Most American's say we are full and want massive cuts to legal immigration

[Swordsmyth]

If things got bad enough I would if it was the only way out and if it was for a transitional period.

There may come a day we have to pick sides and if the only firm hand that is able deal with people that wish to govern like Mao in the great purge, I would take the dictator or monarch that can put these people down and stop me from being politically, religiously or ethnically cleansed.

Sometimes you need a "Dark Jedi" to bring order to the galaxy but they must create a system of limited government to leave in charge when they die.

[enhanced_deficit]

Some key demographic in Trump base seem to be turning on him and harshly:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6579279

[oyarde]

David Stockman had an interesting 4 part post on why we need immigrants because of aging boomers and the lack of babies, we need workers. Lots of workers because our entire system was built on an ever expanding pool of labor.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/__trashed-4/

While I can certainly understand a theory that the additional workers are needed , I kind of doubt it going forward . During the last downturn unemployment was actually worse than the Great Depression . The five workers for every job needed then was exceeded and there were 6 workers for every job available . We are due for a stock correction that could lead to a repeat . Without the correction , the additional workers may also not be continued to be needed because the model has changed from Mnfg to service. We are now a nation that just imports cheap $#@! from other countries. Only so many fast food jobs are available and they can be filled by the people already here .

[Danke]

...

[RJB]

While I can certainly understand a theory that the additional workers are needed , I kind of doubt it going forward . During the last downturn unemployment was actually worse than the Great Depression . The five workers for every job needed then was exceeded and there were 6 workers for every job available . We are due for a stock correction that could lead to a repeat . Without the correction , the additional workers may also not be continued to be needed because the model has changed from Mnfg to service. We are now a nation that just imports cheap $#@! from other countries. Only so many fast food jobs are available and they can be filled by the people already here .

We still need college professors and administrators so those fast food workers have their Master's degree in Gender Studies.

[Feeding the Abscess]

They already are.

Allowing millions of people who consider that to be just another ordinary part of life, will not help solve the problem.

You're trading the chance of reduced immigration on the hopes that it will stem the tide of socialism by actually increasing the size and scope of the security state, with the possibility that said powers will metastasize into other areas beyond immigration.

Further, who will bring about the laws to be enacted in the name of immigration restrictions? The very people who have carried us into the situation we now have. With the bureaucratic class receiving a healthy dose of authority, money, and manpower, do you think that will bring about enhanced freedom, or more of the $#@!ery they are wont to create?

The arguments for bolstering the State for the sake of limiting immigration are strikingly similar to those used in support of the PATRIOT Act and War on Terror after 9/11. How successfully has that battle been fought? Has the government lived up to its promises and self-imposed restrictions?

[r3volution 3.0]

If things got bad enough I would if it was the only way out and if it was for a transitional period.

There may come a day we have to pick sides and if the only firm hand that is able deal with people that wish to govern like Mao in the great purge, I would take the dictator or monarch that can put these people down and stop me from being politically, religiously or ethnically cleansed.

That cycle can be ended, hovering between #2 and #3.

[Gumba of Liberty]

No chain migration. No birthright citizenship for any children of foreign nationals. No welfare or entitlements for legal immigrants. Deport all foreign nationals in holding cells. Deport all foreign nationals in prisons for non-violent crimes. Institute the Death Penalty for any foreign national who commits a capital crime. Ban duel citizens from holding public office. Pass strict Voter ID Laws in all 50 States. Pass Paper Ballot Laws in all 50 States. End the Empire. Put our troops on the borders.

Constitutional and effective sans the police state.

[Swordsmyth]

That cycle can be ended, hovering between #2 and #3.

An impossible task.

Fortunately Republic is outside the circle and it is possible to stay THERE.

[r3volution 3.0]

An impossible task.

Fortunately Republic is outside the circle and it is possible to stay THERE.

History says otherwise.

[undergroundrr]

You're trading the chance of reduced immigration on the hopes that it will stem the tide of socialism by actually increasing the size and scope of the security state, with the possibility that said powers will metastasize into other areas beyond immigration.

Further, who will bring about the laws to be enacted in the name of immigration restrictions? The very people who have carried us into the situation we now have. With the bureaucratic class receiving a healthy dose of authority, money, and manpower, do you think that will bring about enhanced freedom, or more of the $#@!ery they are wont to create?

The arguments for bolstering the State for the sake of limiting immigration are strikingly similar to those used in support of the PATRIOT Act and War on Terror after 9/11. How successfully has that battle been fought? Has the government lived up to its promises and self-imposed restrictions?

Well said.

[undergroundrr]

"It’s dangerous to use the existence of one abuse of government power to justify another abuse of government power. Never give government additional power as a means of reducing its power. To do so is to travel along the road to serfdom—and, in the case of immigration restrictions, to cede to the state the frightful power to select those with whom we may associate. No free people ought ever do such a thing."

https://fee.org/articles/freedom-of-association/

[TheCount]

"It’s dangerous to use the existence of one abuse of government power to justify another abuse of government power. Never give government additional power as a means of reducing its power. To do so is to travel along the road to serfdom—and, in the case of immigration restrictions, to cede to the state the frightful power to select those with whom we may associate. No free people ought ever do such a thing."

https://fee.org/articles/freedom-of-association/

This.


"In order to make you more free we first need to make you less free" has never worked.

[kahless]

This.

"In order to make you more free we first need to make you less free" has never worked.

Open borders has never worked. Limiting an invasion of peoples that demand authoritarian big government will make us more free.

[timosman]

Open borders has never worked. Limiting an invasion of peoples that demand authoritarian big government will make us more free.

Neither did arguing with trolls.

[Anti Federalist]

You're trading the chance of reduced immigration on the hopes that it will stem the tide of socialism by actually increasing the size and scope of the security state, with the possibility that said powers will metastasize into other areas beyond immigration.

Further, who will bring about the laws to be enacted in the name of immigration restrictions? The very people who have carried us into the situation we now have. With the bureaucratic class receiving a healthy dose of authority, money, and manpower, do you think that will bring about enhanced freedom, or more of the $#@!ery they are wont to create?

The arguments for bolstering the State for the sake of limiting immigration are strikingly similar to those used in support of the PATRIOT Act and War on Terror after 9/11. How successfully has that battle been fought? Has the government lived up to its promises and self-imposed restrictions?

Valid concerns, I understand.

I'm not sure I have any good answers, or if there are good solutions.

All I know is that you cannot let millions and millions and millions of people that are hostile to the idea of limited government, individual freedom and property rights into the country and into the voting system, and expect positive results.

If these same people are hostile to the native population as well, and who and what they are, as people, then you have a recipe for disaster.

As I've said a hundred times already, ask these guys how that worked out for them:

[Danke]

Valid concerns, I understand.

I'm not sure I have any good answers, or if there are good solutions.

All I know is that you cannot let millions and millions and millions of people that are hostile to the idea of limited government, individual freedom and property rights into the country and into the voting system, and expect positive results.

If these same people are hostile to the native population as well, and who and what they are, as people, then you have a recipe for disaster.

As I've said a hundred times already, ask these guys how that worked out for them:

Where did you get a photo of one Oyarde’s family reunions?

[TheCount]

Open borders has never worked.

Closed borders have never worked either.

Limiting an invasion of peoples that demand authoritarian big government will make us more free.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who regularly demands authoritarian big government.

[Gumba of Liberty]

Closed borders have never worked either.

Then why do my neighbors use fences? Why does my sister live in a gated community? Ever been to a Federal Reserve Building? The White House? Obama’s new DC Fortress?

Your argument is laughable on its face.

Again, read my post from above. It’s easy to restrict immigration and still support the Bill of Rights and the Natrual Law. No Police State required.

[nikcers]

Then why do my neighbors use fences?

Your neighbors also voted for Hillary does that make them right?

[Gumba of Liberty]

Your neighbors also voted for Hillary does that make them right?

What a strawman argument. First, there is nothing morally wrong with fencing in your homestead. Second, I stated that fences work, and they do. If they didn’t then property owners wouldn’t buy them. Third, my neighbors overwhelming voted, that alone proves there dumbassery.

[nikcers]

What a strawman argument. First, there is nothing morally wrong with fencing in your homestead. Second, I stated that fences work, and they do. If they didn’t then property owners wouldn’t buy them. Third, my neighbors overwhelming voted, that alone proves there dumbassery.

Yeah but lots of people don't even have fences, and they do perfectly fine without them. They never have anyone crawl into their window or beat down their door, or if they do they pull out their gun and hold their ground.

[Gumba of Liberty]

Yeah but lots of people don't even have fences, and they do perfectly fine without them. They never have anyone crawl into their window or beat down their door, or if they do they pull out their gun and hold their ground.

Some do and some don’t. Walls, fences, etc. make it harder. They work.

[nikcers]

Some do and some don’t. Walls, fences, etc. make it harder. They work.

Yeah but you are building your wall out of stupid materials have you ever heard of the three little pigs? it would make more sense to build anti ICBM along the southern border, I would prefer 40 thaad systems over a dumb wall.

[TheCount]

Then why do my neighbors use fences? Why does my sister live in a gated community? Ever been to a Federal Reserve Building? The White House? Obama’s new DC Fortress?

None of those examples are at all analogous to a closed-border nation. That gated community that your sister lives in lets people in, right? They didn't just build it and then refuse to sell any of the homes in it? To make it correct, that gated community would have to refuse to permit its homeowners to sell or rent their homes to anyone other than other homeowners. It would demolish the 'economy' of the community.


Let's make that analogy more accurate. One day your sister realizes that the HOA of her gated community is mostly full of $#@!s who are making decisions that she doesn't like. To solve that, she decides to 1) pen herself in with the $#@!s, 2) give the $#@!s in the HOA a bunch more authority, and 3) give the $#@!s the power to decide which other $#@!s are allowed to join.

Will this strategy will prevent there from being more $#@!s?

Again, read my post from above. It’s easy to restrict immigration and still support the Bill of Rights and the Natrual Law. No Police State required.

I'm not emotionally attached to birthright citizenship, but I oppose creating an underclass of permanent residents and their native-born children non-citizen children.

Ironically, the type of society that this policy emulates is a very Islamic, Middle Eastern society... precisely the type that is (supposedly) opposed by those who advocate it.

[Ender]

Valid concerns, I understand.

I'm not sure I have any good answers, or if there are good solutions.

All I know is that you cannot let millions and millions and millions of people that are hostile to the idea of limited government, individual freedom and property rights into the country and into the voting system, and expect positive results.

If these same people are hostile to the native population as well, and who and what they are, as people, then you have a recipe for disaster.

As I've said a hundred times already, ask these guys how that worked out for them:

I consider you one of the best, and most logical, forum members on RPF- but I do not agree on using Big Gov as a solution for a problem created by Big Gov, which got us where we are today.

Immigrants are NOT the problem- gov in every aspect of our lives is the problem. Freedom lovers should be working together to get gov out of education, medicine, business, and entitlements and a million other parts of everyday life.

[Ender]

You're trading the chance of reduced immigration on the hopes that it will stem the tide of socialism by actually increasing the size and scope of the security state, with the possibility that said powers will metastasize into other areas beyond immigration.

Further, who will bring about the laws to be enacted in the name of immigration restrictions? The very people who have carried us into the situation we now have. With the bureaucratic class receiving a healthy dose of authority, money, and manpower, do you think that will bring about enhanced freedom, or more of the $#@!ery they are wont to create?

The arguments for bolstering the State for the sake of limiting immigration are strikingly similar to those used in support of the PATRIOT Act and War on Terror after 9/11. How successfully has that battle been fought? Has the government lived up to its promises and self-imposed restrictions?

AMEN.

[Ender]

Congress Quietly Pushing Bill to Require National Biometric ID for 'ALL Americans'
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/nat...60-biometrics/


We need to step up our game in opposing it.

Exactly.

[kahless]

That's pretty rich coming from someone who regularly demands authoritarian big government.

If believing in a minarchist state that defends the borders from invasion so we have the possibility of living in a libertarian like state is now considered by you as "authoritarian big government" then so be it.

I believe these damned far left college professors and philosophers have pushed this open border crap on people like you full well knowing that it makes the said philosophy an impossibility. It divides the realists from the purists, leaving the libertarians unable to organize and further advances united supporters of big government.

[undergroundrr]

I consider you one of the best, and most logical, forum members on RPF- but I do not agree on using Big Gov as a solution for a problem created by Big Gov, which got us where we are today.

He has the clarity to at least acknowledge that there's a security/liberty choice going on here. Patriot Act and TARP thinking will not get us closer to Kahless' "libertarian like" society. Well, for myself and my children, I don't want a libertarian like society of white Europeans. I want actual liberty.

realists from the purists

Realism is recognizing that more government has always resulted in less liberty. Purism is starting with a hypothesis such as "we have too much immigration" and doing whatever it takes to bend reality to fit.

Build the biggest wall you want around your property. Encase it in an impermeable buckyball sphere for all I care. Anti-immigrationists are asking me to pay for the government to build a wall around my property that I don't want. Well they need to GET OFF MY LAWN AND OUT OF MY BUSINESS.