally, he had to have three people who live in the United States sign a statement that if within the first ten years of residency in the U.S.; something happened in which he needed some type of financial assistance those three people would provide the assistance for him..... not government welfare programs. There were a number of other things he had to do... I don't object to legal immigration if they follow the rules as my husband did.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist View Post
    Unlimited legal immigration - an overabundant supply of unskilled labour...
    In a market economy, units of labor (like all other factors of production) are priced at their discounted marginal revenue product (i.e. the amount of additional product x its price which the addition of that labor yields, discounted by the prevailing interest rate [which approximates the rate of profit]). In other words, a laborer always earns a tad less than the value of what his labor produces. In yet other words, a laborer always consumes less than he produces (even if he saves nothing; if he saves anything, his net contribution to society is even larger). Hence, the addition of any additional laborer always necessarily makes the existing population richer; it cannot make them poorer. Micro 101.

    In more concrete terms, an increased population (resulting from either immigration or higher birth rates - makes no difference) will increase total output (and thus decrease prices and the cost of living) more than it decreases the wages, for a gain in average living standards among the preexisting population. Protectionism for labor, like protectionism for goods, is always economically harmful.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Number 3 is the kicker. You'd have to be a real glutton for punishment to want that.
    Honestly, it's not that important in practice; I'm not terribly concerned about either standard criminals or the turrists.

    ...but, in principle, there's nothing wrong with some basic screening.

  23. #20
    Supporting Member
    North Carolina



    Posts
    2,946
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Too many people are here already. It's like letting more rats on a sinking ship.
    Equality is a false god.

    Armatissimi e Liberissimi

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by rg17 View Post
    Yes Except #4
    I see you just changed your answer, after several hours interlude, from an unconditional yes to yes except #4.

    May I ask why?

    Did you actually just change your opinion, or was the first answer a typo?

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Honestly, it's not that important in practice; I'm not terribly concerned about either standard criminals or the turrists.

    ...but, in principle, there's nothing wrong with some basic screening.
    Maybe in principle. But it's not the abstract idea I'm worried about. It's what would be required in order for such a thing to happen in practice. The federal government shouldn't even have the information of who is in this country, or even how many of us there are, nor where any of us are from, where any of us live now, what any of us do for a living, when we leave and return, or anything like that. It shouldn't even have a means for uniquely identifying all of us, such as SSNs.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Maybe in principle. But it's not the abstract idea I'm worried about. It's what would be required in order for such a thing to happen in practice. The federal government shouldn't even have the information of who is in this country, or even how many of us there are, nor where any of us are from, where any of us live now, what any of us do for a living, when we leave and return, or anything like that. It shouldn't even have a means for uniquely identifying all of us, such as SSNs.
    The US government should be doing foreign surveillance, to identify agents of hostile states as well as non-state actors.

    That is one of its few legitimate purposes. No?

    Just cross-reference that list with the information provided by would-be immigrants, and also any information one can get out of their countries of origins.

    And that's it. I don't find that that worrisome at all, personally.

    N.B. Oh, and note whether they hail from Sierra Leone and are puking blood out their eyeballs.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Absent welfare, immigrants will either earn enough to support themselves or starve to death.

    Either way, how is that a problem for the rest of us?
    Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for welfare today. And most have jobs- their labor force participation rate is much higher than that of citizens.

    http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/...s-us-born-men/

    In 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, an estimated 91 percent of illegal immigrant males were in the workforce. This compares to 84 percent of legal immigrant men and 79 percent of U.S.-born males, Pew Research Center demographer Jeffrey Passel wrote in testimony prepared for a March 26 hearing held by the Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee.
    They are more interested in jobs than benefits.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 07-08-2015 at 07:48 PM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for welfare today.
    False, they are eligible for some benefits: their US-born children ("anchor babies") even more so.

    And most have jobs- their labor force participation rate is much higher than that of citizens.
    That's true.

    They are more interested in jobs than benefits.
    Good, then they should have no objection to my proposal.

  30. #26
    Illegal immigrants are not eligible for any Federal government benefits including Medicare/ Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare. States may offer some benefits to them.

  31. #27
    Does #1 mean All immigrants or all Illegal immigrants?

  32. #28
    Send every single illegal (and their kids) back and end all immigration for at least 50 years. Increase the residency requirement for all current legal immigrants to gain voting citizenship to at least 40 years and make very very clear that children born to non-citizens will not be considered citizens.
    Last edited by paleocon1; 07-09-2015 at 11:23 AM.

  33. #29
    Maybe, after I see how you are going to implement it.

  34. #30
    No fence.

    And the illiterate, fruit picking, immigrant is far more noble than any border patrol agent.

    A system built on plunder would necessarily lead all to assume that they have some sort of authority over others' lives, if they gather up a majority of the minority (i.e. a majority of voters). In fact, they should all $#@! off. 'Legal', or no. It's funny that I must ascribe the adjective 'legal' to a group by and large composed of thieves, robbers, parasites, and whores (to be clear, the American public) while those working for a living doing productive tasks are to be demonized.

    It was not the immigrant that gave you social security, or SNAP, or No Child Left Behind, or the countless wars and conflicts, or even the unproductive, parasitical classes of whores such are the border patrol and DHS, at large.

    You guys did. I'm just saying that generically. I know many here oppose quite a bit of the examples given.
    “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

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Adelson: Let’s Pass Immigration Reform
    By Brian4Liberty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-28-2019, 10:47 AM
  2. Immigration Reform Proposal
    By r3volution 3.0 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-20-2014, 05:38 AM
  3. Obama: IMMIGRATION REFORM NOW
    By aGameOfThrones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-30-2011, 09:09 AM
  4. Pelosi Urges Catholic Leaders to Support Immigration Reform
    By Winston Smith in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2010, 08:11 PM
  5. A Real Look at Immigration Reform
    By NeoRayden in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-23-2008, 09:42 AM

Posting Permissions

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