Learn Liberty - Full Debate: Is Immigration a Human Right?

[r3volution 3.0]

You just don't care about the constitution I get it.

I care about it exactly to the extent that it is just, and not a jot further.

It's a document created by fairly but not perfectly libertarian people.

It's also been totally ignored for well over a century.

...so, if your political theory is constitutionalism, good luck.

Naturalization doesn't mean anything because $#@! America and you are racist for wanting America to be America.

Only participants in the culture-war care about that.

It's best to set that aside.

[nikcers]

I care about it exactly to the extent that it is just, and not a jot further.

It's a document created by fairly but not perfectly libertarian people.

It's also been totally ignored for well over a century.

...so, if your political theory is constitutionalism, good luck.



Only participants in the culture-war care about that.

It's best to set that aside.

Bill of rights too just a piece of paper.

[r3volution 3.0]

Bill of rights too just a piece of paper.

That's right.

If you disagree, tell me all about how the SCOTUS honors this...

...hysterical laughter is implied.

[nikcers]

That's right.

If you disagree, tell me all about how the SCOTUS honors this...

...hysterical laughter is implied.

No constitution no borders no bill of rights, pure globalism. Nothing worth fighting for. Why am I even here.

[r3volution 3.0]

No constitution no borders no bill of rights, pure globalism. Nothing worth fighting for. Why am I even here.

If you forget so easily, I don't know what to tell you.

[nikcers]

If you forget so easily, I don't know what to tell you.

Apple pie and the fourth of July?

[Swordsmyth]

I care about it exactly to the extent that it is just, and not a jot further.

It's a document created by fairly but not perfectly libertarian people.

It's also been totally ignored for well over a century.

...so, if your political theory is constitutionalism, good luck.



Only participants in the culture-war care about that.

It's best to set that aside.

Since pieces of paper have a limited ability to protect the rights of men culture is all important.

[r3volution 3.0]

Apple pie and the fourth of July?

And trillions in debt

[nikcers]

And trillions in debt

Just pieces of paper.

[r3volution 3.0]

Just pieces of paper.

Love liberty in one hand, $#@! in he other; see which fills first.

[nikcers]

Love liberty in one hand, $#@! in he other; see which fills first.

Liberty is sacrisanct. I was proud when my country put that pedo Epstein in jail. I was proud that the police fired the cop who killed Eric Garner. You should just renounce your citizenship if it means nothing to you.

[CaptainAmerica]

migration is a human right as long as it does not interfere with someones property,doesn't use violence, and doesn't thieve away their belongings. Immigration is NOT a human right...it is an international movement from one place to another place you are not from,..do you have the right to tell someone 1000 miles away that you have a right to up overthrow their culture ?

[Schifference]

I was curious what is the problem with Haiti. After a very short read I determined the problem with Haiti is Haitians. Too many people. What is their solution? More People and moving to other places. I would never bring babies into a world like that. If I could not provide for the child I would not have children. If the entire environment was a schithole I would not have children. Why is it so important to have a child when the population is overcrowded, no sanitation, water, or food? Wake up folks we are not trying to repopulate the world after the flood of Noah. If all the people living in Haiti were annihilated and a few rich people moved there in a few generations it would be a Haven.

Solve the problems instead of moving them and infecting another place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...ssues_in_Haiti

Mental illness has overtaken the globe. Everywhere everyone is convinced that fallacy is truth and truth is evil.

[RJB]

A good comparison:

San Diego was considered a jewel on the Pacific Coast loved by tourist and citizens alike. Its neighbor, Tijuana, is a toilet bowl loved by drunk jarheads who love to puke on prostitutes. What is the difference? Why is San Diego, and California, turning into Tijuana. Did people moving from Tijuana and other backward lands have something to do with it? Did the citizens have a right to keep the integrity of what they have? Do I have a right to keep what I have for my posterity?

[Schifference]

Some takes from the debate:


Wellman's position - pro-closed borders:

Advocates "self determination" starts and ends with the state.

Global justice is more important than freedom of association.

Wealthy countries should be doing more for global justice.

Advocates duties of distributed justice.

Should transfer money and resources elsewhere.

Refugees have the right to refuge but not become members of a society.

Everybody is consented to the government.

___________________


Caplan's position - open borders:

Advocates freedom to associate if you want to, freedom to not associate if you do not want to.

Caplan asked Wellman multiple times: why do you always side with the government?. Wellman would not provide a clear-cut answer. Wellman went on to say yes there is a cost to self-determination. It is important for "groups" to make decisions. But if you want to associate with somebody over dinner, it is ok.

Caplan wants to hire somebody to work. Wellman is concerned that Caplan would invite everybody from the country. Wellman states that discretion to the individual would have profound implications to the group as a whole. Wellman tells Caplan that Caplan "is absolutely right" but still disagrees with Caplan.

Wellman: The U.S. has a duty to transfer wealth.

Caplan: Why can't somebody take a job from an employer willing to hire them?

Wellman: It will have implications for the group.

Caplan: You're appealing to grossly impoverishing them. Your argument is not relevant.

Wellman: You're getting away from immigration.

Caplan: It is directly related to immigration.

Wellman: It's more realistic that the U.S. "help" other countries than to open the borders.

Caplan: Governments are not voluntary organizations; they restrict people from association.

Was Caplan arguing that he would pay his Haitian's at least minimum wage, offer health insurance, workers compensation, paid time off... all the benefits of an employee/employer relationship or does he think the government shouldn't be involved in employer/employee relationships?

[PAF]

Was Caplan arguing that he would pay his Haitian's at least minimum wage, offer health insurance, workers compensation, paid time off... all the benefits of an employee/employer relationship or does he think the government shouldn't be involved in employer/employee relationships?

That was not discussed in the debate, however Caplan advocated for as little government permission/intervention as possible, and pointed out that Wellman's approach requires greater government permission/intervention.

[Schifference]

That was not discussed in the debate, however Caplan advocated for as little government permission/intervention as possible, and pointed out that Wellman's approach requires greater government permission/intervention.

I know it was not brought up in the debate. I watched it. But, if he wants to bring over tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of immigrants to his house and pay them today in the USA, should he pay them minimum wage and have a bonafide employer/employee relationship?

I just re-watched the introduction because I wanted to actually get his full name so I could look him up. With that said, the debate was a total fail and did not live up to the objective described.

[Schifference]

If Haiti is a schithole that has 11 million people. Why would anyone want to stay there? Would the US benefit from 11 million people immigrating from Haiti to the USA? If one person can come, why would one want to stay in the schithole?

[PAF]

I know it was not brought up in the debate. I watched it. But, if he wants to bring over tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of immigrants to his house and pay them today in the USA, should he pay them minimum wage and have a bonafide employer/employee relationship?

I just re-watched the introduction because I wanted to actually get his full name so I could look him up. With that said, the debate was a total fail and did not live up to the objective described.

I thought that the debate was excellent. Keeping in mind that I am an advocate of Self-determination, Private Property Rights and Contract Rights between employer/employee.

The point is this: if a person is seeking employment to earn money and an employer is hiring, why should government or a group of people interfere or prevent that from happening? Do you think it is better to have "those" people not work, so that SJW can and will offer "aid" on the tax payers dime?

If you owned a business that you built from the ground up, would you want other people outside of your business to determine who you can and cannot hire and by what terms? Should you be forced to pay a "minimum wage"? Should you also be forced to pay employees housing and transportation?

My conclusion is this: the more people who work regardless of where they happened to be born, the less of a drain it is on society and countries as a whole, as well as preserving Individual Rights and Self-Determination.

This RPF is supposed to promote Free Markets - not "fair" markets - certainly not "Group" or Government Markets.

[RJB]

I know it was not brought up in the debate. I watched it. But, if he wants to bring over tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of immigrants to his house and pay them today in the USA, should he pay them minimum wage and have a bonafide employer/employee relationship?

I just re-watched the introduction because I wanted to actually get his full name so I could look him up. With that said, the debate was a total fail and did not live up to the objective described.

A poster on RPFs claimed we could easily take in up to 1 billion immigrants. If we import millions who are for Venezuelan socialism, anti-Second Amendment, anti "hate speech" immigrants, how will that work out for my property and rights

[PAF]

A poster on RPFs claimed we could easily take in up to 1 billion immigrants. If we import millions who are for Venezuelan socialism, anti-Second Amendment, anti "hate speech" immigrants, how will that work out for my property and rights

I do not know anybody on RPF who ever suggested that.

In a Free Market business model, X company has 7 open positions, Y company has 2 open positions. Once those positions are filled, are you under the impression that "1 billion people" will/must be employed by both X and Y companies?

Are you suggesting that the government should dictate that X and Y companies should pay mandated minimum wage and that they must hire 1 billion people? Are you suggesting that Welfare is a right, thus "regulate" an arbitrary number coming in or out?

Or, are you suggesting that companies would be much better off going out of business because Section 8 Americans will not take those jobs and companies have No Right to hire "putrid life below maggots" who are willing to work?

[RJB]

I do not know anybody on RPF who ever suggested that.

In a Free Market business model, X company has 7 open positions, Y company has 2 open positions. Once those positions are filled, are you under the impression that "1 billion people" will/must be employed by both X and Y companies?

Are you suggesting that the government should dictate that X and Y companies should pay mandated minimum wage and that they must hire 1 billion people? Are you suggesting that Welfare is a right, thus "regulate" an arbitrary number coming in or out?

Or, are you suggesting that companies would be much better off going out of business because Section 8 Americans will not take those jobs and companies have No Right to hire "putrid life below maggots" who are willing to work?

Superfluousman said that we could take in a billion. If you disagree with that, what is your acceptable number of socialists to import who we could convince to become capitalists?

What made San Diego different from its neighbor Tijuana? Do you deny a group of people to control their own destiny in favor of outsiders who did not build what the original group built, i.e a republic? This discussion goes beyond a $5 hamburger.

[PAF]

Superfluousman said that we could take in a billion. If you disagree with that, what is your acceptable number of socialists to import who we could convince to become capitalists?

What made San Diego different from its neighbor Tijuana? Do you deny a group of people to control their own destiny in favor of outsiders who did not build what the original group built, i.e a republic? This discussion goes beyond a $5 hamburger.

The problem is, the symptoms are being focused on, rather than the cause. And we continue to go 'round in this endless loop.

Of course, locales vary, some are actually good, while others are not. In my locale, for instance, there are a lot of immigrants who actually own businesses and vote very conservatively. I know them personally, and many have supported Ron Paul back in 2012 (I still have the vote results in a spreadsheet). Had it not been for them, Ron Paul never would have won all 3 delegates by landslide in my area.

Hatred and threatening to kill on site will never win people over, it is prosperity through peaceful solutions that Ron Paul and I advocate, and continue to work toward. No, it cannot be done overnight, but to continue to advocate the former will only make matters worse - much worse.

Government bureaucrats are at fault, they do not care if one is American born, or foreign, they will continue to ensure that government expansion continues in order to retain their own jobs and power over people. And as long as they offer "free stuff", lazy Americans in Section 8 will continue to take advantage of the handouts. Reducing and/or eliminating people who WANT to work, American and foreign, will only ensure that Welfare continues, all while taking businesses down with it.

[RJB]

This is why I hate these arguments. I don't disagree with you. A wall along the ENTIRE border is unneeded. ID checkpoints 100 miles from the border for those fluent in English is stupid, on and on.

However it has become obvious to me that my fellow Americans will always want a police force, standing army, some kind of safety net, etc. The argument is always to what degree, ie Missour's degree, California's degree, or Venezuela's degree. The scary part is that those who favor Venezuela's degree are becoming mainstream.

I see nothing wrong with a group of people defending a border. Those who didn't throughout history were genocided or enslaved.

From my perspective the American people are now pushed into a corner. Do we worry about the rights that our ancestors won through blood for us? Or do we fret for the rights of illegal migrants and multinational corporations who spit on those rights? I am sure the Revolutionary Army could careless if Cornwallis and his army sought sanctuary on private property of an owner who welcomed him-- and for good reason.

You can have the last word. I should not have derailed your thread.

The problem is, the symptoms are being focused on, rather than the cause. And we continue to go 'round in this endless loop.

Of course, locales vary, some are actually good, while others are not. In my locale, for instance, there are a lot of immigrants who actually own businesses and vote very conservatively. I know them personally, and many have supported Ron Paul back in 2012 (I still have the vote results in a spreadsheet). Had it not been for them, Ron Paul never would have won all 3 delegates by landslide in my area.

Hatred and threatening to kill on site will never win people over, it is prosperity through peaceful solutions that Ron Paul and I advocate, and continue to work toward. No, it cannot be done overnight, but to continue to advocate the former will only make matters worse - much worse.

Government bureaucrats are at fault, they do not care if one is American born, or foreign, they will continue to ensure that government expansion continues in order to retain their own jobs and power over people. And as long as they offer "free stuff", lazy Americans in Section 8 will continue to take advantage of the handouts. Reducing and/or eliminating people who WANT to work, American and foreign, will only ensure that Welfare continues, all while taking businesses down with it.

[Schifference]

I thought that the debate was excellent. Keeping in mind that I am an advocate of Self-determination, Private Property Rights and Contract Rights between employer/employee.

The point is this: if a person is seeking employment to earn money and an employer is hiring, why should government or a group of people interfere or prevent that from happening? Do you think it is better to have "those" people not work, so that SJW can and will offer "aid" on the tax payers dime?

If you owned a business that you built from the ground up, would you want other people outside of your business to determine who you can and cannot hire and by what terms? Should you be forced to pay a "minimum wage"? Should you also be forced to pay employees housing and transportation?

My conclusion is this: the more people who work regardless of where they happened to be born, the less of a drain it is on society and countries as a whole, as well as preserving Individual Rights and Self-Determination.

This RPF is supposed to promote Free Markets - not "fair" markets - certainly not "Group" or Government Markets.

Before you invite immigrants to come here and work for free market wages, get free market wage system accepted as a way to pay workers. Do not put the cart before the horse.

[Schifference]

I thought that the debate was excellent. Keeping in mind that I am an advocate of Self-determination, Private Property Rights and Contract Rights between employer/employee.

The point is this: if a person is seeking employment to earn money and an employer is hiring, why should government or a group of people interfere or prevent that from happening? Do you think it is better to have "those" people not work, so that SJW can and will offer "aid" on the tax payers dime?

If you owned a business that you built from the ground up, would you want other people outside of your business to determine who you can and cannot hire and by what terms? Should you be forced to pay a "minimum wage"? Should you also be forced to pay employees housing and transportation?

My conclusion is this: the more people who work regardless of where they happened to be born, the less of a drain it is on society and countries as a whole, as well as preserving Individual Rights and Self-Determination.

This RPF is supposed to promote Free Markets - not "fair" markets - certainly not "Group" or Government Markets.

Elwartowski thought it was a good idea to seastead off the coast of Thailand. How did that work out?

You are advocating for hiring workers under free market principles. Against current labor laws. How do you think it will work out? Will you have a legal leg to stand on? I am not against the principle. I am for it! Why do people sign a contract? People agree until they disagree. So you enter into this illegal employee/employer relationship with a handshake and feel great that both parties needs are met. That works until your employee goes to the labor board and reports you.

Do you have a drivers license? Why? Fuch that just drive without one! Do you register your car? Fuch that just drive without plates. Take a freaken stance and go to DMV and turn in your plates, your drivers license, and continue to drive. What is the difference between breaking that law that infringes on your right to travel and a labor law that mandates how employees are to be treated?

Must your employees only be involved in "legal" work? Can you hire a bunch of illegal's and spread them all across NY city and have them selling loose cigarettes?

[Schifference]

I thought that the debate was excellent. Keeping in mind that I am an advocate of Self-determination, Private Property Rights and Contract Rights between employer/employee.

The point is this: if a person is seeking employment to earn money and an employer is hiring, why should government or a group of people interfere or prevent that from happening? Do you think it is better to have "those" people not work, so that SJW can and will offer "aid" on the tax payers dime?

If you owned a business that you built from the ground up, would you want other people outside of your business to determine who you can and cannot hire and by what terms? Should you be forced to pay a "minimum wage"? Should you also be forced to pay employees housing and transportation?

My conclusion is this: the more people who work regardless of where they happened to be born, the less of a drain it is on society and countries as a whole, as well as preserving Individual Rights and Self-Determination.

This RPF is supposed to promote Free Markets - not "fair" markets - certainly not "Group" or Government Markets.

It is all bulldung. A plus rep with you telling me about driving unregistered motorcycle and civil disobedience is absurd. Okay let me say I believe you. So what. What do you have to lose? That is the billion dollar question. Why not start a delivery service with a fleet of vehicles and hire all illegal, unlicensed drivers and do not register or insure the vehicles. Where do you draw your line? Where and when do you bend over and take it? How do you justify taking this but not that? A single guy living in the woods has a lot better chance of flying under that radar than a successful business person.

[Schifference]

I am calling you PAF out as a fraud. The antics of civil disobedience is for the unemployed or self employed or those that have strategically decided to use the format to enhance their livelihood. They do not perform civil disobedience for the greater good of liberty. Any person that does the math can easily calculate that it is a loosing proposition to purposefully go against the man and get caught. If your goal is to have people donate to you and have some sort of fame then go for it. People that have anything to lose calculate risk reward prior to engaging into scrutinized law breaking behavior. I would certainly bet that Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and any liberty advocate we support do not advocate breaking the law. Ron will grow old and die trying to change policy without succeeding. Ron will say it should be this way or that way but I would bet that Ron has a drivers license and registers his car. I would also bet that he would pay fees associated with employees that would be deemed mandatory. He might hire a contract worker or agency so he doesn't have to deal with it and put the burden on them but he will not defy the law. He would try to change it. I would venture to say that even our star member AntiFederalist would avoid the law rather than challenge it. In this day and age, only an idiot would drive an unregistered vehicle without a license unless dire circumstances could justify the action. Doing so as civil disobedience does not qualify in my book. Prove me wrong.

[PAF]

I am calling you PAF out as a fraud. The antics of civil disobedience is for the unemployed or self employed or those that have strategically decided to use the format to enhance their livelihood. They do not perform civil disobedience for the greater good of liberty. Any person that does the math can easily calculate that it is a loosing proposition to purposefully go against the man and get caught. If your goal is to have people donate to you and have some sort of fame then go for it. People that have anything to lose calculate risk reward prior to engaging into scrutinized law breaking behavior. I would certainly bet that Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and any liberty advocate we support do not advocate breaking the law. Ron will grow old and die trying to change policy without succeeding. Ron will say it should be this way or that way but I would bet that Ron has a drivers license and registers his car. I would also bet that he would pay fees associated with employees that would be deemed mandatory. He might hire a contract worker or agency so he doesn't have to deal with it and put the burden on them but he will not defy the law. He would try to change it. I would venture to say that even our star member AntiFederalist would avoid the law rather than challenge it. In this day and age, only an idiot would drive an unregistered vehicle without a license unless dire circumstances could justify the action. Doing so as civil disobedience does not qualify in my book. Prove me wrong.

“Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies”

Aren’t some of the folks here on this forum advocating for states to secede from the union?

No person or property has been harmed during exercising my freedom - no donations requested/required.

And here you are referencing somebody who advocates “shoot to kill” on sight - on RonPaulForums to boot. Though I hope AF is only expressing frustration and not a course of action.

[nikcers]

AF would live his words if he meant it. The border is so insecure you could literally do it and not get caught. You keep pretending like Ron Paul hasn't been for securing the borders by being ingnorant. The border being insecure is not conducive to liberty with our current naturalization laws. Most people live in the real world where they lock their doors they don't leave them wide open for anyone to come in and only let people who they want in. You keep acting like Ron Paul wasn't for securing the borders by referencing his immigration reform. Immigration reform and border security are two different issues you constantly obfuscate. You don't consider citizenship and borders to be necessary things for a country to be a country. You pretend like Ron Paul changed his mind on border security when he has only said he has changed his mind on the death penalty because he doesn't trust the government to be competent to execute people without killing innocent people. IF Ron Paul has ever said he has reversed or changed his position on having secure borders than please enlighten, I have no doubt you have a quote or a clip of him saying he doesn't believe nations should have borders and secure and control them. Right now you are advocating for a demographic change in our country that will ensure the democrats win all future elecitons, you basically don't want a Ron Paul platform ever to succeed in the future, because you want to divide the country up and have it secede which would allow the enemies of America to divide the country even farther and ultimately destroy the country. You are advocating for killing America. You can't have a country without citizens.