An army of illegal aliens is marching on America

[Anti Federalist]

The fact is, there are areas where people here will accept no liberty compromise (guns, drugs) and others where they're quite okay with compromising liberty. I would say that the latter comprise trade and immigration, but it seems the newspeak for it now is culture.

Yes, because unrestricted immigration compromises my liberty, through tax confiscation and the voting booth.

I'd be much less inclined to be opposed to unrestricted immigration if no tax funded benefits, including schools and hospitals, were available to first generation immigrants and voting was prohibited as well.

But you have a better chance of seeing god than of that happening.

So here we are.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, because unrestricted immigration compromises my liberty, through tax confiscation and the voting booth.

I'd be much less inclined to be opposed to unrestricted immigration if no tax funded benefits, including schools and hospitals, were available to first generation immigrants and voting was prohibited as well.

But you have a better chance of seeing god than of that happening.

So here we are.

You would still need limits, without them they would flock here for the prosperity and then campaign and/or riot for an end to the "injustice" of being "second class citizens" and all the usual suspects in the country and on this site would support them.
The more of them you allow in the bolder they will become and the less they will assimilate and absorb our political culture.

[H_H]

And then there are those, such as me, who support the rule of law and adhering to the text and legislative intent of our written Constitution which gives context to its text.

Safe to say you're K, but yes, the Civic Nationalism ideological bug has you infected well and good; probably will until the day you die.

[H_H]

Okay, a bunch of people going on about cappuccino and lawn care but not addressing the point. I’ll try again.

Le Point! Le Point! How could I have missed it? Am I blind? or stupid? or crazy?

That (liberty of foreigners) actually doesn't matter.

Ha-HA monsieur, le very point I hammered and belabored tre repeatedly in my last post. And here you are repeating it again to make sure she was not missed. It is just that important to you!

We all need to get it through our thick, unyielding skulls that The Liberty of Foreigners Does Not Matter! It doesn't, people! That is Railroad's POINT, whole and entire, and please try to stick to it! Nothing more. Nothing less. Don't try to distract. Stick to the issue. Railroad really, really wants us to focus on his POINT that: The Liberty of Foreigners Does Not Matter! Really, really bad. So bad.

Now who wants to berate me for asking for too much liberty? Step right up.

No one was berating you! We love you, man.

I'm just trying to help you get your POINT across. I think I get the point, and I want them to, too. I don't want them to be able to pretend not to get the point. And your point really tells us all we need to know, doesn't it? You want your cappachino liberty (and think that gutters are a part of the lawn) but you're indifferent about letting the guy across the river have his. His doesn't matter.

Fair enough! I'm surprised by your opinion, and it seems inconsistent and bizarre to me, but that's probably just my old Enlightenment Universalism infection talking (Out, demon bug! Begone!). Narrow parochialism FTW! We've all got to make our way in this world and try to figure out the true moral principles and then stick to them. I'm glad you found some that work for you.

[acptulsa]

Le Point! Le Point! How could I have missed it? Am I blind? or stupid? or crazy?

Ha-HA monsieur, le very point I hammered and belabored tre repeatedly in my last post. And here you are repeating it again to make sure she was not missed. It is just that important to you!

We all need to get it through our thick, unyielding skulls that The Liberty of Foreigners Does Not Matter! It doesn't, people! That is Railroad's POINT, whole and entire, and please try to stick to it! Nothing more. Nothing less. Don't try to distract. Stick to the issue. Railroad really, really wants us to focus on his POINT that: The Liberty of Foreigners Does Not Matter! Really, really bad. So bad.

No one was berating you! We love you, man.

I'm just trying to help you get your POINT across. I think I get the point, and I want them to, too. I don't want them to be able to pretend not to get the point. And your point really tells us all we need to know, doesn't it? You want your cappachino liberty (and think that gutters are a part of the lawn) but you're indifferent about letting the guy across the river have his. His doesn't matter.

Fair enough! I'm surprised by your opinion, and it seems inconsistent and bizarre to me, but that's probably just my old Enlightenment Universalism infection talking (Out, demon bug! Begone!). Narrow parochialism FTW! We've all got to make our way in this world and try to figure out the true moral principles and then stick to them. I'm glad you found some that work for you.

And what happens when the citizenry of the United States of America adopts any other attitude? As I recall, the media promptly leads us by the nose into supporting Duvalier, Marcos, Amin, various Shahs, and three quarters of the greatest evils of the known world, all in the name of spreading democracy.

'Of valor, discretion is the better part.'--Shakespeare

We can't even keep ourselves sufficiently informed to tell who the good guys are in the world, much less summon army enough to go mind everyone's business for them. As for inviting the world to come join us, there is something to be said for allowing only enough immigration to meet the labor needs of our economy when it grows, is there not?

What good does it do the unfortunate if the generous break themselves trying to help? Does that decrease the unfortunate population or increase the unfortunate population? And how do we improve our track record of not improving the lot of the unfortunate at all, but merely enabling tinpots to rob them more?

Should we turn a blind eye to suffering? No. Should we allow our compassion to lead us to do evil with good intentions, or destroy our ability to do good in the future? Well? I breathlessly await your flippant answer.

As I see it, there's nothing wrong with immigration. But there is a lot to be said for getting our own house back in order before allowing a great deal of it. First, recapturing--and re-legalizing--entrepreneurship will return to us an economy that is expanding, and enable us to expand the labor force by having some labor for labor to do. Second, it works so well that we don't have to worry about indoctrination or Borg Assimilation or whatever you want to call the process, because our ways will be working so well for everybody that no one is likely to be crazy enough to rock the boat but Hillary Clinton.

Well? Must immigration be forever unlimited, or a fixed, unvarying constant?

[Brian4Liberty]

...

There is going to be no wall, there are going to be no mass deportations, there is going to be real no reductions in immigration.

But there is going to be amnesty and millions and millions of new progressive voters, that, when combined with the already existing progressives and the over 50 percent of US households on the public dole. will be enough to put in place progressive and Bolshevik super-majorities in government at all levels across the country.

California from coast to coast and all that idea entails, especially when it comes to loss of liberty.

The future is now:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-new-civil-war

[undergroundrr]

No, many of us believe in some restrictions. Arms...well I don't want my neighbors to have the right to own nuclear arms.

That's an interesting point. Is it because the second amendment is for quail hunting and nuclear arms couldn't ever be construed to be useful for hunting?

If, say, Texas were to secede, would it be useful for it to be a nuclear power or should state control of nuclear arms be prevented at the federal level to keep such a thing from happening?

Should there be a global authority that ensures no private entities obtain or develop nuclear weapons? 3D printers are getting pretty good so we may want to keep track of what's happening deep in the Amazon.

And finally, would you be comfortable if the second amendment gave you the right to own a nuclear weapon, as long as that right was denied to avowed Marxists et al?

[undergroundrr]

I'm surprised by your opinion, and it seems inconsistent and bizarre to me

Hopefully you're being facetious. Do you also feel that a business's focus should be to make a profit? Or should it be required by some authority to build homeless shelters, urban farms and playgrounds to show its social responsibility to the community?

Does my (and Piers' BTW) unsullied demand for complete economic freedom and complete freedom of association (with the usual qualifiers ala Bastiat, NLP, etc.) compromise the liberty of what you term the "riff-raff" of other lands?

[johnwk]

That's an interesting point. Is it because the second amendment is for quail hunting and nuclear arms couldn't ever be construed to be useful for hunting?

To answer your question, an honest summation of the right to keep and bear arms and our founders intentions would be, they intended by the Second Amendment to insure, among other things, the people would be well armed in order to resist an immoral and oppressive government. And that would include contemporary firearms which ordinary foot soldiers use, e.g., today that would be the M16 rifle and/or the M4 carbine which are standard issue.


JWK





John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...". Witness today the suicidal path America has chosen, supported by a Fifth Colum media and Yellow Journalists.

[undergroundrr]

Yes, because unrestricted immigration compromises my liberty, through tax confiscation and the voting booth.

I get that. You're sold hook line and sinker on the data that Molyneux et al present. I don't regard it as conclusive or properly interpreted (I'm that way about global warming adherents too). And even if I did, I could never come to the conclusion that police state, eminent domain, national ID, Berlin Wall, sacrificing economic freedom and freedom of association, etc. are a fair trade.

You also believe Republicans are going to slow the march toward totalitarianism/communism. It took me one state convention to clear that up.

Would somebody please call me a leftist plant. Please? C'mon, Piers called y'all stupid. It's the least you can do.

[undergroundrr]

To answer your question, an honest summation of the right to keep and bear arms and our founders intentions would be, they intended by the Second Amendment to insure, among other things, the people would be well armed in order to resist an immoral and oppressive government. And that would include contemporary firearms which ordinary foot soldiers use, e.g., today that would be the M16 rifle and/or the M4 carbine which are standard issue.


JWK

Should work for a couple minor skirmishes. It might hold off an urban police force until the military gets there.

You and Danke don't believe in the right of the citizenry to effect a complete resistance or overthrow of the federal government and its complete military arsenal. This doesn't differ in practice from the average gun grabber.

Despite the rhetoric, your aims require a strong federal government, stronger and bigger than the one we have now.

[Anti Federalist]

As I see it, there's nothing wrong with immigration. But there is a lot to be said for getting our own house back in order before allowing a great deal of it. First, recapturing--and re-legalizing--entrepreneurship will return to us an economy that is expanding, and enable us to expand the labor force by having some labor for labor to do. Second, it works so well that we don't have to worry about indoctrination or Borg Assimilation or whatever you want to call the process, because our ways will be working so well for everybody that no one is likely to be crazy enough to rock the boat but Hillary Clinton.

Well? Must immigration be forever unlimited, or a fixed, unvarying constant?

Pretty much exactly where my head is at on this issue.

I see no reason why it must be fixed, why it cannot be changed, altered or tweaked in any number of ways, or shut down entirely, which I think should be done, in order to get our own broken house in order.

[Anti Federalist]

I get that. You're sold hook line and sinker on the data that Molyneux et al present. I don't regard it as conclusive or properly interpreted (I'm that way about global warming adherents too).

I realize that, that's where the rub is.

I don't know how many more polls, studies, reports and so on I can post that show, over and over, first generation immigrants, regardless of where they are from, favor, by vast majorities larger, more intrusive, more invasive and higher taxing government.

Honest question, why is this concept so hard to wrap your mind around?

Don't we see it every day internally, as the entire makeup and political structure of say, Austin, gets changed as thousands of ex-pat Californians move in?

Or North Carolina with "half backs" from New Jersey?

Or coastal Maine with Massholes?

And even if I did, I could never come to the conclusion that police state, eminent domain, national ID, Berlin Wall, sacrificing economic freedom and freedom of association, etc. are a fair trade.

If I, and the aforementioned polling data, are correct, then there is no faster way to end up with all that, and more, than to allow millions of voters into the country who support all that and more.

You also believe Republicans are going to slow the march toward totalitarianism/communism. It took me one state convention to clear that up.

I am in no way a rah rah, straw hat booster for the GOP, especially at the national level.

But there is a world of difference in my state, NH, between what the GOP has been doing at the state level, and what the new progressive democrat majority will do when it sweeps in this fall.

We will have vast swaths of freedom rescinded and banned, at many different levels, and that's a fact you take to the bank.

Unless people snap out of it.

Would somebody please call me a leftist plant. Please? C'mon, Piers called y'all stupid. It's the least you can do.

No, I'm not, because I don't think you are a "leftist" any more than I think Styx is.

I just think you're wrong on this issue.

[johnwk]

To answer your question, an honest summation of the right to keep and bear arms and our founders intentions would be, they intended by the Second Amendment to insure, among other things, the people would be well armed in order to resist an immoral and oppressive government. And that would include contemporary firearms which ordinary foot soldiers use, e.g., today that would be the M16 rifle and/or the M4 carbine which are standard issue.


JWK





John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...". Witness today the suicidal path America has chosen, supported by a Fifth Colum media and Yellow Journalists.

Should work for a couple minor skirmishes. It might hold off an urban police force until the military gets there.

.

I answered your question. Your deflection has nothing to do with why our Founders adopted the Second Amendment. Additionally, another protection our Founders put in the Constitution is our military is under civil control, and made up of citizens like me. And I can assure you, if by chance an attempt was made by some scoundrels to use our military to turn upon the American people, the likelihood is they would turn their weapons upon the usurpers. This very question has come up in my presence many times while active military personnel were in attendance.


JWK




Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

[undergroundrr]

And I can assure you, if by chance an attempt was made by some scoundrels to use our military to turn upon the American people, the likelihood is they would turn their weapons upon the usurpers.

Your faith in the goodness of man (or at least ones of the right culture) is admirable. However, it doesn't concede my point - You don't believe in the right of the citizenry to effect a complete resistance or overthrow of the federal government and its complete military arsenal. You believe in a kinder, gentler second amendment. I take your word that it's based on your interpretation of source documents.

[johnwk]

Your faith in the goodness of man (or at least ones of the right culture) is admirable. However, it doesn't concede my point - You don't believe in the right of the citizenry to effect a complete resistance or overthrow of the federal government and its complete military arsenal. You believe in a kinder, gentler second amendment. I take your word that it's based on your interpretation of source documents.

You have not been very clear in your "point". Did you make one?

You are great at sophistry, now, how about coming down to earth and express your personal views on the matter instead of assigning and projecting your outlandish views on others?


JWK




The unavoidable truth is, our social democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

[H_H]

Do you also feel that businesses... urban farms... random words... etc., etc., etc.

Let's not get off topic and off-point. You wrote that the POINT you're trying to make here is:

* Some people are, as you put it, too scared and fearful and fraidy-cat to be willing to grant liberty to those on the wrong side of the river.
* You, by your own report (if I am understanding it correctly!), are one of those people.

Bullet one was humdrum, totally stock, and expected when you stated it, but then, then you dropped the bombshell that is bullet two. This thread is kind of a coming-out party for you, as I understand it. And that's exciting!

Congratulations!

[undergroundrr]

Let's not get off topic and off-point. You wrote that the POINT you're trying to make here is:

* Some people are, as you put it, too scared and fearful and fraidy-cat to be willing to grant liberty to those on the wrong side of the river.
* You, by your own report (if I am understanding it correctly!), are one of those people.

Bullet one was humdrum, totally stock, and expected when you stated it, but then, then you dropped the bombshell that is bullet two. This thread is kind of a coming-out party for you, as I understand it. And that's exciting!

Congratulations!

Ah yes, you're having trouble understanding English again. Perhaps you don't belong in America then /S. Nonetheless, I'll try to help.

You're confusing "It doesn't matter" with "I don't care." These are very different concepts and you have to know the meanings of words to comprehend them. /S

In creating/maintaining a free America (presumably the chief concern of most RPF members), it shouldn't (indeed mustn't) matter to the nation-state whether people in other countries have liberty. Making that a national concern is what Soros/HRC/trump do. I already know people in other countries have rights. Whether they're allowed to exercise them by their government or not doesn't enter the picture.

Danke, johnwk, Anti-Federalist and others in this thread have openly expressed that they intend to encourage a proxy force to infringe my (and their) liberty to arm myself, to infringe my liberty to run my business and property as I please, and to infringe my liberty to associate with whomever I want.

Now, the issue of whether one deserves liberty or not has nothing to do with culture, statistical probability or anything of the sort. It's a matter of innocence or proven criminality of the individual, full-stop. BTW, I'm equating criminality with the infringement of another's liberty. I, as a moral human being will not forcefully deny or even encourage the denial of liberty to those across the river, across the street, across the ocean, etc. should they choose to pursue it, regardless of culture or anything other than innocence/criminality. How about you?

The argument that allowing the liberty of others will infringe one's own liberty is wrong-headed. At best it's an argument for the warm safety of slavery. Implemented, it's truly criminal. Most disturbingly, although the initial effect might be material advantage or a feeling of security, it's a self-violation before it even begins to affect others.

[Ender]

Let's not get off topic and off-point. You wrote that the POINT you're trying to make here is:

* Some people are, as you put it, too scared and fearful and fraidy-cat to be willing to grant liberty to those on the wrong side of the river.
* You, by your own report (if I am understanding it correctly!), are one of those people.

Bullet one was humdrum, totally stock, and expected when you stated it, but then, then you dropped the bombshell that is bullet two. This thread is kind of a coming-out party for you, as I understand it. And that's exciting!

Congratulations!

Just realized you were Helmuth.

[Origanalist]

Just realized you were Helmuth.

What gave it away??

[Ender]

Ah yes, you're having trouble understanding English again. Perhaps you don't belong in America then /S. Nonetheless, I'll try to help.

You're confusing "It doesn't matter" with "I don't care." These are very different concepts and you have to know the meanings of words to comprehend them. /S

In creating/maintaining a free America (presumably the chief concern of most RPF members), it shouldn't (indeed mustn't) matter to the nation-state whether people in other countries have liberty. Making that a national concern is what Soros/HRC/trump do. I already know people in other countries have rights. Whether they're allowed to exercise them by their government or not doesn't enter the picture.

Danke, johnwk, Anti-Federalist and others in this thread have openly expressed that they intend to encourage a proxy force to infringe my (and their) liberty to arm myself, to infringe my liberty to run my business and property as I please, and to infringe my liberty to associate with whomever I want.

Now, the issue of whether one deserves liberty or not has nothing to do with culture, statistical probability or anything of the sort. It's a matter of innocence or proven criminality of the individual, full-stop. BTW, I'm equating criminality with the infringement of another's liberty. I, as a moral human being will not forcefully deny or even encourage the denial of liberty to those across the river, across the street, across the ocean, etc. should they choose to pursue it, regardless of culture or anything other than innocence/criminality. How about you?

The argument that allowing the liberty of others will infringe one's own liberty is wrong-headed. At best it's an argument for the warm safety of slavery. Implemented, it's truly criminal. Most disturbingly, although the initial effect might be material advantage or a feeling of security, it's a self-violation before it even begins to affect others.

@Anti Federalist is freedom oriented- he's just fearful that more immigrants will support and increase the welfare/warfare state. His POV, I believe, is to fix the US probs first before letting more in.

[Ender]

What gave it away??

H_H's wackadoodle dialog.

[undergroundrr]

@Anti Federalist is freedom oriented- he's just fearful that more immigrants will support and increase the welfare/warfare state. His POV, I believe, is to fix the US probs first before letting more in.

Love the man, or at least his on-line persona, but I'm not interested in abdicating my liberty to make his spring cleaning project easier, as noble as the ends might be.

[Anti Federalist]

@Anti Federalist is freedom oriented- he's just fearful that more immigrants will support and increase the welfare/warfare state. His POV, I believe, is to fix the US probs first before letting more in.

This is absolutely correct.

We are living in a police state, we are broke, and what little freedoms remain are under constant assault.

Millions of immigrants, that consistently vote for more government, more cops, more laws and more bans, are not going to improve the situation.

So there has to be choice made and I hate that it's come down to an either/or situation, but it has:

A - The Bill of Rights.

B - The right to have your lawn mowed on the cheap.

[undergroundrr]

B - The right to have your lawn mowed on the cheap.

You keep insisting this is the only virtue of billions of people. Can you stop?

[Anti Federalist]

Love the man, or at least his on-line persona, but I'm not interested in abdicating my liberty to make his spring cleaning project easier, as noble as the ends might be.

Thanks, and I feel the same.

I don't take any of this personally, and I realize that most every one of us are on the same team, and further realize we're a tiny minority in the great grand scheme of things, so we all must stick together as much as possible.

How about this: I'll support the concept of free migration, IF first generation immigrants were banned from voting, in any public election, for their natural lifetimes?

[Anti Federalist]

You keep insisting this is the only virtue of billions of people. Can you stop?

Most people only have their time and labor to sell on the market.

That is the only commodity they have to trade.

Are you suggesting that the millions of immigrants that have already arrived are physicists and neurosurgeons?

[Anti Federalist]

The argument that allowing the liberty of others will infringe one's own liberty is wrong-headed.

Because of the insanity of democracy, this is not wrong headed, but in fact, quite true.

Why do think progressives love the idea of unlimited immigration?

Because newly arrived immigrants vote overwhelmingly in favor of progressive government.

Which is a direct infringement on my freedom, across the board.

[undergroundrr]

IF first generation immigrants were banned from voting, in any public election, for their natural lifetimes?

I don't particularly care honestly. 87th generation WASPs of both parties have robbed us of our freedoms. They'll continue to do so at the booth.

If I must live in the shackles of a nation state, the rule of law is nice to stick with. You'll need a constitutional amendment if you want to prohibit naturalized citizens from voting? I suppose you could make anchor babies the first eligible citizens if you're willing to go through the process to get it passed.

You imply that the fedgov should be able to dictate municipal and state voting guidelines. I would suggest that's a really bad idea.

[undergroundrr]

Why do think progressives love the idea of unlimited immigration?

This is a great question. And I find it fascinating because Marx HATED the idea of unlimited immigration. He was like johnwk on steroids.

I think Democrats own immigrants because they won the marketing war and won their hearts and minds. The same goes for the black vote.

Republicans, like Democrats are almost entirely anti-liberty. But Republicans also have a culture of suspicion and fear of the other. Therefore, Republicans are repellent to immigrants and minorities, literally pushing them to the other side. It really wouldn't matter what the Democrats stood for. Republicans really F'd this up for decades and they've gone into convulsions trying to make it worse the last couple of years. But even back in 2008, I'll always remember standing in line with a bunch of white guys and one black guy at my precinct convention. One old white guy told the black guy, "Hey you, the Obama people are over there." And sure enough the black guy left. Don't know if he walked right into the Democrat convention or not, but I promise you he was through with Republicans.

The question is, how did Democrats kick the suspicion and fear syndrome and become the inclusive big tent? I think it has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with good strategy. The only suspicion and fear Democrats have is toward non-Democrats.

Republicans can survive one of three ways in the future:
1. Legislate the liberty platform, dump all the xenophobic invective and decisively win over the hearts and minds of immigrants and minorities.
2. A mammoth increase in unprotected white-on-white intercourse.
3. Exterminate all immigrants and minorities, inside and outside the United States.

Your idea of keeping out some number of immigrants is at best a (liberty-compromising) temporary band-aid for the Republican party and has no positive bearing on your or anybody else's liberty.

Option one is a good one. Option two, while at first blush appealing, is a little limiting.