What's to stop Jose from buying a piece of land on the mexican border and putting up a big "ENTER HERE" sign?Originally Posted by ClaytonB
I'm against open borders but I'm not sure we need a wall to close the border.
Any HOA with gated entrance is going to have rules about that. You can't remove a section of the outer wall, you can't remove the gate, you can't change the gate-code, you may not loan your code to someone else, you may not tailgate others, you may not allow others to tailgate you, certain types of visitors may have to follow a sign-in procedure, and so on, and so forth.
Sure, it may be possible to have a wall-less border (that is also secure). But the deeper issue is that if you want to achieve Goal X, you have to choose a tool from among the set of available tools that can actually accomplish Goal X. If Goal X is to dig a powerline ditch but you choose Tool A which is a children's sandbox scoop, have fun trying to dig a ditch with that. You need to choose an appropriate tool, such as a proper steel shovel, or a Ditch-Witch, or whatever.I'm against open borders but I'm not sure we need a wall to close the border.
The government is the wrong tool for almost everything that modern man wants to use it for. He says, "I will now dig a ditch (or seal the border)" and he proceeds to grab the plastic toy sand-shovel of the government. He does so with great ceremony and pomp, as though he were a priest performing some ancient liturgy. But no matter how deeply he believes in his heart that this plastic toy shovel will help him dig a 5-foot deep, mile-long trench, it will not help him at all. He would do just as well scratching at the dirt with his bare paws. If you want to dig a ditch, use a proper shovel. If you want to seal a border, have proper security. If your political apparatus makes it impossible to have public security agencies do the job, then contract it out. If the contractors are corruptible, then privatize the whole system. The root problem in almost all public policy failures is tragedy of the commons... no one individual has any vested interest in the outcome, so the outcome is never achieved. Privatization is not magic pixie-dust. What makes it work is what economists call internalization of costs and benefits. When I fix up my house, I am the beneficiary in two ways. First, I get to live in a nicer house, because I just fixed it up. And when I sell it, it will get a better price (because I fixed it up). So, almost all the benefits of fixing my house up go to me. For this reason, nobody needs to pass a law saying, "People need to fix up their houses. There need to be at least 10,000 remodels per year." Nobody needs to do that because the incentives are already aligned -- everyone who can benefit from fixing up their house has already done so, because it was the most beneficial thing they could do with their spare money. Therefore, everyone who doesn't fix up their house must have had some other, more pressing thing to spend their money on.
When you collectivize resources (e.g. parks, roads, borders, etc.) you break internality. You make both the costs and benefits of maintaining that resource into an externality. Since nobody in particular benefits, nobody in particular has an interest in seeing to it that that resource is maintained. And so you get blight. The US southern border is exactly such a blight. The Democrats are the main beneficiary of that particular blight, which is why the Republicans bitch and moan about it so much. But there are plenty of other blights that the Republicans benefit from (e.g. the MIC), and you will never hear them complain about those. And it is precisely because of this root hypocrisy (the desire to "keep the good thing going") that the Republicans will never take a principled stand on the border. They will not enforce it, neither will they allow local polities to enforce it in their place. They don't actually want change, they just want you to think they want change, so they make a big show of complaining about it. And nothing ever changes.
This is a MUST-WATCH video, it's just 2 minutes. Everyone go watch it!
Last edited by ClaytonB; 07-10-2024 at 04:05 PM.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
But HOAs are small areas of land that are completely filled by occupied parcels and their appurtenant streets, parks, right-of-ways, and other such things. And rightly so.
The ethical justification for putting up a wall around such an area can't be extrapolated to justify putting one up around a land mass the size of the USA, complete with all its empty and unused land.
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
That deserves a re-post of the entire article.
@PAF
The Absurdity of “Open Borders”
Torn fence
07/04/2024
•
Power & Market
•
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
Print this page
Some libertarians argue that libertarianism requires support for “open borders,” but this is a mistake. “Open borders” is the view in the existing world of states, the state ought to admit as many people who want to come to the United States as possible. Of course, you don’t have the right to occupy property that is privately owned. But much of the property in the United States is “public,” which means that it is up to those who run the state to decide what to do with it. Of course, this is an unsatisfactory situation and we should do what we can to bring about a world with no “public” property and no state, but for now the question is what to do: open borders or not?
The answer is quite clear. “Open borders” would be a disastrous mistake. The policy would subject the United States to hordes of people with alien ideologies and cultures. As the great Ludwig von Mises pointed out, it would have made no sense to allow immigration from Germany and Japan during World War II. “Neither does it mean that there can be any question of appeasing aggressors by removing migration barriers. As conditions are today, the Americas and Australia in admitting German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants merely open their doors to the vanguards of hostile armies.” We face exactly the same situation today. We have a hard enough problem coping with the alien ideologies and cultures that are already here. Why compound our problem?
The situation is even worse than we have so far portrayed. Because of the “woke” control that now prevails, members of “protected” groups such as racial minorities are immediately eligible for reparations, “set-asides,” affirmative action, and other schemes to mulct the American people. Why should our hard-earned tax money go to support people who have no ties to our country? As I said in 2015, “In other words, it’s bad enough we have to be looted, spied on, and kicked around by the state. Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?”
Aside from the “woke” problem, there is something else. Those who come here because of “open borders” can immediately benefit from the welfare state. A massive number of people could come here just to live from welfare payments. Why bankrupt our economy? The well-known free market economist Milton Friedman, hardly an extremist, said, “You cannot simultaneously have a free market and a welfare state.”
You might counter this by pointing out that welfare benefits aren’t very lavish. But this is true only if you are thinking of the standards of living of the American upper and middle classes. (Actually, though, these benefits are quite substantial and give the lie to claims that America has been marked by rising “inequality” in recent decades.) Because America is much more prosperous than the places the immigrants are coming from, living from American welfare payments would be a good deal for millions of potential immigrants.
Some fanatical libertarian supporters of “open borders” have come up with a response to this point that has to be characterized as one of the worst arguments in the past few decades. Robert Rector mentions this argument here: “The grant of citizenship is a transfer of political power. Access to the U.S. ballot box also provides access to the American taxpayer’s bank account. This is particularly problematic with regard to low-skill immigrants. Within an active redistributionist state, as Friedman understood, unlimited immigration can threaten limited government.
“Many libertarians respond to this dilemma by asserting that the real problem is not open borders but the welfare state itself. The answer: dismantle the welfare state. The libertarian Cato Institute pursues a variant of this policy under the slogan, ‘build a wall around the welfare state, not around the nation.’. . . Borders should be open, but immigrants should be barred from accessing welfare and other benefits. , , . In a recent debate with Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute, I pointed out this paradox. Griswold replied that the key was to grant amnesty and open borders now and work on ‘building a wall around welfare’ at some point in the future.” See this.
It has to be said that this is utterly stupid. It would be like saying that you need to take two medications. If you take only one, you’ll die. Therefore, you should take one of them and worry about getting the other one later.
There is yet another problem with “open borders,” that gets to the root of why we support the free market. As Mises again and again pointed out, the free market replaces the Darwinian struggle of the natural world, in which some animals survive at the expense of others. In the free market, people can benefit without harming others. There is a harmony of long term interests among people.
But with open borders this is no longer true. Immigrants will take jobs by undercutting American workers, because even very low paying American jobs are better than what they are getting in their home countries. This process will take place until wages reach a common level, and given the vast number of potential immigrants compared with American workers, the wage that results will be close to the immigrants’ standard. American workers could rightly say, “What about us? Your “free market” makes our condition worse.” But of course it isn’t the “free market” that does this. It’s “open borders,” which is an anti-market principle, that does this. Insisting that “open borders” makes everybody better off makes libertarianism seem ridiculous, because a great many people are hurt by the policy.
Some “left libertarians” will object that the free market does indeed mandate “open borders”. But it doesn’t. The libertarian non-aggression principle leaves it up to us to determine what to do in a society with so-called “public” property.
We need to confront another objection. Wouldn’t an attempt to close the border require that we lock up illegal immigrants in concentration camps? Wouldn’t this be a drastic infringement on their liberty? But a closed border doesn’t require this. All that we need to do is to build a wall and prevent immigrants from entering. We don’t have to jail them. All we need to do is to turn them away.
Also, building a wall would be easier if states can build walls around their own territory. This greatly reduces the cost of building a wall. Closing the border gives the people in each state or local community a choice about accepting immigrants. Closed borders and secession go hand-in hand
Let’s do everything we can to end the hoax of “open borders.” Doing so is a step in the preservation of Western civilization and the American heritage.
“It is not true that all creeds and cultures are equally assimilable in a First World nation born of England, Christianity, and Western civilization. Race, faith, ethnicity and history leave genetic fingerprints no ‘proposition nation’ can erase." -- Pat Buchanan
If America is only an idea, then there is no need for masses of immigrants to come here since they can just create the idea in their own countries. - Random Thought from the Interwebs.
That was reason Number One why I jumped in whole hog supporting him back in 2007.
His "absolutist" position on the guns and the 2nd was my second reason.
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 07-10-2024 at 03:26 PM.
“It is not true that all creeds and cultures are equally assimilable in a First World nation born of England, Christianity, and Western civilization. Race, faith, ethnicity and history leave genetic fingerprints no ‘proposition nation’ can erase." -- Pat Buchanan
If America is only an idea, then there is no need for masses of immigrants to come here since they can just create the idea in their own countries. - Random Thought from the Interwebs.
Well, I suggested mines, they are cheap, reliable and send a powerful message to the next invader in line behind the first one that just got turned into hamburger.
But everybody lost their $#@! and I got shouted down.
“It is not true that all creeds and cultures are equally assimilable in a First World nation born of England, Christianity, and Western civilization. Race, faith, ethnicity and history leave genetic fingerprints no ‘proposition nation’ can erase." -- Pat Buchanan
If America is only an idea, then there is no need for masses of immigrants to come here since they can just create the idea in their own countries. - Random Thought from the Interwebs.
HOAs -- rightly understood[1] -- are just miniature city-states. The entirety of Christendom was once almost one giant patchwork of city-states and surrounding rural supports. The rural support was defended by the security apparatus of the city-state to which it belonged. This was not always a strictly territorial arrangement, as in feudalism. People who needed more security stayed in the urban area. People who could live with less security could stay in rural areas (often because they were poor, or they could provide their own security).
*shrug -- then it doesn't make sense for it to be policed in that way, and it's a waste of money to spend the public treasure on such a venture. That doesn't mean you have to accept illegal entry, you just have to capture and deport them, etc.The ethical justification for putting up a wall around such an area can't be extrapolated to justify putting one up around a land mass the size of the USA, complete with all its empty and unused land.
Note that the single biggest reason we have an issue with the border is welfare. We have trillions in free handouts in the US. People are "immigrating" here illegally to dip their bowl in some of the free pork which is constantly streaming out of DC. Before we had the world's largest welfare state (in absolute dollars, if not percentage), we had no issue with people climbing over fences and walls to get in here. So, shut off the magnet, and the problem would be solved overnight. But no Republican will ever talk about that because 2024 Republicans are equivalent to circa 1994 Democrats. The Republicans have always been about 30 years behind the Democrat party, but in lock-step with the globalist Agenda, all the same. So, we will have a big knock-down-drag-out political fight about "border versus no-border" but we will never talk about the actual cause. It's like a morbidly obese person trying to tell the doctor they're sure it's a thyroid issue and the doctor is telling them, "No, you just eat way too much. Stop over-eating and lose weight." So, we'll continue arguing about our thyroid southern border instead of the Federal Reserve money fountain and the DC special-interest pork-barreling that is causing it...
[1] - This qualifier is required because the BlackRock version of "HOA"s is just another statist corruption of a formerly valuable private arrangement.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
I think there is an essential difference between a miniature city state that is confined to contiguous fully occupied land and a very large one. The difference is not just in size.
I also think this claim relies on a debatable definition of a state. Ideally all participants in an HOA voluntarily and explicitly sign contracts agreeing to the arrangement. A state on the other hand is, by definition, imposed on people without their consent through violent coercive means. States originate by violent conquest and they maintain their power by the sword. It may be that HOA's have a tendency to cross ethical lines into being state-like, but this is not inherent to them.
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
Sure, I'm not saying they're identical, just similar. The HOA is consensual, a city-state is not necessarily consensual (although we may safely assume it has large majority consent from its constituents due to its geographic and hereditary compactness.) There is no clear line-of-distinction between the two... a city-state can be thought of as a very large HOA, an HOA as a small city-state, and somewhere between the two is the line-of-distinction between the two.
While I'm anti-State, I'm a "compass-heading anti-statist" rather than a "destination anti-statist" -- I care much more that we (as a country) move away from statism than that we "abolish the State" all in one fell swoop (which has never worked). As long as we keep making incremental moves away from Progressivism and the omnipotent-State, we are moving in the right direction. The faster we sail in that direction, the better. But it's the compass-heading that matters the most to me. Ideological litmus-testing and ideological purism are uninteresting to me because they are just quagmires for ideologues.
Thus, if we move towards increasingly allowing people to form semi-autonomous HOAs and easing restrictions against those, we are moving in the right direction. In America, the state-level government was originally architected to be the primary level of government, i.e. we were supposed to be a union of largely independent governments who are bound into an open-borders agreement with each other (and any other disputes to be resolved by the Federal courts or Federal law). Instead, we have a single, monolithic, occupying tyranny in DC and all state and local governments have been gutted for the express purpose of centralizing all power in DC. Let's reverse course and let's move back to the original model of this country. And if we have to go all the way back to city-states in order to accomplish that, so be it. Complaining on the Internet has changed nothing and will change nothing...
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
And you will never move towards no state or a minimal state if you allow every big statist in the world to waltz across your borders.
When the whole world is libertarian you can talk to me about open borders.
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
You sound just like the person I was speaking with concerning the 2nd Amendment. She said when the whole world is crime and murder-free then you can talk to me about the right to own guns.
Of course, you will rationalize/politicize why I should have my right to travel freely restricted the same that she does concerning guns. I don't buy either of your bologna.
I have also noticed that you have avoided mentioning/rejecting the Federally-funded Nationalized Stop-and-Frisk that Trump openly wants to roll out in his second term.
Last edited by PAF; 07-12-2024 at 08:05 AM.
____________
Mises Institute
An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)
The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)
It's just a false-dichotomy. If you own a very large ranch and you can successfully defend its extents through self-produced or private security, local law-enforcement, local political cover, and so on, then you are effectively sovereign no matter how much DC seethes about it. Many American families have been quietly following this model of de facto sovereignty for generations. It is anti-State and libertarian to the core, no matter what label they apply to themselves.
The whole world has only ever been an anarchy. Some were just better at playing The Game. We usually call them emperors, conquerors, dictators, etc. "The State" is just a comfortable illusion, a bedtime story people tell themselves so they can feel like "____ can't happen here because we have a State", where _____ could be war, terrorism, running violence in the streets, etc. It is just an illusion and was never anything other than an illusion. The sooner that "realist conservatives" wake up and start dealing with reality instead of willingly having the wool pulled over their eyes by Clown World, the better for all of us. The illusion of The State can't be defeated by pretending harder...
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
See my Post #41 , and @ClaytonB responses above.
Last edited by PAF; 07-12-2024 at 08:23 AM.
____________
Mises Institute
An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)
The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)
Just zeroing in on this, for a moment. This is an obvious false-dichotomy. The problem is both open borders and the welfare state. The two go hand-in-hand. When you don't have a welfare-state, you don't have people trying to climb over the fence. Without a welfare-state, immigrants may still desire to enter your country if it is prosperous but, since they are seeking lawful employment, they will not even try to climb over the fence. But if you're just coming here for the free stuff, why bother with legal entry? Enter by hook or by crook. The fact that the neoCON/RINO establishment will not even discuss the welfare-state shows that they have absolutely and totally capitulated this issue to the Left and all the saber-rattling about "tEh BoRdEr" is just empty bluster and machismo whose purpose is to placate the few on the Right who have not yet completely buried their heads in the sand. I'm not saying Trump is insincere, and I'm not saying a wall is a bad idea. But if they're just building a wall so we don't have to argue over the actual issue (the omnipotent warfare-welfare-State), then what's the point? Instead of meeting the enemy in the center of the battlefield, we have been diverted to some side-issue, yet again. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big proponent of strategic jiu-jitsu when it's appropriate. "Win by yielding" is often the most powerful strategy. But when the only thing you're doing is yielding, then there is no intention to win at all and those who keep telling us "Just yield, this is not the hill to die on" for every hill are just turncoats and traitors. If there is no hill worth dying on, then we are no longer men and the trans-Agenda forcibly converting "men" into their true female form is not wrong...
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
I don't buy this. There are plenty of reasons people immigrate, legally and illegally, aside from wanting welfare. In fact, I think there's a good chance that eliminating the welfare state would transform the US in ways that would make it a more attractive place to immigrate for very many people, rather than less.
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
This is an underappreciated aspect to the illegal immigration debate.
Any serious attempt to control immigration will always require subjecting everyone within the borders to ongoing enforcement methods. Just trying to stop border crossers at the border (whether it be with a wall, the military, or anything else) will never be sufficient, or even the most effective tool for the immigration restrictionists.
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
CIA regime change ops and drug running.
"When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch
Ok, let's test that theory. LOL. The Euros and Canadians don't come here anymore because they adopted social welfare states.
They have superior safety nets and social contracts (it's getting close now, though...) to US. The only ones coming are third world and regime change victims, or sanctions victims, or cultural fan boys and fan girls who embrace the welfare. Even the hardworking ones use welfare. Man works, wife collects.
The theory can never be tested. US would have civil disobedience on a cosmic scale with uncontrollable chaos if we ever abandoned welfare.
Capitalism made it necessary because capitalism is perverted and anti-natural law, and socialism is the good cop treat from the same elites who stole the capital. This is what too few understand. Schumpeter, Weber, Beard, Fritsch, and more.. they said it would happen. They knew the deal. It's a literal conspiracy, to turn capitalism into socialism and then tyranny was child's play. By hogging up the two sides of the Judeo-Masonic dichotomy, they fooled the dumb electorates, and murdered anyone like JFK who knew what they were doing.
Last edited by Snowball; 07-12-2024 at 10:10 AM.
"When Sombart says: "Capitalism is born from the money-loan", I should like to add to this: Capitalism actually exists only in the money-loan;" - Theodor Fritsch
Way to completely miss the point. "Climbing over the fence" means coming here illegally. People who want to come here to work because of better jobs/pay are eager to follow all legal procedures because they don't want to get revoked later on due to even a minor paperwork mistake. Overseas, people pay good money to immigration consultants to help them fill out all the legal immigration forms correctly and completely for this very reason. They want to be sure they have the best chance of immigrating legally and staying on a pathway to citizenship once they get here.
People who want handouts don't care about any of that because the handouts are mainly based on children and so anyone who can sire children can live on the dole. American men are no longer willing to seed American women for a host of (quite valid) reasons. Foreigners are more than happy to come here and do the honors in our place, and get paid to sit on the couch and collect welfare checks for the children they breed here. If you think this is not demographic warfare, you are so clued out that I don't know what to say to help you...
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
Um, like, imported criminals aren't exactly statists. As in, like, statists are copsuckers. Criminals? Not so much.
The statists are kind of the people using your taxes to import criminals so Trump can use stop and frisk as a selling point to a bunch ofConstitutionalistshypocrites.
Last edited by acptulsa; 07-12-2024 at 02:12 PM.
You are of course correct.
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
Some still do. But if the number has decreased, I doubt that's the reason.
Superior? I take it you think these things actually improve those countries?
I think your observation that it's getting close now in the US is germane. The increase of government intervention in the market in the US has made the US less appealing to immigrants from other first world basically capitalist countries. The places that have the most people desperate to come here are the communist countries that have been more ravaged by big government than we have been yet.
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
In the very quote that you're replying to I said "legally and illegally."
Very often this is not the case. Very often there is no legal path available for them to come here. Most illegal immigrants would come here legally if they could. They resort to coming illegally because our laws have made it impossible for them to come legally even if they are coming here to work.
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
That proves my point. Go back and carefully work out why that's the case and you'll get it.
Then there is a simple solution: increase legal immigration quotas.Very often this is not the case.
Once again, this was never an issue until it became politicized. Prior to the rise of the "amnesty" narrative, there were plenty of people who wanted to immigrate to the US to work (not just collect handouts) and they were able to. In the last 40+ years, the entire US economy has been gutted and shipped overseas, not for "profits" as claimed by the Marxist narrative, but just in order to destroy this once-powerful country which was a virtually unassailable bastion of the Gospel. In its place, they have built a circus of welfare-handouts and pretend-jobs. This isn't about race, it's not about economic theories, it's not even about political ideology: it's about the Gospel.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
Absolutely. Or better yet, remove them completely. This would instantly solve the alleged illegal immigration problem.
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
Well, that's just stupidity because then every country in the world would be incentivized to export all prisoners/insane/etc. here, which is exactly what is happening currently as a result of willful non-enforcement of border law. It is perfectly reasonable to have a border and to exclude undesirables from other countries. We have enough undesirables here, we should not have to carry the burden of every other country in the world, also.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
Immigration is not a right.
Guns and self defense are.
Territorial defense is a natural right.
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
They absolutely are statists, they just are also criminals.
They supported big government in their own countries and support it when they come here.
Like all leftists they want tyranny for others and anarchy for themselves.
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
That is what began the decline of liberty in the country.
The simple solution is to stop illegal immigration, freeze and later open legal immigration at Coolidge levels or below from only compatible cultures, and throw out all the illegals and legal unamericans already here.
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
The agenda of open borders advocates is the destruction of America and liberty, their appeals to anarcho-libertarian utopian theory are just the devil quoting scripture (apocrypha in this case) to his profit.
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us