Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 409

Thread: Afghan refugee wins New Hampshire statehouse primary

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    A more modern Ron Paul POV:
    But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.
    Good luck with that. I'm already told by the left that the poor illegal immigrants have to steal S.S. numbers, just so they can work, and pay into our system that they never, ever, get back from. Should be a windfall, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and neither does the belief that the welfare that illegal immigrants do receive will ever be taken away. There was a net loss of immigrants between 2009 and 2014 because there were no jobs to be had. The housing market crashed.
    But, now the influx is again on the rise. Why? Because the national sentiment is for "open borders." We know which side of the left/right paradigm thoroughly endorses that. And in the mix come the traffickers. Those that bring young men and women over, children in many cases, and have them "work off" passage.
    Sorry, dude, there needs to be a vetting. It's not just about welfare and drugs. Besides the sex traffickers there is the very real threat of foreign nationals from the middle east that wish to punish us for our sins abroad. Yes. Some have been arrested crossing the border. How many more have not?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    You do realize that would require more government, right??
    Just the opposite.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    But, it would actually be less government. I did the math one time and with the current N.G. personnel you could staff 2 troops per mile along the southern border 24/7 in one week increments. Now if we brought troops home from foreign bases we could easily triple that number. Troop bases over seas would be shut down ending the logistical support for those operations. Ta-Da. Less government.
    It's not the math that's the issue. It's the logic. What you're missing is that most of the voter base that wants the wall also wants to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." And Trump has pushed for a MASSIVE increase in military spending because the military is supposedly (can I even say this with a straight face?) starved. Didn't Nikey Haley just pledge millions for Venezuela refugees? Yep. Yep she did. And big government isn't just measured by the spending level. Or are you not aware of the "constitution free zone" around the U.S.?

    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Nope, we have plenty of troop strength and technology within the U.S. Army and the National guard.
    Also, less dependents on government and less crime, so less government.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It's not the math that's the issue. It's the logic. What you're missing is that most of the voter base that wants the wall also wants to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." And Trump has pushed for a MASSIVE increase in military spending because the military is supposedly (can I even say this with a straight face?) starved. Didn't Nikey Haley just pledge millions for Venezuela refugees? Yep. Yep she did. And big government isn't just measured by the spending level. Or are you not aware of the "constitution free zone" around the U.S.?

    And what you're missing is that most the voter base that believes in open borders wants welfare.
    So here we are.
    At least my way of thinking brings the troops home and actually results in less government.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Just the opposite.
    Weird, u are actually right. Militarizing the borders could result in less govt but less freedom if the govt pulls back all the troops overseas and invests a small portion of the funds into defending the border.

    It would also be less govt if the govt withdrew from international engagement and put cameras on all the street corners and spied on all our phone calls and texts. Less govt doesnt always mean more freedom. Some men yern for freedom and other just want safety and prosperity. I can sympathize with both sides but I more of a freedom type of person.

    What kind of person are u?

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    But I was told migrants/refugees/immigrants/demographic invaders don't vote for more government.
    If by voting for "more government" you mean "vote no differently than native-born Americans do when they vote Democrat or Republican."
    Last edited by PierzStyx; 09-14-2018 at 03:28 PM.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Right, which is why legal and illegal migration needs a halt, across the board, for at least ten years, so we can sort this mess out.
    "WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION SO WE CAN STOP PEOPLE VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION!"

    Great logic there, Sulla.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Weird, u are actually right. Militarizing the borders could result in less govt but less freedom if the govt pulls back all the troops overseas and invests a small portion of the funds into defending the border.

    It would also be less govt if the govt withdrew from international engagement and put cameras on all the street corners and spied on all our phone calls and texts. Less govt doesnt always mean more freedom. Some men yern for freedom and other just want safety and prosperity. I can sympathize with both sides but I more of a freedom type of person.

    What kind of person are u?
    Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. A battalion strength military in every town.

    You are some kinda special stupid, you are.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    "WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION SO WE CAN STOP PEOPLE VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION!"

    Great logic there, Sulla.
    Stopping unfettered trespass does not violate the Constitution. Please, site me specifics for your belief.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    And what you're missing is that most the voter base that believes in open borders wants welfare.
    So here we are.
    At least my way of thinking brings the troops home and actually results in less government.
    Most the people I know that are fine with open borders do NOT want welfare. Helping the poor should always be local & never .gov.

    I believe in freedom.

    WHAT ARE LIBERTARIAN VIEWS AND BELIEFS?
    Friday September 1st, 2017 Breanna Zimmer
    What is libertarianism, and what values and beliefs do libertarians hold? What is the goal? The simple answer is in the name: liberty for each individual. But don’t most Americans want that, not just libertarians? Of course! We just have different ways of achieving that goal.

    Most Americans would like the government to spend less money (therefore, taking less of ours) and most Americans are socially tolerant of other peoples’ lifestyles. So specifically, what do libertarians believe in terms of current political, economic, and social issues?

    At the core of libertarianism is a Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP. No use of aggression or force is legitimate except in self-defense, or defense of property. All other use of force is unjust. Because of this principle, many libertarians tend to believe that the government’s use of force in terms of taxation and programs funded by taxation is illegitimate. This may seem extreme, and in our current political structure it is, so the Libertarian Party structures its platform on limiting government and giving the power back to the individual.

    Larry Sharpe is a firm believer in the idea that most people have the same goals when it comes to political hot topics. Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats all want less poverty and more prosperity. We all want easy and affordable access to healthcare. We all want to live happily and peacefully. Here are some ways Libertarians want to make those goals a reality:

    MARRIAGE
    Goal: Anyone can consensually marry whomever they want, regardless of sexuality, religion, race, etc.

    How to get there: We do not believe a certificate authenticates a relationship. The government institution of marriage should be abolished. The parties involved can agree to a law-binding contract, or a faith-based contract if they wish. While government is in the business of marriage, Libertarians do support marriage equality.

    HEALTHCARE
    Goal: Affordable and accessible healthcare for all.

    How to get there: Larry Sharpe posted a great video saying that if you ask a libertarian if they support universal healthcare, they’ll shout “no!!!” But, if thinking about the result we want, then yes, we do support universal healthcare for everybody. We want everybody to have easy access to affordable healthcare, just not at the hands of the government. Libertarians support a free market approach to healthcare, with no government involvement, so crony capitalism would not be possible. The market would adjust prices of visits and drugs to what people are willing to pay. Insurance should no longer be based on your job, but purchased in-market, much like auto insurance, and be for unexpected illnesses.

    SELF-OWNERSHIP
    Goal: Ownership of our bodies back in the hands of the people, not the government.

    How to get there: Each person owns their own body and have the only legitimate right to do to it what they want. Any laws restricting which substances we can ingest, which medical procedures we elect to undergo, or which profession we choose to engage in should be repealed.

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    Goal: Reforming criminal justice to ensure fewer lives are harmed by unjust laws.

    How to get there: Laws that hinder an individual’s life choices (which do not infringe on others’ rights) are unjust and should be abolished. Because of these unjust laws, the incarceration rate in the US is much larger than other nations. Libertarians call for a reform in criminal justice by ending the racist war on drugs and putting an end to the unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture laws.

    ENVIRONMENT
    Goal: For everyone to live in a safe and healthy environment free from pollution.

    How to get there: Considering government is the worst polluter in the world (and rarely gets punished for it), they should not be the ones regulating environmental protections. Enforcing private property rights is a great way to make sure people care for our land, water, and air. If the EPA became a national organization similar to the ACLU, they could do a lot more in protecting our right to live in a healthy environment.

    ECONOMY
    Goal: To have a prospering and innovative economy.

    How to get there: Libertarians believe in free market capitalism as the only equitable economic system. Without governmental regulations, subsidies, and arbitrary values, the good products and services that are produced and sold in the free market would flourish, and the bad would fail. Crony capitalism would be very difficult if government involvement was minimal.

    IMMIGRATION
    Goal: To allow any peaceful person to easily become a US citizen.

    How to get there: The US, and especially New York, is a place people dream of immigrating to. We are proud of our melting pot and believe that the path to citizenship should be an extremely easy process. Any peaceful person who wants to become a citizen should have that right, regardless of which country they come from, which language they speak, or which religion they practice.

    FOREIGN POLICY
    Goal: To defend the US against attacks and coexist peacefully with the rest of the world.

    How to get there: In adherence with the Non-Aggression Principle, Libertarians believe there is no reason to get involved in wars unless in defense of our nation. Also, the US military consumes a very large percentage of our spending budget. The US should stop policing the world and getting involved in decades-long wars that do not improve with our involvement.

    ABORTION
    Goal: To make abortion a family matter, not a government issue.

    How to get there: The Libertarian Party is known to be the pro-choice party on every issue. The party’s view is that government should not decide what medical procedures we elect to do. Understandably so, abortion is a very personal issue, and based on this position, the government should not be involved in making that choice.

    GUN RIGHTS
    Goal: To allow law-abiding citizens the ability to self-defense, defense of property, and defense of liberty.

    How to get there: Libertarians support the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Any obstacle from the government to restrict that right in any way is unjust and should be repealed. The more restrictions that are in place, the larger the black market for guns, and the more weapons in the hands of dangerous people.

    EDUCATION
    Goal: To improve education at all levels.

    How to get there: The free market, as with any industry, would allow for a flourishing educational system. Great schools would succeed and underperforming schools would be replaced with better ones. Ideally, education would be placed back in the states’ hands and out of the federal government’s. While the government is in the education business, libertarians want to reform education by getting rid of location-based education and blanket regulations. We support school choice as a great stepping stone to a market-based system.

    .
    https://www.larrysharpe.com/2017/09/...views-beliefs/
    There is no spoon.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I don't recall that being the case.

    I recall surveys and polling data that indicate that first generation migrants vote for more government at rates twice that of native citizens.
    Natives and immigrants share very similar ideas about government.

    Immigrants could shift public policy if their opinions differ from those of other Americans. Our earlier research found that immigrants and native-born Americans have ideological, political, and public policy opinions that differ to a statistically insignificant extent. In this report we further separate immigrant political and policy opinions by citizenship status. Noncitizen immigrants cannot vote but their political opinions are mostly similar to those of natives. However, naturalized citizen-immigrants who can vote have political opinions even closer to those of natives and are near-fully assimilated into the political mainstream.

    https://www.cato.org/publications/ec...cal-mainstream
    They also cost less and consume less.

    All immigrants consume 39 percent fewer welfare benefits relative to all natives, largely because they are less likely to receive Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare. Immigrants consume 27 percent fewer benefits relative to natives with similar incomes and ages. Although this brief does not count some smaller, noncash antipoverty programs, they are unlikely to alter our results even if the data were available for their inclusion. This brief provides the most recent estimates of immigrant and native welfare use.

    https://www.cato.org/publications/im...tive-use-rates
    In fact taxing immigrants is probably doing more to fund the welfare state than drain it.

    Most legal immigrants do not have access to means-tested welfare for their first five years here with few exceptions that are mostly determined on the state level and funded with state taxes. Illegal immigrants don’t have access at all—except for emergency Medicaid.

    Immigrants are less likely to use means-tested welfare benefits than similar native-born Americans. When they do use welfare, the dollar value of benefits consumed is smaller. If poor native-born Americans used Medicaid at the same rate and consumed the same value of benefits as poor immigrants, the program would be 42 percent smaller.

    Immigrants also make large net contributions to Medicare and Social Security, the largest portions of the welfare state, because of their ages, ineligibility, and their greater likelihood of retiring in other countries. Far from draining the welfare state, immigrants have given the entitlement portions a few more years of operation before bankruptcy. If you’re still worried about foreign-born consumption of welfare benefits, as I am, then it is far easier and cheaper to build a higher wall around the welfare state, instead of around the country.
    But I doubt facts will deter a Progressive police statist such as yourself.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Stopping unfettered trespass does not violate the Constitution. Please, site me specifics for your belief.
    You can't trespass on unowned land. And you can't regulate land you don't own.

    The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution lays severe limits to the powers of the government when it says that any power not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or people. Here is the text of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    This means the federal government has no authority in any area it isn't given authority in the Constitution. Anytime the federal government attempts to do so it is exceeding its legal limitations and legal powers and is committing an illegal act by exceeding the restrictions laid upon it in the supreme law of the land. It is acting in ways not simply unauthorized by the Constitution but in ways the federal government is actively forbidden to act in. One of these ways is immigration.

    The US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration in any manner. Therefore any attempt by the federal government to do so is illegal. And anyone encouraging the government to do so is promoting it to act in an illegal manner.

    Some people argue that Article 1, Section 8 authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration, but this is not so. First of all, the text of Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The question then becomes, what is naturalization?

    Said simply, the definition of naturalization is: “to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.”

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/naturalization

    So the Constitution then gives Congress the power to write laws that establish the rules by which aliens -people from other countries- can become citizens of the USA after they have arrived in the USA. It does not give them the power to regulate how, when, or where those immigrants arrive in the USA, only how they become citizens once present in the USA.

    This is further confirmed by Jefferson and Madison in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 wherein they state:

    That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
    Jefferson and Madison held that the Constitution had no authority over immigrants and that laws made by the federal government aimed at them are totally illegal and of no force. Each state make sits own immigration policy.

    To sum up: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration, in fact it actively forbids to the federal government the power to regulate immigration by forbidding it any power not given it in the Constitution. And while the Constitution does authorize Congress to make laws regulating the process by which immigrants become citizens, it in no way authorizes Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court to regulate or restrict immigration in any manner.

    Therefore if you believe in supporting the US Constitution you can only support open national borders. Anything else is unconstitutional and criminal as it violates the supreme law of the land and suggests that the US is not a nation of laws but a nation of criminals masquerading as lawmakers.


    Oh, and Jefferson and Madison went further, by the way. They said the President removing aliens was in fact illegal:

    Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled “An Act concerning aliens” is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that “no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due progress of law”; and that another having provided that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense;” the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without heating witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force: that transferring the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior”; and that the said act is void for that reason also. And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all Legislative powers.
    All of which means that attempts to deport people by the federal government are illegal violations of the Constitution. Notice also that they apply the protections of the Constitution to aliens.
    Last edited by PierzStyx; 09-14-2018 at 03:38 PM.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. A battalion strength military in every town.

    You are some kinda special stupid, you are.
    You want to subject each American city to occupation by the US military. Thank you for being honest about your desire to treat every city in America like Kabul and wage war against the American people.

    BY the way, a standing army like you want? Also unconstitutional. Congress can raise an army. Nothing authorizes indefinitely maintaining one.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Most the people I know that are fine with open borders do NOT want welfare. Helping the poor should always be local & never .gov.

    I believe in freedom.



    https://www.larrysharpe.com/2017/09/...views-beliefs/
    You have a very small circle. <shrug>

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    But, it would actually be less government. I did the math one time and with the current N.G. personnel you could staff 2 troops per mile along the southern border 24/7 in one week increments. Now if we brought troops home from foreign bases we could easily triple that number. Troop bases over seas would be shut down ending the logistical support for those operations. Ta-Da. Less government.

    This is about as likely as ending welfare. Warfare/welfare is what keeps daddy gubment in business.
    "The Patriarch"

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    You can't trespass on unowned land. And you can't regulate land you don't own.

    The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution lays severe limits to the powers of the government when it says that any power not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or people. Here is the text of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    This means the federal government has no authority in any area it isn't given authority in the Constitution. Anytime the federal government attempts to do so it is exceeding its legal limitations and legal powers and is committing an illegal act by exceeding the restrictions laid upon it in the supreme law of the land. It is acting in ways not simply unauthorized by the Constitution but in ways the federal government is actively forbidden to act in. One of these ways is immigration.

    The US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration in any manner. Therefore any attempt by the federal government to do so is illegal. And anyone encouraging the government to do so is promoting it to act in an illegal manner.

    Some people argue that Article 1, Section 8 authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration, but this is not so. First of all, the text of Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The question then becomes, what is naturalization?

    Said simply, the definition of naturalization is: “to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.”

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/naturalization

    So the Constitution then gives Congress the power to write laws that establish the rules by which aliens -people from other countries- can become citizens of the USA after they have arrived in the USA. It does not give them the power to regulate how, when, or where those immigrants arrive in the USA, only how they become citizens once present in the USA.

    This is further confirmed by Jefferson and Madison in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 wherein they state:



    Jefferson and Madison held that the Constitution had no authority over immigrants and that laws made by the federal government aimed at them are totally illegal and of no force. Each state make sits own immigration policy.

    To sum up: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration, in fact it actively forbids to the federal government the power to regulate immigration by forbidding it any power not given it in the Constitution. And while the Constitution does authorize Congress to make laws regulating the process by which immigrants become citizens, it in no way authorizes Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court to regulate or restrict immigration in any manner.

    Therefore if you believe in supporting the US Constitution you can only support open national borders. Anything else is unconstitutional and criminal as it violates the supreme law of the land and suggests that the US is not a nation of laws but a nation of criminals masquerading as lawmakers.
    O.K. Though in no way does it apply to these times we live, would you...

    1) Believe that any state government may summarily authorize its militia to shoot any foreign national crossing it's border that is not a citizen of the United States if that state was so compelled?

    2) Allow any individual landowner, because individual rights exceed state and Federal rights (no?), to shoot any trespassers upon their property.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    You want to subject each American city to occupation by the US military. Thank you for being honest about your desire to treat every city in America like Kabul and wage war against the American people.

    BY the way, a standing army like you want? Also unconstitutional. Congress can raise an army. Nothing authorizes indefinitely maintaining one.
    That was sarcasm, dumbass. Anyone with any wits would have understood that from the second passage.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Pretty sure you were told that they do it at the same rate as US-born citizens (subjects). Hell, we can't even get people in RPF to agree that more government is bad.
    Neither of those statements is true.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I don't recall that being the case.

    I recall surveys and polling data that indicate that first generation migrants vote for more government at rates twice that of native citizens.
    And their children and grandchildren are still above the average.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Yes, we need the government to protect certain classes of citizens. White middle class.
    We need government to protect all citizens.

    By the way, it is poor minorities that are hurt the worst by illegal immigration.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    You do realize that would require more government, right??
    No it wouldn't.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. A battalion strength military in every town.

    You are some kinda special stupid, you are.
    Drop the pipe old man. Militaralizing the border means putting military personnel aka troops on the border. Battalion strength what? I was trying help u guys form a reasonable argument but u are too head strong and too indoctrinated that u reflectively attack anyone who is not solidly in your camp.

    Unlike many of the people on the opposite side of your camp. I actually believe that one can fight tyranny with more tyranny. And before u laugh it off, its similar to fight fire with more fire and when done effectively, it is more efficient than using water. In your case, using govt power against itself. I do not dismiss the possible positive potentials for such a tactic.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Yes, I get it. But don't you see that EVERYONE wants to shrink parts of the government and grow other parts. We are supposed to be the ones that want to shrink ALL parts.

    Proponents of the welfare state want us to reduce our military involvement and give the money to the poor.
    Proponents of the warfare state want us to end the social programs and use the money for "defense".

    The problem with that mentality is that the government keeps growing! The cuts never happen - we just build the extra parts!

    Meanwhile, if we end the social programs and the drug war, the immigration problem solves itself. You don't solve a government created problem with more government.
    We can reduce all parts of government to a certain degree but we can't shrink some parts until the crisis has been solved and we can only shrink some parts so far.
    You would still have an illegal immigration problem without welfare and the war on drugs because America is freer and more prosperous than the rest of the world and would be even more so if you ended welfare and the war on drugs.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This is about as likely as ending welfare. Warfare/welfare is what keeps daddy gubment in business.
    There's nothing likely out there, brother. In a madhouse I'm tired of advocating rationality. Because it just cannot be found. If there is a scrum in the yard then I guess I'm gonna come down on the conservative side. I just don't believe unfettered access to our borders is the way to go. For many reasons. Not the least are those that are being trafficked across for indentured sexual servitude. But, nobody cares about them. Right? Is that young girl or boy coming across the border an actual daughter or son? Or are they destined to a life of prostitution and drug addiction? Until used up, wore out and thrown away?
    How about a dozen or so Jihadi's bent on retribution for our foreign policy? All well and good until it's your old lady or daughter that get's caught in the mix?
    No, I'm gonna take my position on this one. May not be right, may not be wrong, but I've thought it through well enough. YMMV.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    If by voting for "more government" you mean "vote no differently than native-born Americans do when they vote Democrat or Republican."
    LOL
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    "WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION SO WE CAN STOP PEOPLE VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION!"

    Great logic there, Sulla.
    It doesn't violate the Constitution.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Drop the pipe old man. Militaralizing the border means putting military personnel aka troops on the border. Battalion strength what? I was trying help u guys form a reasonable argument but u are too head strong and too indoctrinated that u reflectively attack anyone who is not solidly in your camp.

    Unlike many of the people on the opposite side of your camp. I actually believe that one can fight tyranny with more tyranny. And before u laugh it off, its similar to fight fire with more fire and when done effectively, it is more efficient than using water. In your case, using govt power against itself. I do not dismiss the possible positive potentials for such a tactic.
    I don't need your help. I don't find it a positive. Thanks anyway.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Natives and immigrants share very similar ideas about government.



    They also cost less and consume less.



    In fact taxing immigrants is probably doing more to fund the welfare state than drain it.



    But I doubt facts will deter a Progressive police statist such as yourself.
    Liberal lies, truthful studies have disproved everyone of them.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    You can't trespass on unowned land. And you can't regulate land you don't own.
    But we do own it and they aren't part of us, not only is it trespassing but it is also invasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution lays severe limits to the powers of the government when it says that any power not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or people. Here is the text of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    This means the federal government has no authority in any area it isn't given authority in the Constitution. Anytime the federal government attempts to do so it is exceeding its legal limitations and legal powers and is committing an illegal act by exceeding the restrictions laid upon it in the supreme law of the land. It is acting in ways not simply unauthorized by the Constitution but in ways the federal government is actively forbidden to act in. One of these ways is immigration.

    The US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration in any manner. Therefore any attempt by the federal government to do so is illegal. And anyone encouraging the government to do so is promoting it to act in an illegal manner.

    Some people argue that Article 1, Section 8 authorizes the federal government to regulate immigration, but this is not so. First of all, the text of Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” The question then becomes, what is naturalization?

    Said simply, the definition of naturalization is: “to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen.”

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/naturalization

    So the Constitution then gives Congress the power to write laws that establish the rules by which aliens -people from other countries- can become citizens of the USA after they have arrived in the USA. It does not give them the power to regulate how, when, or where those immigrants arrive in the USA, only how they become citizens once present in the USA.

    This is further confirmed by Jefferson and Madison in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 wherein they state:



    Jefferson and Madison held that the Constitution had no authority over immigrants and that laws made by the federal government aimed at them are totally illegal and of no force. Each state make sits own immigration policy.

    To sum up: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It does not authorize the federal government to regulate immigration, in fact it actively forbids to the federal government the power to regulate immigration by forbidding it any power not given it in the Constitution. And while the Constitution does authorize Congress to make laws regulating the process by which immigrants become citizens, it in no way authorizes Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court to regulate or restrict immigration in any manner.

    Therefore if you believe in supporting the US Constitution you can only support open national borders. Anything else is unconstitutional and criminal as it violates the supreme law of the land and suggests that the US is not a nation of laws but a nation of criminals masquerading as lawmakers.


    Oh, and Jefferson and Madison went further, by the way. They said the President removing aliens was in fact illegal:



    All of which means that attempts to deport people by the federal government are illegal violations of the Constitution. Notice also that they apply the protections of the Constitution to aliens.
    The Constitution does give the federal government power over immigration:
    Article 1 Section 9

    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-17-2020, 09:30 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-23-2017, 11:16 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-19-2016, 08:47 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-14-2015, 06:05 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-05-2012, 05:22 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
  •