There is No Immigrant Flood, They Can't Get Welfare, and They Don't Commit More Crime

[Cleaner44]

Undocumented (or unlawful, which is not the same as illegal) resident is better.

The term illegal immigrant, if both of those words are used isn't as bad. It's when it's just shortened to "illegal," of if it's said the way it was in the post I replied to, something like, "they are illegal," that just makes no sense at all.

It's a rhetorical trick immigration restrictionists use to treat that particular, very minor, violation of a statute, as some special category that makes the people who violate it something different than all the rest of us who violate all the other statutes that we do every day.

I think it also goes with the myth that they tend to hold which says that these people are breaking the law just by being here, as if their very presence is one continuous criminal act that they perpetually commit until they're not here any more. This is false. That would be like telling someone who once ran a stop sign that they are perpetually breaking the law for as long as they are on the other side of the stop sign, and saying that they are therefore "illegals." That's simply not what the law says.

This is the same mindset you see on display when they say that any failure of the government to deport them means they aren't enforcing the law.

I disagree on a few points.

I don't view entering a sovereign nation without the permission of the citizens is a very minor violation of a statute. I view this as a serious crime. I also think that taking this unlawful action deliberately is more serious than when a person breaks a law that they don't even know exists.

I also disagree with your analogy using a stop sign. I think a more accurate analogy would be driving with a suspended drivers licence. A person that drivers with a suspended licence is breaking the law each and every time they take that action. Likewise an immigrant that enters illegally is in violation every single day that they remain an immigrant in said nation illegally.

Ultimately this is a bunch of word games. Call them immigrants, aliens, foreigners or invaders... it is all the same. They are people entering without permission. That is illegal, unlawful, criminal, prohibited and unauthorized. Calling it undocumented is just intellectually dishonest.

[Superfluous Man]

I don't view entering a sovereign nation without the permission of the citizens is a very minor violation of a statute.

Immigration law as we know it has nothing to do with the permission of the citizens.

If I, a citizen, choose to welcome someone from another country onto my property without the permission of the regime, then both I and that guest of mine are in violation of the illegitimate manmade statutes of US immigration laws.

Immigration laws, as we know them, are about the permission of the ruling regime, not the citizens.

[Superfluous Man]

I also disagree with your analogy using a stop sign. I think a more accurate analogy would be driving with a suspended drivers licence. A person that drivers with a suspended licence is breaking the law each and every time they take that action. Likewise an immigrant that enters illegally is in violation every single day that they remain an immigrant in said nation illegally.

You are incorrect about this.

[brushfire]

I disagree on a few points.

I don't view entering a sovereign nation without the permission of the citizens is a very minor violation of a statute. I view this as a serious crime. I also think that taking this unlawful action deliberately is more serious than when a person breaks a law that they don't even know exists.

I also disagree with your analogy using a stop sign. I think a more accurate analogy would be driving with a suspended drivers licence. A person that drivers with a suspended licence is breaking the law each and every time they take that action. Likewise an immigrant that enters illegally is in violation every single day that they remain an immigrant in said nation illegally.

Ultimately this is a bunch of word games. Call them immigrants, aliens, foreigners or invaders... it is all the same. They are people entering without permission. That is illegal, unlawful, criminal, prohibited and unauthorized. Calling it undocumented is just intellectually dishonest.

I was going to comment, but Cleaner44 left me little room. QFT post 61.

[brushfire]

Immigration law as we know it has nothing to do with the permission of the citizens.

If I, a citizen, choose to welcome someone from another country onto my property without the permission of the regime, then both I and that guest of mine are in violation of the illegitimate manmade statutes of US immigration laws.

Immigration laws, as we know them, are about the permission of the ruling regime, not the citizens.

You've just described government. You fix that, and I'll love you forever.

[Superfluous Man]

Ultimately this is a bunch of word games. Call them immigrants, aliens, foreigners or invaders... it is all the same. They are people entering without permission. That is illegal, unlawful, criminal, prohibited and unauthorized. Calling it undocumented is just intellectually dishonest.

At the moment of their entry, while they are actually in the process of doing this, this description might be accurate.

But subsequent to that time, while they are no longer illegally entering, but rather simply existing within the borders after after having illegally entered at some point in the past, this description no longer applies.

They would now be unlawful residents, meaning that there is no explicit positive legal declaration approving of their presence in the US. But there is nothing illegal about their merely being here, which would mean that there were some law that they were continually breaking by their presence here. The illegal act of theirs, much like running a stop sign, is the discrete act of a moment in time at which point they either crossed the border illegally or overstayed their visas. When used in actual legal contexts, the distinction between illegal and unlawful is a meaningful and sometimes (such as this) important one.

When used as an adjective describing people, and not actions, the term "undocumented" actually is the much more intellectually honest term. Calling them illegal is shear propaganda. This use of that word has arisen rather recently in the English language, and entirely at the behest of people pushing a statist agenda. It's a shame that so many people have so mindlessly allowed themselves to be programmed into following right along in this Orwellian change of the language.

[Superfluous Man]

You've just described government. You fix that, and I'll love you forever.

I can't fix it. But I am obligated by the law of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to repudiate it.

I will live under it, submit to it, and do what I can to improve or mitigate its evils if practical. But I will not approve of them.

At any rate, the fact remains that, as I pointed out, illegal immigration has nothing at all to do with entering a country without the citizens' permission. And this is indisputable.

[Cleaner44]

Immigration law as we know it has nothing to do with the permission of the citizens.

If I, a citizen, choose to welcome someone from another country onto my property without the permission of the regime, then both I and that guest of mine are in violation of the illegitimate manmade statutes of US immigration laws.

Immigration laws, as we know them, are about the permission of the ruling regime, not the citizens.

Pretty much all of our laws are about the permission of the ruling regime, not the citizens. I was speaking to the illusion of our self governance.

You've just described government. You fix that, and I'll love you forever.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more.

At the moment of their entry, while they are actually doing this, this description might be accurate.

But subsequent to that time, while they are no longer illegally entering, but rather simply existing within the borders after after having illegally entered at some point in the past, this description no longer applies.

They would now be unlawful residents, meaning that there is no explicit positive legal declaration approving of their presence in the US. But there is nothing illegal about their merely being here, which would mean that there were some law that they were continually breaking by their presence here. The illegal act of theirs, much like running a stop sign, is the discrete act of a moment in time at which point they either crossed the border illegally or overstayed their visas. When used in actual legal contexts, the distinction between illegal and unlawful is a meaningful and sometimes (such as this) important one.

I agree that those that enter illegally only enter illegally once and after that they are simply existing on this nation in violation of the law. By the same token a murder only murdered the day they kill another human. The murderer is still a murderer every day of their miserable life, even though they aren't murdering every day. That doesn't change the fact that every single day that an immigrant is in the nation without permission, they are still here illegally.

You can keep playing word games if you want, but I am not interested in continuing to do so.

[Superfluous Man]

I was going to comment, but Cleaner44 left me little room. QFT post 61.

It's surprising how ignorant immigration restrictionists are about the very laws that they supposedly support.

[Superfluous Man]

I agree that those that enter illegally only enter illegally once and after that they are simply existing on this nation in violation of the law.

Again, this is false. There is no law that they are continually violating simply by existing here. If you dispute this, please find the law that says that.

The reason you assume there is such a law is that you have been subjected to propaganda which you have uncritically accepted as true.

The truth is, it's only on the popular level where this mischaracterization of immigration law is propounded. Those who have actually studied immigration law don't talk about it the way you do.

Now as for the rest of this...

By the same token a murder only murdered the day they kill another human. The murderer is still a murderer every day of their miserable life, even though they aren't murdering every day.

Of course. And likewise, all of us have violated laws before, and do with some frequency. If this is the basis for calling people "illegal," then that adjective is not a useful one, since, by this line of reasoning, we are all always illegals. This was the point I made above.

[Superfluous Man]

Pretty much all of our laws are about the permission of the ruling regime, not the citizens. I was speaking to the illusion of our self governance.

Then you utterly misrepresented the facts. You were positively promoting the illusion to which you refer.

You even argued that immigration laws were not minor statutes the violations of which we should tolerate precisely on the grounds that, according to you, they represented the will of the citizens. If, as you now admit, this is an illusion, then the severity of violating immigration laws that you mentioned must be an illusion too.

[Swordsmyth]

Immigration law as we know it has nothing to do with the permission of the citizens.

If I, a citizen, choose to welcome someone from another country onto my property without the permission of the regime, then both I and that guest of mine are in violation of the illegitimate manmade statutes of US immigration laws.

Immigration laws, as we know them, are about the permission of the ruling regime, not the citizens.

It has everything to do with it, you just happen to be a member of a group that has made what must be a group decision differently than you personally would prefer.

[Superfluous Man]

It has everything to do with it, you just happen to be a member of a group that has made what must be a group decision differently than you personally would prefer.

If you believe that the laws passed by Congress are actually the same thing as group decisions of the American people themselves, you are mistaken.

This is obvious to those who pay attention.

Do you believe that the decision to bailout the banks in 2008 was a group decision of the American people?

[Swordsmyth]

If you believe that the laws passed by Congress are actually the same thing as group decisions of the American people themselves, you are mistaken.

This is obvious to those who pay attention.

Do you believe that the decision to bailout the banks in 2008 was a group decision of the American people?

Congressmen run on their positions on immigration, nobody ran on the position of bailing out the banks.
But in a way even that was the result of the American people electing the kind of representatives that would do such a thing.
We don't live in a direct democracy.

[Superfluous Man]

Congressmen run on their positions on immigration, nobody ran on the position of bailing out the banks.
But in a way even that was the result of the American people electing the kind of representatives that would do such a thing.
We don't live in a direct democracy.

That certainly sounds like your answer to my question is "no." That's good. I agree.

Having elections doesn't make the decisions of Congress equal to the decisions of the American people. Not even when those decisions pertain to subjects the alleged representatives talked about in their campaigns.

[brushfire]

It's surprising how ignorant immigration restrictionists are about the very laws that they supposedly support.

"immigration restrictionist"... I suppose that might be a somewhat accurate label - its a fair point of contention.

While I have more in common with ancaps and anarchists, I still consider myself a minarchist. I do wish to limit who enters the country, as I believe in its sovereignty.

What's particularly strange about this debate is the focus on words. I'd seen this in my gun owner's rights battles - "Assault weapons". "Undocumented immigrants" - is one of those subversive phrases used to describe what is clearly illegal activity. Why is it even necessary? Its necessary because people that use these phrases want to ignore the law.

Unfortunately, no matter what side of the issue you're on, government has to manage immigration. Just like everything else they do, its a fking mess. That being said, I think its no coincidence that they are pandering to a certain class of immigrants (Mexican). One might ask why that is, but is pretty obvious and discussed heavily on other threads. What this all boils down is an assault on our sovereignty, for political or corporate gain. There's no regard to the law, or the cost that is incurred, and the rest of us (including my children, and their children) will be paying the price.

I'm pretty sure that we are going to disagree on this topic, and that's ok, but I wanted to be clear as to where I am coming from. I dont see myself as being ignorant on the matter, just having a difference in opinion.

[Superfluous Man]

"immigration restrictionist"... I suppose that might be a somewhat accurate label - its a fair point of contention.

While I have more in common with ancaps and anarchists, I still consider myself a minarchist. I do wish to limit who enters the country, as I believe in its sovereignty.

Minarchists do not support immigration restriction. Whatever you are, the size of government you advocate is much larger than minarchy.

The nation's founders were not minarchists. But, as far as they went in instituting a gargantuan centralized federal government, even they never dreamed of going so far as to empower the federal government to restrict immigration.

And it only takes a bit of critical reflection to realize that this has nothing to do with their not believing in the regime's sovereignty.

[Swordsmyth]

Minarchists do not support immigration restriction. Whatever you are, the size of government you advocate is much larger than minarchy.

The nation's founders were not minarchists. But, as far as they went in instituting a gargantuan centralized federal government, even they never dreamed of going so far as to empower the federal government to restrict immigration.

And it only takes a bit of critical reflection to realize that this has nothing to do with their not believing in the regime's sovereignty.

They most certainly did give the federal government power over immigration and they recognized that the states had power over it.

[Swordsmyth]

Having elections doesn't make the decisions of Congress equal to the decisions of the American people. Not even when those decisions pertain to subjects the alleged representatives talked about in their campaigns.

[Superfluous Man]

They most certainly did give the federal government power over immigration and they recognized that the states had power over it.

Which is it? It can't be both.

[brushfire]

Minarchists do not support immigration restriction. Whatever you are, the size of government you advocate is much larger than minarchy.

The nation's founders were not minarchists. But, as far as they went in instituting a gargantuan centralized federal government, even they never dreamed of going so far as to empower the federal government to restrict immigration.

And it only takes a bit of critical reflection to realize that this has nothing to do with their not believing in the regime's sovereignty.

Ok - so what should I label myself? I need to make sure I'm using the right label. Not ancap, and not globalist - somewheres betwixt the two. I dont think I'm intelligent enough to grasp a sovereign state that is able to exist without any government, or any concern for immigration. How is that possible? "Slab City, California"?

I tend to agree with Jefferson on most issues, including government being a necessary evil that requires constraints on size, with a cyclical reset.

ETA: If you were keeping illegals on your property, I would not consider them illegal aliens. I also not consider you a law breaker - its your property, you should have a right to have whoever you want on it. Am I a minarchist now?

[Swordsmyth]

Which is it? It can't be both.

Yes it can, the states have the power and the feds have the power, whichever has more restrictive rules determines who can enter but a state with more restrictive rules wouldn't apply to the whole country.

[Cleaner44]

Again, this is false. There is no law that they are continually violating simply by existing here. If you dispute this, please find the law that says that.

The reason you assume there is such a law is that you have been subjected to propaganda which you have uncritically accepted as true.

The truth is, it's only on the popular level where this mischaracterization of immigration law is propounded. Those who have actually studied immigration law don't talk about it the way you do.

Now as for the rest of this...


Of course. And likewise, all of us have violated laws before, and do with some frequency. If this is the basis for calling people "illegal," then that adjective is not a useful one, since, by this line of reasoning, we are all always illegals. This was the point I made above.

A murderer is still a murderer everyday, regardless of whether they have been caught and/or charged. An alien that enters illegally is still in an illegal status, regardless of whether they have been caught and/or charged. I am not saying that every day is a new count and thus if caught after 10 days they would be charged with 10 counts of whatever crime. If you disagree with this we will just have to agree to disagree.

Then you utterly misrepresented the facts. You were positively promoting the illusion to which you refer.

You even argued that immigration laws were not minor statutes the violations of which we should tolerate precisely on the grounds that, according to you, they represented the will of the citizens. If, as you now admit, this is an illusion, then the severity of violating immigration laws that you mentioned must be an illusion too.

I didn't misrepresent any facts. The fact is that we the people have a Congress that is employed to represent us. They don't do so honestly, but it is what our constitution decrees for our Republic. When our representatives create laws, it is supposed to represent what we the people want, regardless of what you and I want. This is our reality. My libertarian dream will never be a reality, but the USA is.

You and I might approve of some laws and disapprove of others, but that doesn't keep us out of jail. Just ask Irwin Schiff.

Personally I don't take kindly to people entering this nation without permission just the same as if someone entered my home uninvited. You might not have a problem with that and that is fine, but it is still a crime. I see a difference between victim-less crimes and illegal immigration. I am in favor of jury nullification for bad laws. I don't view securing the border and the laws against entering illegal as a bad law.

With that said I am not a lawyer and I have not studied immigration laws. I am simply speaking from a common sense stand point and in my opinion not having control of borders is just plain stupid.

[Superfluous Man]

A murderer is still a murderer everyday, regardless of whether they have been caught and/or charged. An alien that enters illegally is still in an illegal status, regardless of whether they have been caught and/or charged..

The first thing you said is true, just as every single one of us is still guilty every day of every violation of every law we've committed in our lives. The second thing you say is false. People who entered the USA illegally are not, according to US law, "in an illegal status" on account of their having at some time in the past done that. Again, you are misusing the word "illegal" for something that is merely unlawful. And again, if you want to continue to deny that I'm right about this, please find the law that you think says what you keep saying.

I get that it's very difficult for you to shift the paradigm you think of this in. You've been programmed to understand it the way you're describing it, and you never stopped to think critically about it and discover if it's really true. But when you get around to doing that, you'll discover that it is not, and hopefully no longer join in propounding the propaganda that led you to think it.

[Superfluous Man]

I see a difference between victim-less crimes and illegal immigration.

Then you are flat out wrong, and insisting on continuing to be wrong by choice it seems. Illegal immigration plainly is a victimless crime. It's impossible not to see that.

On the other hand, the immigration restriction that the regime engages in is a crime that has real victims, not only among those who illegally immigrate, but also among all of us, both when we try to hire them to work for us, and in much more ordinary burdens that we have simply gotten used to, like having to give our SSN's to employers when we apply for jobs and have those employers inform the government about our identities and employment with them, or being liable to get stopped and asked for our papers at checkpoints in the zones within many miles of our borders in which a very large percentage of Americans live.

[Wooden Indian]

It appears as though you are playing word games, but in the event you are not, I will make an analogy based upon your post remarking on Christ being your Lord, which suggests we share a faith.

Were it not for grace, I must one day answer for my violations of God's Law. I have stolen, committed adultery, made false witness, and coveted; yes I have done many shameful things.

I am thief, a liar, and adulterer, but all are are guilty of transgressions of God's Law, and all must be held accountable.

The unredeemed, they refuse to accept the penalty that our Lord paid on our behalf, and therefore THEY WILL BE CHARGED as lying, adulterous, murderous thieves, EVEN IF THEY ONLY DID IT ONCE. The wicked are punished, justice is served, and their crimes lead to the 2nd death.

A man that migrates across a border illegally, yes at that moment, he is an illegal immigrant. And much like the man that murdered once, yet never did it again, is still a murder, the illegal immigrant IS STILL an illegal immigrant. Simply not doing something at that moment, doesn't matter. If you stole, you're a thief, and not an "unlawful possessor of goods".

The wages of their transgression, illegally migrating into a sovereign land, is a bus ride home, and unless they are offered AND accept grace, the illegal immigrant should rightfully be found guilty as such.

I am not going to go back and forth with you on this, but hope you have a nice day, man.

[Superfluous Man]

It appears as though you are playing word games, but in the event you are not, I will make an analogy based upon your post remarking on Christ being your Lord, which suggests we share a faith.

Were it not for grace, I must one day answer for my violations of God's Law. I have stolen, committed adultery, made false witness, and coveted; yes I have done many shameful things.

I am thief, a liar, and adulterer, but all are are guilty of transgressions of God's Law, and all must be held accountable.

The unredeemed, they refuse to accept the penalty that our Lord paid on our behalf, and therefore THEY WILL BE CHARGED as lying, adulterous, murderous thieves, EVEN IF THEY ONLY DID IT ONCE. The wicked are punished, justice is served, and their crimes lead to the 2nd death.

A man that migrates across a border illegally, yes at that moment, he is an illegal immigrant. And much like the man that murdered once, yet never did it again, is still a murder, the illegal immigrant IS STILL an illegal immigrant. Simply not doing something at that moment, doesn't matter. If you stole, you're a thief, and not an "unlawful possessor of goods".

Up to this point you have reiterated the precise point I made. This recent coining of the special application of the word "illegal" to describe people, as though those who have previously illegally immigrated belong to this category of "illegal" while those who have previously done any other illegal things do not, is to twist its meaning nonsensically. It's those use this neologism who engage in word games, not those who resist it.

The wages of their transgression, illegally migrating into a sovereign land, is a bus ride home, and unless they are offered AND accept grace, the illegal immigrant should rightfully be found guilty as such.

Sometimes that is the punishment for that particular crime. Sometimes it isn't. Even granting for the sake of argument that some punishment were necessary, it would not need to be deportation. Nor does US law require that it must be deportation. Contrary to what you may have heard, it is not the case that anything short of deporting them equates to non-enforcement of the law. When you demand deportation it is not true that you are merely demanding that the law be enforced, but rather that it be enforced in one particular way as opposed to another.

Notice how these various beliefs you hold are all mutually entwined with one another. The myth that people who entered the country illegally are still perpetually committing a crime for as long as they remain is inseparable from the insistence that the only just way to deal with them is deportation, since allowing them to stay here would according to this misconception mean allowing them to continue to commit a crime. Once you get disabused of your misconception about the law (and it is a misconception, as you will discover if you simply look into it, N.B. that despite the insistence of several here that I'm wrong, none have yet succeeding in finding the actual federal law that they're so certain exists), your insistence on deportation will soon diminish as well.

[Swordsmyth]

Then you are flat out wrong, and insisting on continuing to be wrong by choice it seems. Illegal immigration plainly is a victimless crime. It's impossible not to see that.

On the other hand, the immigration restriction that the regime engages in is a crime that has real victims, not only among those who illegally immigrate, but also among all of us, both when we try to hire them to work for us, and in much more ordinary burdens that we have simply gotten used to, like having to give our SSN's to employers when we apply for jobs and have those employers inform the government about our identities and employment with them, or being liable to get stopped and asked for our papers at checkpoints in the zones within many miles of our borders in which a very large percentage of Americans live.

Illegal immigration is no more a victimless crime than trespassing or squatting are.

[Superfluous Man]

Illegal immigration is no more a victimless crime than trespassing or squatting are.

Yes it is. The victim of trespassing is the owner of the property being trespassed, assuming it has a rightful owner.

In illegal immigration, the person committing the crime may well be expressly invited onto whatever private property they enter. They might even rightfully own it themselves. They may never once set foot on any justly owned private property without the permission of its owners. Who is the victim then? It can't be someone who doesn't own any of the property the immigrant ever sets foot on. It can't be the ruling regime, who has no legitimate claim to the property it treats as its own.

In fact, that regime, by dictating to me whom I may or may not allow onto my property, effectively becomes the trespasser. And I, as the rightful owner of the property onto which the regime trespasses, am the victim of its crimes.

[devil21]

What will it take to get people to stop using the word "illegal" this way?

When someone commits an illegal act, the adjective "illegal" can be used to describe the act, but not the person. Otherwise, every single one of us is illegal.

Actually, it is an accurate label but not for the reasons most people are brainwashed into thinking. The term "illegal" means they are not under the jurisdiction of the legal system administered by the corporation (US Inc.) seated in the sovereign city of Washington DC over the foreign 50 states, where the men and women of the foreign 50 states are legally subjects/employees/property (consentually but they don't know that) of that corporation under the term known as "US Citizen". Someone that is not a US Citizen, naturalized or otherwise on the landmass by asking permission or consenting to that legal jurisdiction is therefore deemed an "illegal alien".

In reality, we are all men and women just living on the landmass. We're bound up by various contracts and legal maneuvers that deem us subjects (physical collateral) of the corporations that have sprouted up to entice us to give up our rights in exchange for benefits. There's also liabilities attached to those benefits. It's all a mind $#@!.

No one is "illegal" by merely existing in nature.