Some Thoughts on Immigration

[LibertyEagle]

I don't need to make that case because I don't propose that we have some central manager trying to control the makeup of our population, whether that be to manipulate it to have more or less of anything. I want to be left alone and permitted to welcome onto or exclude from my own property whomever I want without you telling me I can't.

Like I've told you before, when you can teleport them from their place of origin to YOUR property, you have the ability to keep them on your property and only your property, and you are willing to bear complete responsibility for everything they do, then we can talk. Until then, you're attempting to infringe on other Americans' liberty.

[erowe1]

Like I've told you before, when you can teleport them from their place of origin to YOUR property, you have the ability to keep them on your property and only your property, and you are willing to bear complete responsibility for everything they do, then we can talk. Until then, you're attempting to infringe on other Americans' liberty.

That would be one way. Another would be the normal way of them just traveling the same way everybody else does, and just staying off of your property, which is the only property you have the right to control, while they do. If you want to control any property outside of your own, then it's you who are attempting to infringe on America's liberty. The rest of us want to be allowed to have the people you consider illegal immigrants on our property.

[LibertyEagle]

That would be one way. Another would be the normal way of them just traveling the same way everybody else does, and just staying off of your property, which is the only property you have the right to control, while they do. If you want to control any property outside of your own, then it's you who are attempting to infringe on America's liberty. The rest of us want to be allowed to have the people you consider illegal immigrants on our property.

No, the rest of us do not. Only the useful idiots and traitors.

If you want them on your own property, erowe, I have already said I don't give a $#@!. But, if they harm anyone else, you also should be held accountable. i.e. if they kill someone, your own head should be severed. Are you up for that?

EDIT: In a way, this is somewhat like the old way of choosing immigrants. If someone wanted to immigrate here, they had to show they could be self-sufficient or be sponsored by another American, who would be responsible for them.

[erowe1]

No, the rest of us do not.

Some of you do not. The rest of us do.

Those of you who do not may keep anyone you want off of your own property. But you have no right to interfere with the rest of us. The people you call illegal immigrants would have no difficulty traveling all over the US if you did that. Teleportation would not be needed.

EDIT: In a way, this is somewhat like the old way of choosing immigrants. If someone wanted to immigrate here, they had to show they could be self-sufficient or be sponsored by another American, who would be responsible for them.

That's not the old way. That is the new and current way that was developed by the progressives.

[tod evans]

That's all nice and fine, Tod, but the reality is that you and I would, the way things are now. Not to mention the fact that if they brought diseases into the country, we would be getting those too, and any criminal intents they brought with them.

And this is exactly why I keep calling to rip the powers of immigration and welfare away from the feds. They're not able to provide the level of service locals could at 1000 times the cost.

When erowe and co. can figure out how to teleport them to their own properties, keep them there and bear sole responsibility for their actions, then maybe. Until then, HELL NO.

County by county would be acceptable to me, small enough I can find the bastards who make decisions I don't agree with but large enough to support itself...

You know I agree with you on that, although that's not the best example, since he had his livestock on "government" land.

Without federal interference there wouldn't be federal land.

The people who work don't need the federal government, it's the people who leech that do.

[tod evans]

Both sides of this issue realize there's a problem...

Instead of looking for the cause of the problem and addressing it, arguing ensues about the various aspects of the problem itself.

From here it appears as though both sides are crying for the cause of the problem to fix it, which leads government to deduce that lack of enough government is causing the problem.......

It's no wonder there's problems....

[helmuth_hubener]

Just to explain, more concisely, my point that r3volution 3.0 was playing dumb about:

Yes, the native white populace has gotten significantly better politically, significantly more libertarian and conservative in the last three decades. The Soviet Union collapsed. Socialism was discredited. The native whites (which was 90% of the natives) shifted libertarian-conservative.

If it weren't for massive third-world immigration, we would be living in a shockingly freer country today -- a much, much freer country. If you want to get an idea of how things might have went, look at New Zealand. New Zealand had a "White New Zealand" immigration policy until the 1970s, and although the policy changed then, it was fairly irrelevant because no immigrants wanted to come: more people were leaving than coming up through 1991. So, they have not had nearly as massive a demographic change. NZ is still overwhelmingly white. And so when the discrediting of socialism and subsequent ideological shift occurred, there was no huge block of impervious big-government voters standing in its way. It hit with full force. Their government actually shrunk, massively shrunk! It was like what Reagan's rhetoric promised, but on hard-core steroids and actually implemented in reality! Here's what happened:

Actually cut government a lot!
Slashed spending
Slashed taxes
Slashed welfare
Slashed government regulations of all types. For instance:
Removed all restriction of broadcasting in 1989 (The Broadcasting Act of 1989)
Repealed its banking law in 1995, did not replace it with anything
and on and on.

As our local Kiwi idiom puts it:

In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't even a thing (exaggeration, but not by much)

And they were far further along the socialist path than us. Before 1980, they were totally socialist. And yet they were able to do a complete U-turn to become one of the most radically libertarian places around. That could have been us! That could have been America! And it still could be, if only we weren't saddled with 25% of Mexico, millions and millions from Central America, millions and millions from Asia, one and a half million Arabs, etc.

[helmuth_hubener]

OK, actually that wasn't all that concise. Let me try again:

The American natives got more libertarian-conservative.
The New Zealand natives got more libertarian-conservative.

New Zealand became a much more, a massively more libertarian-conservative country.
America..... didn't, because we had imported millions of big-government voters.

In NZ, the natives still run the show. In America, we don't.

That's a problem. If you care about liberty actually succeeding, that's a problem.

[helmuth_hubener]

Both sides of this issue realize there's a problem...

The erowe/Ender/Sola/Pierstyx camp does not recognize there is a problem. They have made that clear enough. They do not believe there is any problem whatsoever. 25% of Mexico in America is great. 50% would be even better. Anyone who says otherwise is racist. This is not a caricature of their views. This is not an exaggeration. This is what they have repeatedly and very clearly written. How could they have made themselves more clear? I don't think they could have.

The left also does not recognize our massive immigration influx as a problem. Why should they? Ha, ha, ha, this is the furthest thing from a problem for them! This is the best thing to ever happen to the country, from their perspective. This is the opposite of a problem. This is a wonderful thing.

One of my main goals in this thread was to see if any of the open borders people here could be brought to a mutual understanding that there are real problems brought about by immigration. That the consequences are not all positive and rosy and wonderful. Thus far, that has not happened. If we can agree there's a problem, we could start discussing possible solutions that would be acceptable to us all, to all the people on RPF. But they don't accept there could ever be any problem with over-immigration, with a country being overrun. Just not a problem. So we're talking past each other; no communication. It's like we're on two different planets.

[erowe1]

The erowe/Ender/Sola/Pierstyx camp does not recognize there is a problem.

I do. The problem is immigration restriction.

[tod evans]

I do. The problem is immigration restriction.

By whom?

[erowe1]

By whom?

Any government that does it.

[tod evans]

Any government that does it.

I'm good with counties restricting anything they like, booze, people, religion, dope or even clothing but I draw the line at a state doing it and certainly the feds.

Or were you alluding to federal governments?

All encompassing phrasing leaves too much wiggle room for logical discourse.

[osan]

I've answered this twice now, how about you address the idea you keep promoting about how more government is going to protect you from a set of problems caused by government?

I find it interesting to note that the problems that "government" protects others from are almost universally caused by.... <drumroll>... GOVERNMENT!

[William R]

Bottom line. We should not be admitting anyone who goes on welfare. We should make that very clear. Come here don't expect any help from Uncle Sugar Daddy.

[r3volution 3.0]

Bottom line. We should not be admitting anyone who goes on welfare. We should make that very clear. Come here don't expect any help from Uncle Sugar Daddy.

Agreed

Free immigration
+ no welfare (preferably for anyone, but immigrants would be a start...)
+ no voting (preferably for anyone, but immigrants would be a start...)
= no problem

[osan]

Bottom line. We should not be admitting anyone who goes on welfare. We should make that very clear. Come here don't expect any help from Uncle Sugar Daddy.

We ought not have welfare at all.

[r3volution 3.0]

We ought not have welfare at all.

Evidently it's only free$#@! for the wetbacks which concerns them (though that's a tiny fraction of total welfare spending).

National socialist really is an apt term (Godwin's Law notwithstanding)...

...free$#@! for us! (for us).

[AmericanSpartan]

That would be one way. Another would be the normal way of them just traveling the same way everybody else does, and just staying off of your property, which is the only property you have the right to control, while they do. If you want to control any property outside of your own, then it's you who are attempting to infringe on America's liberty. The rest of us want to be allowed to have the people you consider illegal immigrants on our property.

No, we still pay for public services that they use, more over they effect the outcomes of elections, therefore we get a say and we say immigration reduction.

Its not just us, its this thing call "The Law".

[AmericanSpartan]

Some of you do not. The rest of us do.

Those of you who do not may keep anyone you want off of your own property. But you have no right to interfere with the rest of us. The people you call illegal immigrants would have no difficulty traveling all over the US if you did that. Teleportation would not be needed.



That's not the old way. That is the new and current way that was developed by the progressives.

Most do.

Great news Americas show Massive Support for Immigration reduction!
More over many Americans of all colors, age groups, and sides support reducing immigration.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/171962/de...-increase.aspx
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/poll...se-pres-obamas
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...ion-numbe.html
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/22/me...l-immigration/

More Americans said they had a favorable opinion of North Korea (11 percent) than wanted to than wanted to increase immigration (7 percent). The poll data are overwhelming; politicians will disregard public opinion on this issue at their peril: Remember RINO Eric Cantor and how he lost the primary to David Brat? (Cantor was denying the border was being overrun as the media was showing human waves over taking it during the two weeks before the election)

* Gallup (1/29/15): By a more than 5-to-1 margin (39% vs. 7%), Americans who are dissatisfied with current immigration levels want less rather than more

* Pew (2012): 69% say we should “restrict and control people coming to live in our country more than we do now” (including 59% of Hispanics)

* Reuters (8/7/14): By a nearly 3-to-1 margin (45% vs. 17%), Americans think immigration rates should be reduced, not increased

* Princeton Survey Research Associates (6/23/13): 61% say that there “should be restrictions” on the number of STEM-related foreign workers allowed to enter the U.S.

* Gallup (6/8/14): By a 2-to-1 margin (41% vs. 22%), Americans think immigration should be decreased rather than increased

* The Polling Company (8/14/14): By a staggering 10-to-1 margin (75% vs. 8%), Americans believe that a business seeking workers should raise wages and improve working conditions before hiring new labor from abroad


So we win by default.

Yes it was, they did not want people that were going to vote away their wealth to fund a welfare system....

[Danke]

[AmericanSpartan]

Just to explain, more concisely, my point that r3volution 3.0 was playing dumb about:

Yes, the native white populace has gotten significantly better politically, significantly more libertarian and conservative in the last three decades. The Soviet Union collapsed. Socialism was discredited. The native whites (which was 90% of the natives) shifted libertarian-conservative.

If it weren't for massive third-world immigration, we would be living in a shockingly freer country today -- a much, much freer country. If you want to get an idea of how things might have went, look at New Zealand. New Zealand had a "White New Zealand" immigration policy until the 1970s, and although the policy changed then, it was fairly irrelevant because no immigrants wanted to come: more people were leaving than coming up through 1991. So, they have not had nearly as massive a demographic change. NZ is still overwhelmingly white. And so when the discrediting of socialism and subsequent ideological shift occurred, there was no huge block of impervious big-government voters standing in its way. It hit with full force. Their government actually shrunk, massively shrunk! It was like what Reagan's rhetoric promised, but on hard-core steroids and actually implemented in reality! Here's what happened:

Actually cut government a lot!
Slashed spending
Slashed taxes
Slashed welfare
Slashed government regulations of all types. For instance:
Removed all restriction of broadcasting in 1989 (The Broadcasting Act of 1989)
Repealed its banking law in 1995, did not replace it with anything
and on and on.

As our local Kiwi idiom puts it:

In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't even a thing (exaggeration, but not by much)

And they were far further along the socialist path than us. Before 1980, they were totally socialist. And yet they were able to do a complete U-turn to become one of the most radically libertarian places around. That could have been us! That could have been America! And it still could be, if only we weren't saddled with 25% of Mexico, millions and millions from Central America, millions and millions from Asia, one and a half million Arabs, etc.

OK, actually that wasn't all that concise. Let me try again:

The American natives got more libertarian-conservative.
The New Zealand natives got more libertarian-conservative.

New Zealand became a much more, a massively more libertarian-conservative country.
America..... didn't, because we had imported millions of big-government voters.

In NZ, the natives still run the show. In America, we don't.

That's a problem. If you care about liberty actually succeeding, that's a problem.

And they think the more socialists we import, some how things will get better.

[AmericanSpartan]

I do. The problem is immigration restriction.

How and why is restriction on immigration a problem?

Why do you not understand the harm of allowing people to flood into our nation that do not value, respect or understand our culture and will vote away our wealth and destroy our Liberties?

[AmericanSpartan]

The erowe/Ender/Sola/Pierstyx camp does not recognize there is a problem. They have made that clear enough. They do not believe there is any problem whatsoever. 25% of Mexico in America is great. 50% would be even better. Anyone who says otherwise is racist. This is not a caricature of their views. This is not an exaggeration. This is what they have repeatedly and very clearly written. How could they have made themselves more clear? I don't think they could have.

The left also does not recognize our massive immigration influx as a problem. Why should they? Ha, ha, ha, this is the furthest thing from a problem for them! This is the best thing to ever happen to the country, from their perspective. This is the opposite of a problem. This is a wonderful thing.

One of my main goals in this thread was to see if any of the open borders people here could be brought to a mutual understanding that there are real problems brought about by immigration. That the consequences are not all positive and rosy and wonderful. Thus far, that has not happened. If we can agree there's a problem, we could start discussing possible solutions that would be acceptable to us all, to all the people on RPF. But they don't accept there could ever be any problem with over-immigration, with a country being overrun. Just not a problem. So we're talking past each other; no communication. It's like we're on two different planets.

Remember they do not have learn, they just have to lose, remember that now and always.

[LibertyEagle]

Evidently it's only free$#@! for the wetbacks which concerns them (though that's a tiny fraction of total welfare spending).

No free $#@! for any illegal aliens.

National socialist really is an apt term (Godwin's Law notwithstanding)...

In your eyes, national sovereignty is national socialism. lolol

...free$#@! for us! (for us).

FYI. There is no such thing as free $#@!. Someone pays for it.

And no one recommended free $#@!. But, here on the real world, we are not going to get from where we are right now to 0 welfare. So, it is a beginning to stop handouts to any and all illegal aliens.

[AmericanSpartan]

Evidently it's only free$#@! for the wetbacks which concerns them (though that's a tiny fraction of total welfare spending).

National socialist really is an apt term (Godwin's Law notwithstanding)...

...free$#@! for us! (for us).

No, welfare as a whole does, but welfare for people who should not be allowed into the nation (poor people either legally or illegally) is not only indefensible but border line treason.

You think National Sovereignty and rule of law is "Nazism"

[helmuth_hubener]

I do. The problem is immigration restriction.

You see, Tod? How could they make themselves more clear? Cockroaches streaming in and infesting the house is not a problem. Cockroaches are a wonderful and beautiful part of ecology. Cockroaches do the work that the domestic creatures refuse to do. So do we have a problem? You bet we have a problem! The problem is: not enough cockroaches! We need to get some more cockroaches in this place, ASAP!

[tod evans]

You see, Tod? How could they make themselves more clear? Cockroaches streaming in and infesting the house is not a problem. Cockroaches are a wonderful and beautiful part of ecology. Cockroaches do the work that the domestic creatures refuse to do. So do we have a problem? You bet we have a problem! The problem is: not enough cockroaches! We need to get some more cockroaches in this place, ASAP!

I don't want more cockroaches, neither do I want Terminix to become a bigger conglomerate.

Especially given the fact that Terminix is trying to distribute cockroaches to the furthest reaches of the country.

My idea is for the areas unaffected by cockroaches to wage war on Terminix because that's who's trying to bring the infestation to them.

Those already infected must decide whether or not to re-up their Terminix contract that's not been working as promised or hire a private contractor that might prove effective....

Or they could fire Terminix and invest in landfills and slums in order to propagate more cockroaches...

[William R]

Agreed

Free immigration
+ no welfare (preferably for anyone, but immigrants would be a start...)
+ no voting (preferably for anyone, but immigrants would be a start...)
= no problem

No free immigration. Free goods and services crossing borders. But not people. 50 million Muslims would be a disaster

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't want more cockroaches, neither do I want Terminix to become a bigger conglomerate.

Especially given the fact that Terminix is trying to distribute cockroaches to the furthest reaches of the country.

My idea is for the areas unaffected by cockroaches to wage war on Terminix because that's who's trying to bring the infestation to them.

Those already infected must decide whether or not to re-up their Terminix contract that's not been working as promised or hire a private contractor that might prove effective....

Or they could fire Terminix and invest in landfills and slums in order to propagate more cockroaches...

I am all for your sentiment to "just do it yourself; don't whine to the government"! I do have to admit that it's not particularly practical or realistic or applicable to reality as it exists. You're saying, "I accept that there's too many cockroaches in the house, but at the same time I hate the government (my exact same position!); so my position is that each of us should take care of them individually." And yet, it is illegal to do so. This "Terminix," which really is acting as a reverse-Terminix, importing and dumping off a million cockroaches a year into the house, has declared itself a monopoly. If anyone were to implement your suggestion and take matters into his own hands, he would be imprisoned or killed.

You yourself are not implementing your suggestion.

And yet, you call others cowards for likewise not implementing it. You call them cowards for deciding, just like you, to not go vigilante.

I don't know that failing to go rogue and become a vigilante shows a lack of courage. There's more than one way to wage a war.