Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Great. Current immigration policy continues unabated until bankruptcy (whenever the hell that finally happens), and guarantees more supporters of the welfare state will be here when the system comes crashing down. Somehow open borders libertarians view this as a positive thing.
Now here's the part you need to get through your skull: if the system crashes, the one that follows is not guaranteed to be favorable to liberty if a significant enough percentage of the population demand welfare and/or communism. What in the hell do you think those endorsers of parasitic behavior are going to opt for? A free market?
The fight against the welfare state does not end with the bankruptcy of the current state, and it is a delusional fantasy to think it does. People that hate free markets, hate meritocracy, and believe they have positive rights will not suddenly develop a liking for free markets in the chaos that follows bankruptcy.
Those that understand the fight ahead want the numbers of those parasites as small as possible for when the attempt to end the welfare state is made in earnest. Any approach that allows for the increase in the number of parasites, including open borders policies, is suicidal and detrimental to the liberty of those that do not want to be shackled by the welfare state.
The solution to welfare is not a political one. We must teach people how to live their own lives, how to support themselves, this can't happen politically. It will take education, more importantly it will take the education of families, tribes and culture. True morality and principles. This is not something that can be approached politically. I'll vote for anyone serious in cutting it off, but it won't happen that way will it?
Educating people has little effect when the welfare state meets their needs. In order for that education to matter there must be a need for that education in their lives. As it stands there is no need for said education due to the welfare state.
Understanding this, and that the welfare state is not going away any time soon, efforts must be made to limit the number of new people receiving succor from it. Failure to do so only further marginalizes those that would see it end.
Every shade of libertarian understands there is no political solution to this absent a demonstrable show of force to see it through. And in order for the success of that endeavor to be possible the numbers of the parasites must be as small as possible.
So we should reduce liberties (expand the military/ security apparatus and the taxes needed to pay for them- to deal with immigration) in order to preserve liberties. May we see your papers please? You might be one of "them".
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...forum-20120201
"I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they're the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state," Paul told the group. "In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.
"Now there's a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants," he continued. "You say, no not immigrants, it's just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy."
Paul said he's not one of those politicians who believes that "barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems." That's not, he said, the American way. And he doesn't think that a national identification card is the way to go.
What the country does need, he said, is "a much better immigration service" fed by more resources. Not that he'd "vote for extra money." But he does, he told the crowd, have a plan.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-13-2017 at 12:09 PM.
You sound like you need a vacation in Hawaii, I'm not offering.
http://i.imgur.com/zA0rl6P.jpg
I disagree, I think there is a need, life wants to live. If what you say is true then communism would keep going, it always ends.
Do you realistically see the welfare being cut off politically before we go bankrupt? They will keep it going until it's to late, unfortunately.
Thats not Hawaii lol.
http://i.imgur.com/Jh5uhTj.jpg
Last edited by afwjam; 04-13-2017 at 12:13 PM.
Wow, this is one truly poor critique of my position.
There is no expansion necessary. Pull the troops back home and put them on the border, where they've always belonged (to the extent any army is necessary the defense of borders is their only legitimate purpose). The funding is already there, and would be cheaper than overseas deployment by several orders of magnitude.
No need to worry about the "Papers, please?" nonsense if they're not getting in, in the first place.
Most of those in the country illegally entered the country legally- work, student, tourist visas- not by sneaking across the border. More troops on the border doesn't stop them. For that you need police forces checking up on people.
And those not in the country legally can't vote and aren't eligible for federal government benefits. (Legal residents can't vote either and are not eligible for any federal benefits for at least five years). It is citizens expanding the welfare state. Even with zero illegal immigrants (and trillions spent doing that), the welfare state will still be here. Immigration is not a cause.
Papers please!
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-13-2017 at 12:41 PM.
Its a military base and extension of LA in the middle of the ocean. I'm talking about the real Hawaii, its more a state of mind or kingdom depending on who you are talking to. It's not Oahu, it's not a "State"
http://i.imgur.com/AzQjsiR.jpg
This is what Hawaii the "State" looks like:
http://hawaiibeachsafety.com/sites/d...baybeach3a.jpg
http://sparks-mexico.com/hawaii/2006...s/hanuama5.jpg
http://www.sheraton-waikiki.com/imag...ics/ariel2.jpg
http://cdn-image.travelandleisure.co...?itok=moP2ps26
have fun.
before it became a "State":
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w9YB4sh2B_...State+(12).jpg
Last edited by afwjam; 04-13-2017 at 12:25 PM.
Communism keeps going until it runs out of other people's money, and then the chaos is typically followed by a system that is unfavorable to liberty. The American Revolution was an aberration in this regard, but it took a specific, relatively homogenous culture to engender its outcome. Do you want to bet on liberty having a Second American Revolution when the population is so very divided? Looking at world history the betting man would look to some kind of socialist hellhole emerging out of the quagmire.
There will be no political solution to the welfare state. Whatever final solution comes will be won in blood. The parasites will fight for their right to be taken care of.
One more for Hank a real Hawaiian.
http://i.imgur.com/CHpdg36.jpg
live your own life, a real path to Liberty:
http://i.imgur.com/0UmUE2S.jpg
Last edited by afwjam; 04-13-2017 at 12:37 PM.
Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes.
Advocates of the welfare state/communism make claim to your property. They do it now, and they will do it again should your desired bankruptcy ever arrive. They will not stop until they are successfully resisted and defeated.
They've won every battle so far. That's why we're at this point now. And as their numbers continue to grow, our chances of releasing our shackles lessen.
Even complete governmental collapse would not resolve us of our duty to stand and fight. Waiting on bankruptcy and thinking it will solve the problem of the welfare state is wishful thinking, the naďve hope that liberty will be achieved without putting your ass on the line.
The responsibility for those people rests with the host that invited them. If the host failed to properly see their visitor home, then the only one that would be getting a "Papers, please?" would be them. There is no need at all to be randomly harassing the public on account of poor hosts.
Similarly, the host should be held liable for the behavior of their guest.
Lastly, there is still more than enough people that did come across the border, and as such it is worth both securing the border and having a legitimate use for the army at the same time.
Yes, it is citizens expanding the welfare state. That is precisely why new ones shouldn't be added easily, and anchor babies should be done away with entirely.And those not in the country legally can't vote and aren't eligible for federal government benefits. (Legal residents can't vote either and are not eligible for any federal benefits for at least five years). It is citizens expanding the welfare state.
Papers please!
They aren't coming anymore. At least as many are leaving as entering. The "threat" is mostly imaginary. And to be sure who people are, we would need to check EVERYBODY- not just "hosts". "But I am not doing anything" will not exempt you.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/1...ng-to-the-u-s/
More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.
Net Loss of 140,000 from 2009 to 2014; Family Reunification Top Reason for Return
More Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have migrated here since the end of the Great Recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from both countries. The same data sources also show the overall flow of Mexican immigrants between the two countries is at its smallest since the 1990s, mostly due to a drop in the number of Mexican immigrants coming to the U.S.
From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families (including U.S.-born children) left the U.S. for Mexico, according to data from the 2014 Mexican National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (ENADID). U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to come to the U.S., a smaller number than the flow of families from the U.S. to Mexico.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-13-2017 at 12:52 PM.
Zippy spewing his BS again. Yeah the Mexicans are not coming anymore, instead the rest of the South America and the rest of the world is heading this way.
Mexicans are not the only border crossers, and it is disingenuous to insinuate as such by only mentioning them. The Chinese, among many others, are factors in this stance.
And, in fact, no, we would not have to check everyone. If the hosts cannot account for their guests, then it would entirely be on them. The problem you are having with this issue is that you wrongly assume these visitors have to be hunted down, when the government does not have to actively search for anyone at all. If the hosts cannot account for them, and are held financially liable for any wrongdoing they may eventually do as a result of their overstaying their visit, you will quickly find this issue resolving itself as individuals and businesses would not want to have such an outstanding liability on their hands. The liability would never disappear so long as the host has guests unaccounted for in the country.
In short, the public is not the one requesting the various visas. It is specific institutions and businesses, and therefore those should bear the associated burden. As such, the public should not bear any burden created by those entities inviting foreigners into the country to stay for a time. However, if the public should accept burdens (such as any placed on the justice system, hospitals, and so forth) as a result of the negligence of those institutions in properly seeing their guests home, then those institutions should be held financially accountable for their negligence.
Basically, your "Papers, please?" argument is categorical nonsense derived from a misbegotten sense of the proper way to approach the issue.
Why do you make stuff up with regard to a very serious subject? Your pal Zippyjuan did not address how America has been made into a taxpayer financed maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who have invaded our borders.
It's not nice to make fake-post assertions.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade our borders to give birth.
Last edited by johnwk; 04-14-2017 at 12:49 PM.
Perhaps you should remember that.
Again:
The ANSWER to illegal immigration is to get rid of the welfare state- NOT MORE GOVERNMENT.Why the Migration or Importation Clause of the Constitution does not imply any general federal power to restrict immigration
Some readers of my recent Reason op ed arguing that, under the original meaning of the Constitution, Congress had no general power over immigration, have written to me, pointing to the Migration or Importation Clause as evidence to the contrary. Some modern advocates of broad congressional power over immigration also cite it to support their position. But, at least under the original meaning of the Constitution, it does not.
The Migration or Importation Clause states that “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” In and of itself, the Clause does not grant Congress any additional authority. To the contrary, it is a limitation on power. However, it could be argued that the limitation on congressional power to prohibit “migration or importation” of persons until 1808 implies that Congress had such a power to begin with. The word “migration” suggests that that power extended to the prohibition of voluntary immigration, as well as the importation of slaves, which the Migration or Importation Clause was intended to protect.
SHOCKER.
There is no spoon.
Connect With Us