# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Gary Johnson: Calling illegals “illegal” is “very incendiary” (video)

## RonPaulFanInGA

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...nesty-n2212297




> A golden moment from his interview with our Townhall cousin, Guy Benson. Watch him get genuinely pissy at around 4:00 when Guy, very politely, presses him on why the term illegal is so troubling. What were left with here is a third-party candidate whos hyper-libertarian on immigration, of all issues, but not so libertarian on, for example, a carbon tax or whether business owners should be forced to cater gay weddings. Thats his pitch to conservatives who have been alienated by Trump: Possibly some new taxes, certainly less religious liberty, and all the amnesty you can eat. Theres no reason left why any anti-Trump conservative should waste a vote on this guy when they could back Evan McMullin, a write-in choice, or simply not vote for president on their ballot. Johnsons appeal, were told, is as a protest candidate. What am I protesting in voting for him? Borders?






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs

----------


## puppetmaster

Moron....yeah that's gary

----------


## euphemia

Talk about the issue, Gary, not how the issue should be talked about.

----------


## mz10

He's such a leftist. He really is. The only things he *ever* gets excited or passionate about are left-wing issues. It's not about him being pro-choice or whatever. I could vote for a pro-choice libertarian, but not a guy who is straight leftist through and through. Honestly Kucinich is better than him. This isn't the movement I joined 6 years ago.

----------


## Petar

Libertarians with a boner for appealing to liberals need to be purged from the whole movement.

----------


## JohnM

Video here.  The "incendiary" section begins at about 4:20.

----------


## fedupinmo

He needs to go back to New Mexico. 

Some people need to be upset!

----------


## euphemia

I think part of being Libertarian is speaking plainly about the issues.  Ron Paul does not mince words, for sure.  If you don't believe me, go look for the videos where then-Fed Chair Ben Bernanke was brought in before Paul's committee.  

Gary can't be mealy mouthed or address the tone of the discussion.  He needs to say what his position is and go from there.

----------


## Cleaner44

Who gives a crap about Johnson at this point. He isn't a libertarian but he is representing the Libertarian party pathetically. The sooner he loses and leave the party, the better.

----------


## AuH20

Gary doesn't even have the cajones to bring up the benefits they receive by theft taxation.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...nesty-n2212297





> What we’re left with here is a third-party candidate who’s hyper-libertarian on immigration, of all issues, but not so libertarian on, for example, a carbon tax or whether business owners should be forced to cater gay weddings.


Standard beltway libertarian.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Video here.  The "incendiary" section begins at about 4:20.


Gary needed a trigger warning and a safe space. Noticed he was playing the angry man the other day on another show. Must be a new tactic.

----------


## Natural Citizen

He's right about the door to door knocking and paperz pleez gag. Have to be careful with promoting that. Eventually, they'll run out of Mexicans to haul off and those task forces won't just go home and call it a day. Next thing you know they'll be knocking on granny's door asking paperz pleez.

----------


## 69360

Whatever. I call them illegals because they are. I don't care if they are offended. If I had my way I would give them all a green card in one fell swoop and make them all legal. Then no entitlements till citizenship using the existing path. No entitlements until then. It's not a hard problem to solve.

----------


## Lovecraftian4Paul

I'm starting to regret even voting for this guy in 2012. He's desperately trying to poach votes from Dems and leftists and has basically abandoned everything truly conservative and libertarian. They are trying to make "illegal immigrant" the new PC no no term and it's gross that he is helping.

----------


## notsure

> He's right about the door to door knocking and paperz pleez gag. Have to be careful with promoting that. Eventually, they'll run out of Mexicans to haul off and those task forces won't just go home and call it a day. Next thing you know they'll be knocking on granny's door asking paperz pleez.


But who is talking about "door to door knocking" and random searching of papers?

----------


## RJ Liberty

> But who is talking about "door to door knocking" and random searching of papers?


How else would officials round up 11 million illegals?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

"I raped her because I could not have sex with her" makes as much sense, LOL Silly Grey, borders works and you will never be elected again because you are a globalist hack.

----------


## Murray N Rothbard

> I'm starting to regret even voting for this guy in 2012. *He's desperately trying to poach votes from Dems and leftists* and has basically abandoned everything truly conservative and libertarian. They are trying to make "illegal immigrant" the new PC no no term and it's gross that he is helping.


Yep. His strategy is to appeal to and harness the electorate's ignorance, not to correct it. It is a no-win if he loses, and not even a guaranteed win if he doesn't. He'll have won for all the wrong reasons.

----------


## 4_God_N_Country

bawhahahahahahahaah whatta douche. This clown in no libertarian. My right to liberty also means protecting those rights. Illegal is illegal $#@! GJ.

----------


## trey4sports

yuck.

----------


## RonPaulMall

He's even getting goofed on by Tila Tequlia, lol.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Libertarians with a boner for appealing to liberals need to be purged from the whole movement.


After the Johnson/Weld crashes and burns, that will be the next task at hand. Accountability needs to be restored to the movement, or it will die.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> After the Johnson/Weld crashes and burns, that will be the next task at hand. Accountability needs to be restored to the movement, or it will die.


It is dead, its members who are not mentally handicapped by Political Correctness, Autism, pathological altruism, open border insanity are joining the Alt right. You can not have liberty if you are out numbered and out voted by imported hordes of leftists.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> It is dead, its members who are not mentally handicapped by Political Correctness, Autism, pathological altruism, open border insanity are joining the Alt right. You can not have liberty if you are out numbered and out voted by imported hordes of leftists.


I'm not ready to stick a fork in it quite yet. Hopefully Johnson/Weld completely implode and a better movement can be forged from there.

----------


## notsure

> How else would officials round up 11 million illegals?


But whose plan calls  for "rounding up" 11+ million illegals?

----------


## RJ Liberty

> But whose plan calls  for "rounding up" 11+ million illegals?


"Anyone who is in the United States illegally is subject to deportation." -- Donald Trump

"For those here today illegally who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and only one route: to return home and apply for re-entry under the rules of the new legal immigration system." -- Donald Trump

"Within ICE I'm going to create a new special deportation task force." -- Donald Trump

"No amnesty, no legalization. No sanctuary cities." -- Donald Trump's campaign manager

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Gary Johnson is an Anti-gun


Hold it right there. Johnson is on the record saying "Gun Control Sounds Terrific BUT! I Think It Makes This Country LESS Safe!"

----------


## donnay

> Hold it right there. Johnson is on the record saying "Gun Control Sounds Terrific BUT! I Think It Makes This Country LESS Safe!"


Then he doesn't listen to himself then...since he picked a Veep who is in favor of gun control.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Then he doesn't listen to himself then...since he picked a Veep who is in favor of gun control.


His VP candidate won't be Veep of anything, even if Johnson wins some states and comes out ahead in an indecisive election: the 12th Amendment directs the House to choose from the top three candidates, but the Senate chooses from the top two VP candidates.

----------


## angelatc

> Libertarians with a boner for appealing to liberals need to be purged from the whole movement.


Well, if the appeal is civil liberty then I'm ok.  ANd actually, if they would confine their social engineering attempts to the state level, I'd be ok.  As a constitutional conservative, I recognize the right of states to enact laws even if I disagree with those laws.   But that's never what they are.

----------


## notsure

> "Anyone who is in the United States illegally is subject to deportation." -- Donald Trump
> 
> "For those here today illegally who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and only one route: to return home and apply for re-entry under the rules of the new legal immigration system." -- Donald Trump
> 
> "Within ICE I'm going to create a new special deportation task force." -- Donald Trump
> 
> "No amnesty, no legalization. No sanctuary cities." -- Donald Trump's campaign manager


Nothing about that says anything about "rounding up" illegals. From my understanding, his plan is to enforce immigration law and deport illegals as they come through the system and to abandon Obama's catch and release policy. 
Notice he said, "subject to" deportation, and that they'd create a new deportation "task force" within ICE. This leads me to believe that a shift is still in the works, and that illegals will be reviewed and given an opportunity to stay in the US. In the past Donald has said that he would give illegals an expedited immigration process to come back into the US. I still think he will shift on this and just give those illegals a form of legalization and save the US the costs of deporting "good" illegals by just giving them some form of legal status.

----------


## RJ Liberty

> Nothing about that says anything about "rounding up" illegals.
> 
> From my understanding, his plan is to enforce immigration law and deport illegals as they come through the system


How will they deport them without rounding them up? 




> Notice he said, "subject to" deportation, and that they'd create a new deportation "task force" within ICE. This leads me to believe that a shift is still in the works, and that illegals will be reviewed and given an opportunity to stay in the US. In the past Donald has said that he would give illegals an expedited immigration process to come back into the US.


What is the sense of deporting 11 million illegal aliens, at great cost to the American taxpayer, to then let them back into the US? What would the point even be? Why would I want my tax dollars used to forcibly remove millions of people from the country so that they could then come right back into the country? That's retarded.




> I still think he will shift on this and just give those illegals a form of legalization and save the US the costs of deporting "good" illegals by just giving them some form of legal status.


Or this could totally turn into Nazi $#@!, with law enforcement officers going overboard on arrests and deportations, and illegals ending up dead. Given our current "criminal justice system"...

----------


## openfire

> In an interview Thursday with TownHall.com editor Guy Benson, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson strongly pushed back at the use of the term "illegal immigrant" to describe people who have entered the U.S. ilegally.
> 
> They should be referred to as "Undocumented," he said. "By the way,* if you use the term illegal immigrants that is very incendiary to our Hispanic population here in this country."*
> 
> Benson followed up, asking: *"Why is that?"*
> 
> The former New Mexico governor noted that,* "it just is. It just is. Just so that you know. So that you know and you dont have to use that term."
> 
> Benson replied: "But isnt the term accurate, in the sense that they entered the country, they emigrated to the country, illegally?"*
> ...


http://archive.is/qPxNn#selection-1495.0-1527.38

Let's recap: It's now offensive, incendiary, insulting and hateful to call illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants - Says the leader of the "libertarian" party.

----------


## hells_unicorn

The only thing more pathetic than seeing Gary Johnson pander like a $2 harlot to the regressive left is seeing his sad little supporters tie themselves in knots trying to excuse him essentially sounding like an authoritarian democrat meets a left-wing northeastern Republican. Frankly, I find the notion of Gary Johnson identifying as a libertarian incendiary and insulting, particularly to my intelligence.

----------


## Krugminator2

This is the kind crap that he worries about.

He goes berserk over using the accurate term illegal immigrant.  But due process, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments are all negotiable.  And he supported Obama's executive amnesty even though when he was pressed he wasn't sure that is was constitutional. He doesn't get triggered when his co-President praises Stephen Breyer or advocates taking guns away without due process.

At this point,  I see no reason to support the LP over the Republican Party. They are just as unprincipled as Republicans.  But instead of having a chance to win. They play spoiler. There are far more libertarians within the Republican party.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> This is the kind crap that he worries about.
> 
> He goes berserk over using the accurate term illegal immigrant.  But due process, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments are all negotiable.  And he supported Obama's executive amnesty even though when he was pressed he wasn't sure that is was constitutional. He doesn't get triggered when his co-President praises Stephen Breyer or advocates taking guns away without due process.
> 
> At this point,  I see no reason to support the LP over the Republican Party. They are just as unprincipled as Republicans.  But instead of having a chance to win. They play spoiler. There are far more libertarians within the Republican party.


There were some signs that the Libertarian Party was becoming a mockery of itself when Bob Barr managed to weasel his way into the presidential nomination. I bit the bullet and supported Johnson over Romney in 2012, but in retrospect I think I chose an equal evil to Romney in the process. I'm not making that mistake again, and it is sad that several others on here will do just that.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

His point, I imagine, is that, since illegal immigration is a victimless crime, he doesn't like characterizing them as criminals.

Just as, since he's anti-prohibition, he presumably wouldn't like characterizing people convicted of drug offenses as criminals.

But, by all means Trumpkins, have a good anti-PC fapping session over this.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> His point, I imagine, is that, since illegal immigration is a victimless crime, he doesn't like characterizing them as criminals.
> 
> Just as, since he's anti-prohibition, he presumably wouldn't like characterizing people convicted of drug offenses as criminals.
> 
> But, by all means Trumpkins, have a good anti-PC fapping session over this.


Why don't you just give up on this "libertarian" facade and vote for Hillary, there is no relevant difference between her and Johnson at this point. Hope you're digging the whole TPP thing too, you'll be voting in favor of that too come November, along with the baby-killing and the sodomy.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Why don't you just give up on this "libertarian" facade and vote for Hillary, there is no relevant difference between her and Johnson at this point.


Hillary wants to abolish the Fed and return to the gold standard?
Balance the budget through spending cuts?
Opposes bailouts?
Opposes Keynesian stimulus?
Opposes labor unions?
Opposes the minimum wage?
Opposes the PATRIOT Act?
Opposed the Iraq, Libya, and Syria Wars?
Favors immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan?

...need I go on, or do you now appreciate the absurdity of your claim?

----------


## openfire

> But, by all means Trumpkins, have a good anti-PC fapping session over this.


Of really? Well then by all means libtards, let's make it a circle jerk (I hear you guys like that) - since presumably you're having a good anti-sovereignty fapping session over the globalist fascist takeover known as the TPP that your guy supports.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Of really? Well then by all means libtards, let's make it a circle jerk (I hear you guys like that) - since presumably you're having a good anti-sovereignty fapping session over the globalist fascist takeover known as the TPP that your guy supports.


It doesn't actually take away sovereignty. That is something Alex Jones, the John Birch Society, and unfortunately Ron Paul spout.  Free trade agreements can be broken at anytime by either party.  If there is a particularly bad ruling in a trade dispute that goes against the US, then there is no obligation for us to comply.


http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/09/...nership/#myth6

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It doesn't actually take away sovereignty. That is something Alex Jones, the John Birch Society, and unfortunately Ron Paul spout.  Free trade agreements can be broken at anytime by either party.  If there is a particularly bad ruling in a trade dispute that goes against the US, then there is no obligation for us to comply.
> 
> http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/09/...nership/#myth6


Yup

The only reason a libertarian should oppose FTAs like the TPP is if they actually don't (as they purport to do) reduce barriers to trade. 

The TPP isn't finalized/published yet, but if we look at past FTAs, they did indeed reduce barriers to trade, and I expect the TPP will too. 

The result won't be free trade, but freer trade, which is a step in the right direction.

In any event, as you say, it's certainly not the OMG-NWO-Globalist-Takeover-OMG!!! hobgoblin that some make it out to be.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *Krugminator2*                  It doesn't actually take away sovereignty. That is something Alex Jones, the John Birch Society, and unfortunately Ron Paul spout.  Free trade agreements can be broken at anytime by either party.  If there is a particularly bad ruling in a trade dispute that goes against the US, then there is no obligation for us to comply.
> 
> http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/09/...nership/#myth6
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> The only reason a libertarian should oppose FTAs like the TPP is if they actually don't (as they purport to do) reduce barriers to trade. 
> 
> ...


It's an illegal transfer of power. Patently. There's no "yup" nothin. Managed trade is not free trade either.

And as I said in the neg rep I gave you, please don't speak for libertarians. You're not one.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Free trade agreements can be broken at anytime by either party.  If there is a particularly bad ruling in a trade dispute that goes against the US, then there is no obligation for us to comply.


Managed trade is not free trade. TPP is managed trade. Managed trade and free trade are two entirely different things. They are also two entirely contradictory things to one another. Again, the TPP is patently an illegal transfer of power from the people to a King. It gives the President sole authority without a means for consent. It sacrifices the constitution. And in secret.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Bunch of charlatans...

----------


## CaptUSA

What is this?  Like the 30th thread on the same thing??

So once again:

----------


## euphemia

> The only thing more pathetic than seeing Gary Johnson pander like a $2 harlot to the regressive left is seeing his sad little supporters tie themselves in knots trying to excuse him essentially sounding like an authoritarian democrat meets a left-wing northeastern Republican. Frankly, I find the notion of Gary Johnson identifying as a libertarian incendiary and insulting, particularly to my intelligence.


Home run, right here.  

I would beg to differ with Gary on the "not able to come here legally" thing.  Actually, anyone can come here legally, and they do.  I have a community full of people who started out on a path to citizenship.  And I will be very frank:  The ones who come here legally at great expense and hardship do not like it when people come here illegally.

----------


## puppetmaster

> His point, I imagine, is that, since illegal immigration is a victimless crime, he doesn't like characterizing them as criminals.
> 
> Just as, since he's anti-prohibition, he presumably wouldn't like characterizing people convicted of drug offenses as criminals.
> 
> But, by all means Trumpkins, have a good anti-PC fapping session over this.


 it is not necessarily  a victimless crime.

----------


## puppetmaster

> What is this?  Like the 30th thread on the same thing??
> 
> So once again:


  no it is not right.

----------


## ProBlue33

Oh how far we have fallen since 2012 when former supporters of Ron Paul fight it out, in this case 2 people voting third party one Johnson the other Castle.

----------


## phill4paul

What has these forums become? SMDH.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What has these forums become? SMDH.


I don't know, but I stand entirely by what I said here.

----------


## euphemia

> His point, I imagine, is that, since illegal immigration is a victimless crime,


Really?  Tell that to Kate Steinle.

----------


## phill4paul

> I don't know, but I stand entirely by what I said here.


  My statement wasn't agin' ye.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> My statement wasn't agin' ye.


Yeah, I know it wasn't. Nor was mine agin' ye.

More of a confirmation that we're in agreement. Just not in so many words.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yeah, I know it wasn't. Nor was mine agin' ye.


  Damn good thing to crook arms a a dance together.

----------


## TommyJeff

Did anyone else see this clip?  I've become less and less of a fan of this ticket over the past few months, and it's things like this which don't make me regret my decision.  Weld has enough problems but adding things like this really take away from potential libertarian positives to be expressed.  

I agree with Gary, I think, on having a more open border without eligibility of welfare. But i don't share in his offense over a term which, in my view, accurately depicts a situation.  Though the liberal media wants to play the "I'm offended" card or the "lets pretend it's not illegal to overstay a visa" card, it's sad that Gary Johnson is joining on their side.  Using inaccurate terms is semi dishonest and those rose colored glasses distort reality; not just for this issue but for all issues. 

Does anyone else have a thought or comment?  




https://youtu.be/-xlmU9LvtAs

----------


## Cleaner44

Johnson and Weld are NOT libertarians.

*Libertarian VP Nominee Bill Weld Outlines Why He’s Vouching For Hillary Clinton*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b07c97c1c55168

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I am offended by the term "johnson."  You don't see me running around trying to cut them off.

----------


## PAF

> I agree with Gary, I think, on having a more open border without eligibility of welfare. But i don't share in his offense over a term which, in my view, accurately depicts a situation.
> 
> Does anyone else have a thought or comment?



Gary is exactly right. I, too, am offended by the term "illegal", which is what this corrupt government has been slinging around recently to get more people into the corrupt system. People have the right to travel freely, without restriction, without being harassed, without having to "show your papers" and/or register with a government database. Immigrant is the proper term, and as long as people come here to work, support themselves and their families, there is no reason to obtain permission from anybody, strangers/bureaucrats, etc.

If an IMMIGRANT happens to violate MY rights, property rights, etc. then they shall have their day in court, and only if found guilty should they be "processed" into a system and serve their time.

The conversation in this country MUST change, that the only solution is to eliminate FREE WELFARE/HANDOUTS, which is the root of the entire problem.

----------


## Jesse James

oh my God who cares? if your best reason for not voting for him is because of this you need to pay more attention

----------


## presence

it is offensive

in 1776 they were simply called residents and until 1920 they could vote

https://books.google.com/books?id=Cb...201776&f=false

----------


## 69360

I saw it the last time somebody posted it here bashing Johnson and supporting Trump. Whatever, still voting for him.

----------


## H. E. Panqui

...i don't mind a discussion about 'welfare freebies'...

...but i can't listen to some foolish republicrat trump cheerleaders who  ALWAYS direct the scorn at 'the little guy' rather than bankster$, occupational licensee$, etc. welfare arti$t$ galore...

...not a stinking peep from trumptards about the most $ucce$$ful welfare artist$... 

[hint: turn off the radio, trumptards]

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Did anyone else see this clip?  I've become less and less of a fan of this ticket over the past few months, and it's things like this which don't make me regret my decision.  Weld has enough problems but adding things like this really take away from potential libertarian positives to be expressed.  
> 
> I agree with Gary, I think, on having a more open border without eligibility of welfare. But i don't share in his offense over a term which, in my view, accurately depicts a situation.  Though the liberal media wants to play the "I'm offended" card or the "lets pretend it's not illegal to overstay a visa" card, it's sad that Gary Johnson is joining on their side.  Using inaccurate terms is semi dishonest and those rose colored glasses distort reality; not just for this issue but for all issues. 
> 
> Does anyone else have a thought or comment?  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/-xlmU9LvtAs


It's been posted before, it's pretty old now. The MSM won't be playing this, as they fear it might bring him more (left) supporters. They would rather play the Aleppo and "name a foreign leader" clips.

And no, not a fan of the angry Johnson.

----------


## timosman

> I am offended by the term "johnson."  You don't see me running around trying to cut them off.


The choice of character names in this show is really interesting - Johnson, Weiner.

----------


## TommyJeff

> it is offensive
> 
> in 1776 they were simply called residents and until 1920 they could vote
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=Cb...201776&f=false


Did they need to be land owners?

pre 1920s-ish, those _residents_ couldn't vote themselves government subsidies and entitlements either, right?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Did they need to be land owners?


That depended on the state, and I believe they did need to be for part of that period of time, but not all of it.

But that brings up a good point.

There certainly shouldn't be any laws that prevent us who own land in the USA from selling it to so-called "illegal immigrants." Should there? And, once they own land here, what possible right could anyone have to deport them?

----------


## presence

> Did they need to be land owners?
> 
> pre 1920s-ish, those _residents_ couldn't vote themselves government subsidies and entitlements either, right?


regarding federal elections, who voted was left to the states; most required land ownership

the first subsidies came in 1789 as a tariff on  british coal

http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/L...Subsidies.html

however as early as the 1660 there were already "almshouses" and local parishes were granted the power to raise taxes to care for the poor

http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu...ef-early-amer/

----------


## TommyJeff

> That depended on the state, and I believe they did need to be for part of that period of time, but not all of it.
> 
> But that brings up a good point.
> 
> There certainly shouldn't be any laws that prevent us who own land in the USA from selling it to so-called "illegal immigrants." Should there? And, once they own land here, what possible right could anyone have to deport them?



What a beautiful thought, Americans who can own land.  Sadly that's impossible as the tax man owns the land and let's you rent it for as long as you pay them, or kicks you out if they want to.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Gary is exactly right. I, too, am offended by the term "illegal", which is what this corrupt government has been slinging around recently to get more people into the corrupt system. People have the right to travel freely, without restriction, without being harassed, without having to "show your papers" and/or register with a government database. Immigrant is the proper term, and as long as people come here to work, support themselves and their families, there is no reason to obtain permission from anybody, strangers/bureaucrats, etc.


*It's not established that the parties at issue are immigrants.* Are tourists immigrants? Or those here on a student or work visa? Or invading soldiers? Is a non-paying tenant or a home invader a resident of your home, simply based on their actions or say so? Free immigration is a contractual situation, or freely entered into by two sides, not a unilateral action where the relocators can impose their permanent presence upon the native population (and access to their resources) without lawfully changing their country of allegiance. It is their responsibility to seek to get their status changed, not others, as the transition should be voluntary for both sides. 

That consent is currently established by the naturalization process, the completion of which transfers recognition of the legal domicile of the party from country A to country B. Not participating in becoming naturalized means two sides have *not* consented to the relocation, hence their indefinite presence in the country is neither lawful or native. They remain *illegal aliens* until they _consent to become Americans_, and the native population may rightly be offended by attempts to call them "immigrants" at all, until that happens. So the phrase "illegal immigrants" is actually a _kindness_, as those refusing naturalization while unilaterally demanding residential status can be more accurately called illegal invaders.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Is a non-paying tenant or a home invader a resident of your home, simply based on their actions or say so?


If that non-paying tenant is there with your permission, then yes, they are.

If they don't have your permission, then they are committing an actual crime, and not just a make-believe crime of violating some statute that corrupt legislators dreamed up. This is not at all analogous to people who violate the USA's immigration laws, since doing that isn't really wrong.

----------


## Jerry C

This is one of the main reasons why I will NOT vote for Gary Johnson ever again, he is playing identity politics and is trying to appeal to the regressive left and this example of blatant language policing and virtue signaling proves it. While I do agree that we should remember that illegal immigrants are actual human beings the fact of the matter is that illegal immigrant is an accurate term. By doing this Gary Johnson is implying that anyone that questions current immigration policy is a racist which only serves to poison the wells and make an already divisive issue that much more so.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> the fact of the matter is that illegal immigrant is an accurate term.


No it isn't.

There aren't any other laws where when people break them they as people get labelled "illegal." You don't call someone who runs a red light an illegal driver. Crossing a border illegally is no different than crossing an intersection illegally.

----------


## Jerry C

> There aren't any other laws where when people break them they as people get labelled "illegal." You don't call someone who runs a red light an illegal driver. Crossing a border illegally is no different than crossing an intersection illegally.


The reason why you don't call someone who runs a red light an illegal driver is because in that case there is no need for such a distinction. In the case of illegal immigration the case for such a distinction is needed because there are a large number of immigrants that have either entered or stayed in the country illegally. It isn't just a minute number of people and said actions aren't instantaneous in the moment matters like someone running a red light. How else would you classify an illegal immigrant? The term undocumented is used a lot by regressives, but it is dishonest and innacurate. Many illegal immigrants do have documentation, but are still here illegally. While "illegal" can be used as a pejorative, it is mostly used as a simple statement of fact.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The reason why you don't call someone who runs a red light an illegal driver is because in that case there is no need for such a distinction. In the case of illegal immigration the case for such a distinction is needed because there are a large number of immigrants that have either entered or stayed in the country illegally. It isn't just a minute number of people and said actions aren't instantaneous in the moment matters like someone running a red light.


Do you really believe that the number of people who have entered the USA illegally is greater than the number who have run red lights? I highly doubt that.




> How else would you classify an illegal immigrant? The term undocumented is used a lot by regressives, but it is dishonest and innacurate.


I don't see any need for any special classification of them. I don't have a special way to classify people who have run red lights. Why do I need a special way to classify people who have illegally crossed a border?




> Many illegal immigrants do have documentation, but are still here illegally.


This statement is precisely what's wrong with the label. No, they are not here illegally. They broke a law at some point in order to be here (a make-believe unjust law, mind you). But they are not continuously breaking any laws by simply continuing to be here, any more than someone who has ever run a red light is going on for the rest of their lives illegally being on the wrong side of that red light.

----------


## Jerry C

> Do you really believe that the number of people who have entered the USA illegally is greater than the number who have run red lights? I highly doubt that.


While that is possible, that is not in fact what I actually said or implied.





> I don't see any need for any special classification of them. I don't have a special way to classify people who have run red lights. Why do I need a special way to classify people who have illegally crossed a border?



Because there is a significant difference from being in a country legally and being in a country illegally. There is nothing wrong with stating this because we have a right to know who is coming in and to determine the conditions in which they can be in the country, this makes said distinction necessary.




> This statement is precisely what's wrong with the label. No, they are not here illegally. They broke a law at some point in order to be here (a make-believe unjust law, mind you). But they are not continuously breaking any laws by simply continuing to be here, any more than someone who has ever run a red light is going on for the rest of their lives illegally being on the wrong side of that red light.


Yes, they are breaking the law by continuing to be here and yes we have a right as a society to determine whether they should be able to stay or be deported because they are not actual citizens. You can argue whether this is just or not and since immigration is such a complicated issue I do understand where both sides are coming from, but a productive conversation cannot happen unless people admit to the facts. The fact is by getting here or staying here illegally they are here illegally and not admitting this is a bit dishonest. While I am not in favor of Donald Trumps proposed wall I am also not in favor of just letting everyone in without any proper controls of background checks.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> While that is possible, that is not in fact what I actually said or implied.


You said:



> In the case of illegal immigration the case for such a distinction is needed because there are a large number of immigrants that have either entered or stayed in the country illegally. It isn't just a minute number of people and said actions aren't instantaneous in the moment matters like someone running a red light.







> Because there is a significant difference from being in a country legally and being in a country illegally.


Exactly. And the people whom you want to call "illegal immigrants" did enter the country illegally. But that doesn't mean that they are in the country illegally, as you imply they are.




> Yes, they are breaking the law by continuing to be here


Can you please cite the law they are breaking?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> we have a right as a society to determine whether they should be able to stay or be deported because they are not actual citizens.


"Actual citizens" is just determined by make-believe statutes that corrupt politicians came up with.

"We as a society" are not capable of determining anything. Each of us as individuals are. But you can't speak for me, nor I for you. You can exclude people from your own property. And you and a bunch of other individuals might agree to exclude all the people whom you consider "illegal immigrants" from all of your properties. But none of you have any right to tell all the rest of us that we can't have them on our property, nor do all of you put together have that right.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This is one of the main reasons why I will NOT vote for Gary Johnson ever again, he is playing identity politics and is trying to appeal to the regressive left and this example of blatant language policing and virtue signaling proves it. While I do agree that we should remember that illegal immigrants are actual human beings the fact of the matter is that illegal immigrant is an accurate term. By doing this Gary Johnson is implying that anyone that questions current immigration policy is a racist which only serves to poison the wells and make an already divisive issue that much more so.


+rep

----------


## Jerry C

> YExactly. And the people whom you want to call "illegal immigrants" did enter the country illegally. But that doesn't mean that they are in the country illegally, as you imply they are.


You can't have it both ways, you can't say on one hand that entering a country illegally is entering a country illegally and then say that remaining in a country illegally isn't remaining in a country illegally. Either they are here illegally or they are not, immigration law can get tricky at times but that matter is fairly clear cut in most cases. As for what law is broken, it depends on whether said illegal immigrant jumped a fence, overstayed a work or student visa ect...







> "Actual citizens" is just determined by make-believe statutes that corrupt politicians came up with.


By that logic every law ever passed whether it be just or not (and I am saying this as someone that believes that most laws are unjust and should be repealed) is make believe and therefore not valid. Corrupt politicians like open borders because they are using that to bribe them with taxpayer money for votes so they will go along with their criminal agenda. This dosen't mean immigration itself is bad, but that it is if it isn't properly controlled.





> And you and a bunch of other individuals might agree to exclude all the people whom you consider "illegal immigrants" from all of your properties. But none of you have any right to tell all the rest of us that we can't have them on our property, nor do all of you put together have that right.



If an employer knowingly hires illegal immigrants than they have committed a crime and should be arrested/fined. Illegal immigration has created a multi billion dollar black market that is driving down the wages of American workers with a de facto slavery system that is taking advantage of desperate people trying to come to America to improve the lives of themselves and their families.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You can't have it both ways, you can't say on one hand that entering a country illegally is entering a country illegally and then say that remaining in a country illegally isn't remaining in a country illegally.


But there's no such thing as remaining in the country illegally.

Remaining in the country after having entered it illegally is not illegal.

If you want to say it is, then please cite the law you're talking about.




> If an employer knowingly hires illegal immigrants than they have committed a crime and should be arrested/fined.


And you support that?

What right do you or anyone else have to impose such a fine on anyone else for what they do with their own property? Is it your property or theirs?

----------


## misterx

They came into this country because they couldn't get in legally, but illegal is inaccurate. He needs to lay off the weed, I think he's had enough.

----------


## Jesse James

> But none of you have any right to tell all the rest of us that we can't have them on our property, nor do all of you put together have that right.


while
that may be true, by definition, they are illegal immigrants.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> But there's no such thing as remaining in the country illegally.
> 
> Remaining in the country after having entered it illegally is not illegal.


So if somebody invades someone else's home, they have entered it illegally, but if they continue to occupy somebody else's home it is not illegal? Or, if you trespass on someone else's property, you are trespassing, but if you remain on that property, you are not trespassing?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So if somebody invades someone else's home, they have entered it illegally, but if they continue to occupy somebody else's home it is not illegal? Or, if you trespass on someone else's property, you are trespassing, but if you remain on that property, you are not trespassing?


No. How in the world could you get that from anything I said? I was talking about immigration, not being on someone else's property.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> while
> that may be true, by definition, they are illegal immigrants.


I suppose by the same line of reasoning you could say that every black person is by definition the n-word. But the point of the label is not accuracy, but degradation. And "illegal immigrant" is just as inappropriate of a label as it would be to apply the label "illegal driver" to anyone and everyone who has ever illegally run a red light.

In what other cases do we label people who are guilty of having committed a misdemeanor at some point in their past (as every one of us has done) as "illegals"?

----------


## Jesse James

Wtf?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Wtf?


Am I wrong?

Do you call everyone illegal on account of the fact that at some point in their past they committed some misdemeanor?

That's what you're doing when you label anyone who has ever violated a law into coming to this country or overstaying a visa as "illegal."

----------


## presence

> while
> that may be true, by definition, they are illegal_ized_ immigrants.


ftfy

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Am I wrong?
> 
> Do you call everyone illegal on account of the fact that at some point in their past they committed some misdemeanor?
> 
> That's what you're doing when you label anyone who has ever violated a law into coming to this country or overstaying a visa as "illegal."


You do not appear to be understanding the basic concept of "illegal" here.  If I jaywalk one day I do not become an illegal citizen, but if someone enters the country unlawfully with the intent to live here, then they are an illegal immigrant.  No amount of time spent or hot dogs consumed can change the fact that they are an immigrant without a legal status.  They do not magically become legal after a 30 day waiting period.

----------


## Jesse James

> Am I wrong?
> 
> Do you call everyone illegal on account of the fact that at some point in their past they committed some misdemeanor?
> 
> That's what you're doing when you label anyone who has ever violated a law into coming to this country or overstaying a visa as "illegal."


"******" doesn't have an actual meaning, it is a slur.

"illegal" has a very clear meaning. and an "illegal immigrant" is, whether we think it is morally right, a matter of fact.

I have definitely heard people use "illegal jay walking" "illegal drug using" etc.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> "******" doesn't have an actual meaning, it is a slur.


Yes it's a slur. But of course it has an actual meaning. "Illegal immigrant" is also a slur. That's the whole point.




> I have definitely heard people use "illegal jay walker" "illegal drug user" etc.


Never in my life have I heard those labels used except in cases where they're being applied to someone actually committing the crime, and not just on account of having done so at some point in the past.

----------


## Jesse James

> Yes it's a slur. But of course it has an actual meaning. "Illegal immigrant" is also a slur. That's the whole point.
> 
> 
> 
> Never in my life have I heard those labels used except in cases where they're being applied to someone actually committing the crime, and not just on account of having done so at some point in the past.


I meant to put jay walking and using.

what is the definition of ******?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You do not appear to be understanding the basic concept of "illegal" here.  If I jaywalk one day I do not become an illegal citizen, but if someone enters the country unlawfully with the intent to live here, then they are an illegal immigrant.  No amount of time spent or hot dogs consumed can change the fact that they are an immigrant without a legal status.  They do not magically become legal after a 30 day waiting period.


Simply being here is not illegal, not even if the way they got here was illegal. No, they aren't citizens, that's true. But it is legal to be here without being a citizen.

They, at some point in the past, committed a misdemeanor, very much like jaywalking. But that illegality doesn't follow them around any more than jaywalking does. We don't take someone who jaywalked 10 years ago and insist that every step they took since that time was invalid so that they now have to go back to the other side of the street they crossed 10 years ago and cross it legally.

----------


## presence

> Natural  law, natural justice, being a principle that is naturally applicable  and adequate to the rightful settlement of every possible controversy  that can arise among men; being, too, the only standard by which any  controversy whatever, between man and man, can be rightfully settled;  being a principle whose protection every man demands for himself,  whether he is willing to accord it to others, or not; being also an  immutable principle, one that is always and everywhere the same, in all  ages and nations; being self-evidently necessary in all times and  places; being so entirely impartial and equitable towards all; so  indispensable to the peace of mankind everywhere; so vital to the safety  and welfare of every human being; being, too, so easily learned, so  generally known, and so easily maintained by such voluntary associations  as all honest men can readily and rightfully form for that  purpose—being such a principle as this, these questions arise, viz.: Why  is it that it does not universally, or well nigh universally, prevail?  Why is it that it has not, ages ago, been established throughout the  world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could rightfully be  compelled to obey? Why is it that any human being ever conceived that  anything so self-evidently superfluous, false, absurd, and atrocious as  all legislation necessarily must be, could be of any use to mankind, or  have any place in human affairs?
> []
> 
> What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of  men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they  can subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of  men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their  service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to  abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all  other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to  all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may  not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the  assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the  principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own  personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and  nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such  thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is  imposed.
> 
> -Lysander Spooner 1882


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sp...f-justice-1882


When immigrants are illegalized is that by the process of Natural Law or edict of legislation?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I meant to put jay walking and using.
> 
> what is the definition of ******?


A black person. It's a slur for black people. We all know this. Just like illegal immigrant is a slur for people who at some point in the past committed some irrelevant misdemeanor.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Simply being here is not illegal,


Who has ever argued _THAT_ nonsense?  *Nobody* has argued that every single human being in the US is illegal by virtue of being here.




> not even if the way they got here was illegal.


Again, you do not appear to comprehend the concept of "illegal."

----------


## Superfluous Man

I see this kind of like the word oriental. The n- word is worse. But I was making a point.

I used to think "oriental" was the right word to use for Asians. It's what I learned growing up in an area where maybe 3% of the population was Asian. And they probably didn't think it was worth it to try to correct everyone else who called them that. But then I went to college and started having lots of Asian friends, who kept hearing me refer to them as oriental, and they explained to me that many Asians considered that term offensive.

I guess I don't see why I would argue with them about that.

And in the case of "illegal immigrant" it's even more obvious that the point of the term is to somehow illegitimize them. It's not like they as people are illegal. They aren't in some perpetual state of lawbreaking.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Who has ever argued _THAT_ nonsense?  *Nobody* has argued that every single human being in the US is illegal by virtue of being here.


Not only that, but even the people that some like to call "illegal immigrants" aren't illegal by virtue of being here.

If you disagree, I challenge you to find the law that says they are.

I do understand the concept of illegal. And the concept is the same when it applies to jaywalking as when it applies to illegally crossing a border or overstaying a visa. These laws aren't some special category that turns the person who breaks them into a perpetually illegal human being.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not only that, but even the people that some like to call "illegal immigrants" aren't illegal by virtue of being here.
> 
> If you disagree, I challenge you to find the law that says they are.
> 
> I do understand the concept of illegal. And the concept is the same when it applies to jaywalking as when it applies to illegally crossing a border or overstaying a visa. These laws aren't some special category that turns the person who breaks them into a perpetually illegal human being.


No, you clearly do NOT understand the concept of illegal.  

If you steal a car and manage to drive it around for 30 days before they catch you you do not get to claim that you are perfectly legal just because some time has passed and you are no longer actively committing the act of stealing it.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No, you clearly do NOT understand the concept of illegal.  
> 
> If you steal a car and manage to drive it around for 30 days before they catch you you do not get to claim that you are perfectly legal just because some time has passed and you are no longer actively committing the act of stealing it.


That's because that car continues to belong to someone else. You are stealing it until you return it to them. Grand theft auto is also a felony. So it's not at all analogous.

A better analogy is jay walking. It's a one time thing and when it's done it's done.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> They came into this country because they couldn't get in legally, but illegal is inaccurate. He needs to lay off the weed, I think he's had enough.


Just because they did something illegal, that doesn't make THEM illegal.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> No. How in the world could you get that from anything I said? I was talking about immigration, not being on someone else's property.


You are not talking about CONSENT, which is the common issue for both property owners, and for the host population of a country. This is a transaction that population _voluntarily enters into_, not has it forced upon them. To repeat, the relocating people are *not* established to be engaged in "immigration," if they are not exercising their individual responsibility to become Americans. If they have not even sought to become naturalized, and thereby receive the consent of the new country, they have not even _begun_ to migrate, thus their indefinite presence in the country is aggression, just as a home invader or trespasser is with regard to an unwilling property owner.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You are not talking about CONSENT, which is the common issue for both property owners, and for the host population of a country. This is a transaction that population _voluntarily enters into_, not has it forced upon them. To repeat, the relocating people are *not* established to be engaged in "immigration," if they are not exercising their individual responsibility to become Americans. If they have not even sought to become naturalized, and thereby receive the consent of the new country, they have not even _begun_ to migrate, thus their indefinite presence in the country is aggression, just as a home invader or trespasser is with regard to an unwilling property owner.


Consent is an issue in trespassing. It's not an issue in immigration. You have every right to keep the people you consider illegal immigrants off of your own property as trespassers. But you don't have any right to keep them off of my property, or anyone else's, or to keep them out of the whole country. Nor do you gain that right if 51% of the country agrees with you.

When somebody asks you to leave their property and you don't, you violate their rights for as long as you're there. That's trespassing.

Illegal immigration is not a violation of anyone's rights. It's a mere breaking of a make-believe statute that politicians dreamed up. And once the person who breaks that statute has done so, that deed is done. It's not something where they are perpetually breaking a law for as long as they stay in the USA, like a trespasser does for as long as they trespass, or a car thief has done for as long as they keep the car.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If I jaywalk one day I do not become an illegal citizen, but if someone enters the country unlawfully with the intent to live here, then they are an illegal immigrant.  No amount of time spent or hot dogs consumed can change the fact that they are an immigrant without a legal status.


If you jaywalk, then nothing you do after that jaywalking will change the fact that you are henceforth illegally on the other side of the street. You are an occupant of that space without legal status. You are an illegal that-side-of-the-street-occupant.

See how little sense that makes?

But that is precisely the way people use the word "illegal" when they refer to people who crossed the border illegally as "illegal immigrants."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 6350688[/URL]]If you jaywalk, then nothing you do after that jaywalking will change the fact that you are henceforth illegally on the other side of the street. You are an occupant of that space without legal status. You are an illegal that-side-of-the-street-occupant.
> 
> See how little sense that makes?
> 
> But that is precisely the way people use the word "illegal" when they refer to people who crossed the border illegally as "illegal immigrants."


If you jaywalked, and stopped in the middle of the road set up camp and decided to live there, in the middle of the road, it would be very much illegal indeed. Until you stopped illegally inhabiting the road, whereupon the crime would then be in the past. 

Frankly this his is so obvious to me that the only thing more astonishing than your position itself is the fact that you are actually trying to defend it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Seriously Superfluous, are you trolling us now? Frankly I cannot imagine how anyone with a functioning brain could think like that.

----------


## lilymc

> Seriously Superfluous, are you trolling us now? Frankly I cannot imagine how anyone with a functioning brain could think like that.


I'm beginning to think that being a Calvinist messes with one's brain and moral compass.

I was reading this thread and thinking "you've got to be kidding me."

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Illegal immigration is not a violation of anyone's rights. It's a mere breaking of a make-believe statute that politicians dreamed up. And once the person who breaks that statute has done so, that deed is done. It's not something where they are perpetually breaking a law for as long as they stay in the USA, like a trespasser does for as long as they trespass, or a car thief has done for as long as they keep the car.


There is no "immigration" going on where the parties are not seeking to become naturalized, so your continued presumption that they are "immigrants" is part of the problem. As they are not partaking of the contractual process by which the native population expresses its consent for their initial relocation AND current domicile to occur, the consent has NOT been granted, so their indefinite presence within American borders is, in fact, trespassing or invasion. 

Ignoring the fact that unlawful domicile is not a consensual situation does not make the consent matter go away, and prioritizing playing identity politics (e.g., fretting over calling such aggressors the wrong name) is not the mark of a liberty-based approach to the issue.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> There is no "immigration" going on where the parties are not seeking to become naturalized, so your continued presumption that they are "immigrants" is part of the problem.


Again, where are you getting this? I never assumed that, nor said anything implying it.

I'm fine with not giving anyone citizenship. But that's totally different from preventing them from coming here, working here, or living here, or kicking them out after they're here.

So go ahead and support not granting them citizenship. I won't disagree.

That's not what you're doing though.




> As they are not partaking of the contractual process by which the native population expresses its consent for their initial relocation AND current domicile to occur, the consent has NOT been granted, so their indefinite presence within American borders is, in fact, trespassing or invasion.


The only level at which such a contractual process exists is the level of the individual. And on that level, in fact they are participating in it. When they rent an apartment, that is between them and that property owner, not you. And by entering that contract with that property owner, they are not trespassing. When they get a job, that is between them and their employer, not you. And by entering that contract with their employer, they are not trespassing. The same is true when they shop in a store, or visit someone's home, or any other time they are on anyone's property.

As a matter of fact, for you to try to prohibit those property owners from letting the people you consider "illegal immigrants" on their property, or you band together with a bunch of other people (claiming that your subset of the population here speaks for the country) to do that, or delegate to the government to do that on your behalf, would make YOU the trespasser, not the illegal immigrants, because you are trying to control what other people do with their own property.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Soo, basically you are just a radical open borders guy, trying to play cute games with the language in an attempt to pass off your personal opinion as though it were some kind of logic. 

You should have stuck with sharing opinions as opinions. Sophistry, equivocation, amphiboly, I have no respect for them or for people who intentionally use them

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Soo, basically you are just a radical open borders guy, trying to play cute games with the language in an attempt to pass off your personal opinion as though it were some kind of logic. 
> 
> You should have stuck with sharing opinions as opinions. Sophistry, equivocation, amphiboly, I have no respect for them or for people who intentionally use them


If you have some logical answer to anything I've said, please share it. So far all you've done is make assertions.

I don't see any point where I've tried to pass off my personal opinion as logic.

I also don't see anything radical about my view. It's essentially the same as Ron Paul's. It's essentially the same policy that obtained in the US for a century after the Constitution was ratified. And it seems perfectly moderate and sensible to me. Treat other people's property as theirs, not the state's. That's all there is to it.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Seriously Superfluous, are you trolling us now? Frankly I cannot imagine how anyone with a functioning brain could think like that.


Then why are you a Ron Paul supporter?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If you jaywalked, and stopped in the middle of the road set up camp and decided to live there, in the middle of the road, it would be very much illegal indeed.


Right. But that's not a good analogy to illegal immigration.

A better one is simply someone who at some point in the past jaywalked, just like the only thing that makes someone an "illegal immigrants" is that at some point in the past they committed a misdemeanor.

There is no law that they continue to break over and over again every day they're here.

Or is there? If you're saying there is, then please find it. I asked you to do that before, and conspicuously you didn't.

----------


## Superfluous Man

Incidentally, what's even more incendiary than calling them "illegal immigrants" is shortening that to just "illegals," like the thread title does.

Why do people use the label "illegals"? Is it not obvious to them that it's insulting? Or are they fine with that?

People who broke immigration laws are no more illegal than anyone else who broke any other law.

----------


## Jesse James

> A black person. It's a slur for black people. We all know this. Just like illegal immigrant is a slur for people who at some point in the past committed some irrelevant misdemeanor.


You
said "it's a slur" but it has "an actual meaning"? So which is it?

----------


## Jesse James

> I see this kind of like the word oriental. The n- word is worse. But I was making a point.
> 
> I used to think "oriental" was the right word to use for Asians. It's what I learned growing up in an area where maybe 3% of the population was Asian. And they probably didn't think it was worth it to try to correct everyone else who called them that. But then I went to college and started having lots of Asian friends, who kept hearing me refer to them as oriental, and they explained to me that many Asians considered that term offensive.
> 
> I guess I don't see why I would argue with them about that.
> 
> And in the case of "illegal immigrant" it's even more obvious that the point of the term is to somehow illegitimize them. It's not like they as people are illegal. They aren't in some perpetual state of lawbreaking.


My
step dad refers to himself as an oriental.

I guess he's a great shame to his race.

----------


## Jesse James

I think the question as libertarians is; how do we treat public land if we ourselves don't believe in it? Like an extension of our private land?

Also; in a libertarian society do we have a right to put claymores in the middle of our ranch to kill anybody who tries to pass?

The answer to these questions depend on how we look at this.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You
> said "it's a slur" but it has "an actual meaning"? So which is it?


Both. It's a slur with a meaning, like illegal immigrant.

Slurs are words. Words have meanings.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> My
> step dad refers to himself as an oriental.
> 
> I guess he's a great shame to his race.


That's up to him. I don't think he's a shame to his race. But I do think that people who object to that label should have their opinion about it respected. That seems like common sense to me. I'm not sure why it would be controversial.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I think the question as libertarians is; how do we treat public land if we ourselves don't believe in it? Like an extension of our private land?
> 
> Also; in a libertarian society do we have a right to put claymores in the middle of our ranch to kill anybody who tries to pass?
> 
> The answer to these questions depend on how we look at this.


We demand that the government relinquish its land.

You have the right to put the claymores there. But if they blow up and kill someone, it could well make you a murderer, depending on the circumstances.

----------


## Jesse James

> Both. It's a slur with a meaning, like illegal immigrant.
> 
> Slurs are words. Words have meanings.


but
you still never gave me the meaning.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> but
> you still never gave me the meaning.


I did too. You even quoted me doing so and replied to it.

----------


## Jesse James

> I did too. You even quoted me doing so and replied to it.


your
definition had the word "slur" in it.

that is not the meaning, that is the slur. what is the meaning?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> your
> definition had the word "slur" in it.


No it didn't. I was very clear. I'm not sure how you missed it. But I said "a black person." My next sentence used the word "slur." But I don't see why you point that out anyway. Are definitions not allowed to use the word "slur" or something?

And this is obvious. You knew it already without my saying so.

----------


## Jesse James

I don't think Chris Rock agrees with your assessment. Also, you said it has a definition AND it was a slur, so no, the definition can not have the word slur in it.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I don't think Chris Rock agrees with your assessment. Also, you said it has a definition AND it was a slur, so no, the definition can not have the word slur in it.


That makes no sense to me. I said that it had a definition and was a slur because I was replying to your claim that by being a slur that meant it didn't have a definition.

At any rate, "illegal immigrant" is clearly a slur, and a misnomer. There is no sense in which the people it is applied to are "illegal." All of the people here who keep insisting that it's an accurate term have yet to back that up.

Incidentally, I notice that nobody has yet taken my challenge to try to find any law that says that it is illegal for the people they call "illegal immigrants" merely to exist in the USA. Check it out. See for yourself. The US law code uses the term "unlawful resident," and other similar terms employing the word "unlawful." And there is an important legal distinction between "unlawful" and "illegal." "Unlawful" means that they lack a positive legal declaration that they do belong here, whereas "illegal" (the word the US Code does not use for them) would mean that they positively violate some law by being here. As a matter of fact, when somebody is an unlawful resident of the USA there are actually laws that regulate whether or not they can even legally leave the country on their own initiative. There are also laws regulating how they can be removed from the country, and how they can appeal that and not be breaking any laws simply by existing in the country while they undergo that process. They committed a singular misdemeanor when they crossed the border without doing so the way the federal government wanted them to, or overstayed a visa. But they don't continue committing more misdemeanors every second they remain in the USA after that just by existing there.

----------


## Jesse James

They are in the process of committing a crime, thus, by definition, illegal.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> They are in the process of committing a crime, thus, by definition, illegal.


No they are not in the process of committing any crime.

First of all, illegal immigration is not a crime. It is a civil, not a criminal matter, according to federal law.

Second of all, even as a misdemeanor, they are not in the process of committing one. Their committing of that misdemeanor is a singular action that happened in the past. Merely existing in the USA is not a misdemeanor for them.

Do you think I'm wrong about that? Then prove it. I've checked. Why haven't you? You keep making these assertions about the law that, at the end of the day, you just pulled out of your rectum.

----------


## Superfluous Man

Granted, the more important point is the one that Presence made earlier, that federal immigration laws are void to begin with, since they're unjust laws.

But it's worth pointing out that, even according to these void laws, there is no sense in which so-called "illegal immigrants" are continuously in the process of committing any crime, nor even a misdemeanor, just by being here.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Right. But that's not a good analogy to illegal immigration.


Because as soon as you cross the border into a country, you are no longer in the country you just crossed into?  You just magically float away into a special limbo where laws and reason are meaningless?




> A better one is simply someone who at some point in the past jaywalked, just like the only thing that makes someone an "illegal immigrants" is that at some point in the past they committed a misdemeanor.


LOL no.  That's irrational and insane.  




> There is no law that they continue to break over and over again every day they're here.


Except for being here.  Illegally.  Thus, Illegal Immigrant.




> Or is there? If you're saying there is, then please find it. I asked you to do that before, and conspicuously you didn't.


Why should I?  Your argument is irrational on it's face.  However if you are truly interested in the law here, (which I frankly doubt, IMHO you are simply trying to distract from the fact that you have an illogical irrational emotional argument) then we can start with 104th COngress, Public Law 208, section 301:




> *SEC. 301. TREATING PERSONS PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT* *            AUTHORIZATION AS NOT ADMITTED.*
> 
> 
>     (a) ``Admission'' Defined.--Paragraph (13) of section 101(a) (8 
> U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended to read as follows:
>     ``(13)(A) The terms `admission' and `admitted' mean, with respect to 
> an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after 
> inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
>     ``(B) An alien who is paroled under section 212(d)(5) or permitted 
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> They are in the process of committing a crime, thus, by definition, illegal.


This should be _blatantly_ obvious.  Even if you disagree with the US's INS system and prefer open borders, I don't think denying basic reality is very healthy.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Granted, the more important point is the one that Presence made earlier, that federal immigration laws are void to begin with, since they're unjust laws.
> 
> But it's worth pointing out that, even according to these void laws, there is no sense in which so-called "illegal immigrants" are continuously in the process of committing any crime, nor even a misdemeanor, just by being here.


The US Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate immigration and nationalization.  Your notions of 'just' and 'unjust' are irrelevant.  If you don't like it, amend the US Constitution.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Then why are you a Ron Paul supporter?


Because my position agrees with Ron Paul, and yours does not?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If you have some logical answer to anything I've said, please share it. So far all you've done is make assertions.
> 
> I don't see any point where I've tried to pass off my personal opinion as logic.


FFS you are trying to say that an illegal alien is no longer illegal because he broke the law.  There is NO logic in that bull$#@! whatever.  That is all emotive pap.




> I also don't see anything radical about my view.


You see nothing radical about the view that someone who broke the law is no longer a lawbreaker because he has continued breaking the law?

LMAO okay.  




> It's essentially the same as Ron Paul's.


LMAO No.  Dude you are as delusional as the Trumpaloompas.




> It's essentially the same policy that obtained in the US for a century after the Constitution was ratified.


LMAO No.  We as a nation have legislated and performed immigration and naturalization services since the 1790's.




> And it seems perfectly moderate and sensible to me. Treat other people's property as theirs, not the state's. That's all there is to it.


You are dreaming.  AND you are just making bull$#@! up out of thin air and pretending as if that were knowledge.

----------


## presence

> LMAO No.  We as a nation have legislated and performed immigration and naturalization services since the 1790's.


The Naturalization Act of 1789 stated that if you were a Resident for 14 years you were eligible for Naturalization.  Prior to then the threshold was 5 years.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Because as soon as you cross the border into a country, you are no longer in the country you just crossed into?  You just magically float away into a special limbo where laws and reason are meaningless?


That's not true. They are in the country they crossed into. And they are not breaking any laws by being there, as you just confirmed.




> Except for being here.  Illegally.  Thus, Illegal Immigrant.


But they're not here illegally, as you just confirmed.





> Why should I?  Your argument is irrational on it's face.  However if you are truly interested in the law here, (which I frankly doubt, IMHO you are simply trying to distract from the fact that you have an illogical irrational emotional argument) then we can start with 104th COngress, Public Law 208, section 301:


Notice that the whole section of the US Code that you just copied and pasted agrees with me. Take special not of its repeated us of the word "unlawful," not "illegal."

Notice also that your own copy and paste includes this provision: " has filed a nonfrivolous application for a change or extension of status."

Of course, many people who file these nonfrivolous applications for change or extension of status are in reality unlawful residents (not to be confused with "illegal"). But, inasmuch as the law itself includes this very provision, their continued presence in the USA while they wait for the results of their application, is obviously not violating a law.

And notice how nowhere in your entire copy and paste does it ever include any law that is being broken in a continuous way by the people you call "illegal immigrants" merely by their continued presence in the USA.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Because my position agrees with Ron Paul, and yours does not?


I agree with Ron Paul pretty much straight down the line on immigration. I'm not sure what your position is. But the fact that you're arguing with me suggests you disagree with me and him.

I specifically like these positions of his:
Don't punish employers for hiring unlawful residents.
Allow people to enter the country without passports.
Don't require any government paperwork for anyone to prove that they are allowed to be here.
Don't build a wall.
Don't deport people merely for being unlawful residents.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You see nothing radical about the view that someone who broke the law is no longer a lawbreaker because he has continued breaking the law?


I never said they were no longer a law breaker. But we're all law breakers. Nobody has ever called me an illegal before though, just because at some point in my past I committed some misdemeanor.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The US Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate immigration and nationalization.


No it does not. It authorizes them to legislate naturalization, but not immigration.

But more importantly, even if the Constitution did authorize Congress to regulate immigration, that would just make the Constitution wrong. It's not like the Constitution is the legitimate law of the land or something.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> LMAO No.  We as a nation have legislated and performed immigration and naturalization services since the 1790's.


I see you like to say "LMAO" a lot in lieu of making points. Is that picture in your avatar your grandfather? Or are you just very immature?

You're actually wrong. The federal government did regulate naturalization as far back as that. But it placed no limits on mere entering of the country until much later.

I believe the first time it did so was the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Is that your idea of constitutionality?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> This should be _blatantly_ obvious.


Therein is the problem. You considered it so obvious that you merely assumed it, or perhaps simply believed others who told you that.

But as you can see, now that you have actually consulted the Law itself. It turns out not to be the case.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Incidentally, what's even more incendiary than calling them "illegal immigrants" is shortening that to just "illegals," like the thread title does.
> 
> Why do people use the label "illegals"? Is it not obvious to them that it's insulting? Or are they fine with that?
> 
> People who broke immigration laws are no more illegal than anyone else who broke any other law.


   @lilymc neg repped me for this with a comment saying that they are in the country illegally.

But that's the problem. In fact, there is no federal law that they are breaking just by being in the country.

Lilymc, if you disagree, please cite that law. Gunny just tried, and as you can see if you read what he found, he failed.

If there were such a law, it would be void, inasmuch as it would be an unjust law, and unjust laws are no laws at all. But, that's a moot point for now, since there isn't such a law.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

They're illegals. What's wrong with calling them illegals?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> @lilymc neg repped me for this with a comment saying that they are in the country illegally.
> 
> But that's the problem. In fact, there is no federal law that they are breaking just by being in the country.
> 
> Lilymc, if you disagree, please cite that law. Gunny just tried, and as you can see if you read what he found, he failed.
> 
> If there were such a law, it would be void, inasmuch as it would be an unjust law, and unjust laws are no laws at all. But, that's a moot point for now, since there isn't such a law.


Eduardo?

----------


## misterx

> Just because they did something illegal, that doesn't make THEM illegal.


Nope, but does make them illegal aliens versus legal aliens.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Well it's a good thing nobody has the right to have their feelings addressed.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Nope, but does make them illegal aliens versus legal aliens.


But notice how the thread title just says "illegals."

Notice also how, for some reason, people don't label others "illegal" just because they committed some misdemeanor at some point in the past in any other cases besides immigration laws. And we are seeing in this thread what the misconception is that leads many people to treat immigration laws as special. They have the mistaken belief that people who violated them are perpetually violating them just by being here, which is not the case. There is no federal law that they perpetually break just by being here. In fact, there are federal laws that govern how they can leave the country, so they actually could be violating the law by not staying.

----------


## Superfluous Man

The distinction between "unlawful" and "illegal" has come up, and it's important enough to address specifically. Here is the entry on "unlawful" from Black's Law Dictionary.




> What is UNLAWFUL?
> That which is contrary to law. Unlawful and illegal are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, unlawful, as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy. It is on this ground that contracts in restraint of marriage or of trade are generally void. Sweet. And see Hagerman v. Buchanan, 45 N. J. Eq. 292, 17 Atl. 946, 14 Am. St Rep. 732; Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 467; Johnson v. State, 66 Ohio St. 59. 63 N. E. 607. 61 L. R. A. 277, 90 Am. St. Rep. 564; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. 837, 26 Am. St. Rep. 75; MacDaniel v. U. S


http://thelawdictionary.org/unlawful/

N.B. The sections of the US Code Gunny pasted earlier repeatedly refer to "unlawful" residents. Nowhere did they mention such a category as illegal immigrants.

They are unlawful because the law does not give them positive legal status to reside here. They are not illegal, because there is not a law that they break simply by being here. There was a law they broke when they came, thus committing a misdemeanor (not a crime, mind you). But that was a singular act of breaking a law, just like jaywalking, not something they perpetually keep doing every second they're here.

----------


## euphemia

I do not know why this topic is still open.  Immigration has been discussed to death in this forums.  There is not a universal agreement one way or another.  Gary Johnson has made himself and the Libertarian Party totally irrelevant.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I do not know why this topic is still open.  Immigration has been discussed to death in this forums.  There is not a universal agreement one way or another.  Gary Johnson has made himself and the Libertarian Party totally irrelevant.


Maybe because advocating that the federal government cease to enforce its current tyrannical immigration laws is part of the mission of this website, according to its official mission statement.

----------


## misterx

> But notice how the thread title just says "illegals."
> 
> Notice also how, for some reason, *people don't label others "illegal" just because they committed some misdemeanor* at some point in the past in any other cases besides immigration laws. And we are seeing in this thread what the misconception is that leads many people to treat immigration laws as special. They have the mistaken belief that people who violated them are perpetually violating them just by being here, which is not the case. There is no federal law that they perpetually break just by being here. In fact, there are federal laws that govern how they can leave the country, so they actually could be violating the law by not staying.


It's not analogous. A better analogy would be a participant in a football game whom enters the field after the snap. That participant then becomes an illegal participant. Similarly, an alien(someone foreign to the nation), becomes an illegal alien when he comes across the border without permission.

And is it just me, or is the forum really slow tonight?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> It's not analogous. A better analogy would be a participant in a football game whom enters the field after the snap. That participant then becomes an illegal participant. Similarly, an alien(someone foreign to the nation), becomes an illegal alien when he comes across the border without permission.
> 
> And is it just me, or is the forum really slow tonight?


You're incorrect. My analogy was good. That's all the illegal immigration is. It's a misdemeanor that, once having been committed, is done. It's not an ongoing misdemeanor for as long as the person is present in the USA. This is according to current federal law.

The claim that they are breaking the law by just existing in the USA is false.

Notice that in your analogy of the illegal participant in football, there are actual official rules of the game that designate such a person as an illegal participant. There are no laws on the books that designate the people are so often called "illegal immigrants" as illegal. The designation that the law actually applies to them is "unlawful resident," which only means that the law does not positively make them lawful residents. There is an important distinction between "unlawful" and "illegal."

----------


## misterx

> You're incorrect. My analogy was good. That's all the illegal immigration is. It's a misdemeanor that, once having been committed, is done. It's not an ongoing misdemeanor for as long as the person is present in the USA. This is according to current federal law.
> 
> The claim that they are breaking the law by just existing in the USA is false.


Wow. Just wow. If you can't understand that illegal alien is a valid term, and that my analogy is more similar to the term than yours? I just don't know what to tell you. You're too focused on your utopian Lennon/Lenin vision of the world to see where you're wrong.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Wow. Just wow. If you can't understand that illegal alien is a valid term, and that my analogy is more similar to the term than yours? I just don't know what to tell you. You're too focused on your utopian Lennon/Lenin vision of the world to see where you're wrong.


It's not that I can't understand that. It's that I'm actually right, according to the law.

It's not a Lennon/Lenin view. It's more of a Rothbard/Paul view. Immigration restriction is, and always has been, a hallmark of Marxism and progressivism. Free movement of people and labor is, and always has been, a hallmark of free market economics and libertarianism.

ETA: "Wow. Just wow." is only marginally better than LMAO.

----------


## euphemia

That doesn't mean it is legal according to US law.  Hence, the term, "illegal."

----------


## Jesse James

> It's not that I can't understand that. It's that I'm actually right, according to the law.
> 
> It's not a Lennon/Lenin view. It's more of a Rothbard/Paul view. Immigration restriction is, and always has been, a hallmark of Marxism and progressivism. Free movement of people and labor is, and always has been, a hallmark of free market economics and libertarianism.
> 
> ETA: "Wow. Just wow." is only marginally better than LMAO.


PAUL: Yes, we do have a national responsibility for our borders. We need better immigration services, obviously. But if you subsidize something or give people incentives, you get more of it. So if you give easy road to citizenship, you're going to have more illegals. If you have a weak economy, which is understandable and we should have prevented, that's understandable. But mandating to the states that we have to provide free medical care and free education, that's a great burden to all the border states. So I would say eliminate all these benefits and talk about eliminating the welfare state because it's detrimental not only to here but the people that come because that's the incentive to bring their families with them.

Ron does not agree with you.

----------


## lilymc

> Eduardo?


Haha. You may be right about that.     

Interesting join date for a Ron Paul supporter. :-|

----------


## misterx

> It's not that I can't understand that. It's that I'm actually right, according to the law.
> 
> It's not a Lennon/Lenin view. It's more of a Rothbard/Paul view. Immigration restriction is, and always has been, a hallmark of Marxism and progressivism. Free movement of people and labor is, and always has been, a hallmark of free market economics and libertarianism.
> 
> ETA: "Wow. Just wow." is only marginally better than LMAO.


You can argue that we shouldn't have immigration laws, but as long as we do you can't say that the term "illegal alien" is inaccurate. It's wholly accurate, and the most apt description. This is how Marxists always operate, by changing the language. You can't convince people that we should open the borders, so you change the language to alter perceptions.

ETA: LMAO would be more response than your sophistry was worth.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That's not true. They are in the country they crossed into. And they are not breaking any laws by being there, as you just confirmed.


sooooo....

you just make up your reality as you go eh?  If that's the case why should I waste my time here?




> But they're not here illegally, as you just confirmed.


sooooo....

you just make up your reality as you go eh?  If that's the case why should I waste my time here?





> Notice that the whole section of the US Code that you just copied and pasted agrees with me. Take special not of its repeated us of the word "unlawful," not "illegal."


Right.  Because doing something unlawfully is so much different from doing something illegally.  This reminds me of those people who think we can transfigure the entire government by removing the yellow fringe from the flags throughout government.




> Notice also that your own copy and paste includes this provision: " has filed a nonfrivolous application for a change or extension of status."


Because that would mean they are attempting to maintain _legal_ status.




> Of course, many people who file these nonfrivolous applications for change or extension of status are in reality unlawful residents (not to be confused with "illegal"). But, inasmuch as the law itself includes this very provision, their continued presence in the USA while they wait for the results of their application, is obviously not violating a law.
> 
> And notice how nowhere in your entire copy and paste does it ever include any law that is being broken in a continuous way by the people you call "illegal immigrants" merely by their continued presence in the USA.


An unlawful presence is an illegal presence.  What you are doing is a type of sophistry called "equivocation."

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I agree with Ron Paul pretty much straight down the line on immigration.


No. You clearly do not.




> I'm not sure what your position is. But the fact that you're arguing with me suggests you disagree with me and him.
> 
> I specifically like these positions of his:
> Don't punish employers for hiring unlawful residents.


Blatantly untrue.  In 2012, Ron Paul ran on a four point platform on illegal immigration:


FOUR POINT PLATFORM: "Simply enforce our existing immigration laws!"Secure Our Borders_Crack down on employers that intentionally hire illegals_Remove incentives and rewards to illegals such as licenses, welfare, and other taxpayer benefits_Enforce our existing laws and deport illegal aliens when convicted of crimes or detected during routine law enforcement activities._




> Allow people to enter the country without passports.
> Don't require any government paperwork for anyone to prove that they are allowed to be here.
> Don't build a wall.
> Don't deport people merely for being unlawful residents.


See point #4 from Ron Paul's four point immigration platform from 2012.

From this list - albeit half of your points are pure fiction - what you like are the _methods_ with which he would have enacted his policies, and not the philosophical drivers and fundamental goals of those policies.  Ron Paul clearly identifies Illegal Aliens as such and has produced a solid plan to remove them from America.  The difference is he is using different kinds of pressure from the shallow-thinking borderwall fundamentalists.

Ron Paul is, and has always been anti-amnesty.

At 0:44 in this video from 2008 he is talking about the practice of giving welfare to "illegal aliens," which is even worse than "illegal immigrant."




At 1:02 in this video from 2012 he is talking about "an illegal" wrt trespassing




At 2:32 in this video Ron says directly if you step over the border then you are illegal, as a jurisdictional argument under the 14th Amendment.




My concern here is how in the last post of your I answered, you just made stuff up and pretended I had said it.  Why should I invest the time to educate you, when you just make up your own reality and demand everyone accept it as true?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I never said they were no longer a law breaker. But we're all law breakers. Nobody has ever called me an illegal before though, just because at some point in my past I committed some misdemeanor.


Equivocation. More sophistry.  If you steal a candy bar, then eating that candy bar is illegal, just like if you illegally enter the US your presence here is illegal.  No matter what you think about immigration, legal or illegal, for against, pro, con, open borders closed borders, what we either of us like and dislike is irrelevant.  These are basic facts of law and jurisprudence.  You don't get to pretend that reality is not so just because you don't like it, and you damn sure do not get to demand that I accede to your fictional version of reality just make this place a safe space.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No it does not. It authorizes them to legislate naturalization, but not immigration.


And yet they were legislating immigration from day 1 and those fellas what actually wrote the Constitution not only did not object, they themselve sat in Congress and wrote the actual laws legislating immigration.  It's funny how the men who _actually wrote_ the Constitution seemed to think it covered immigration, but some guy 240 years later and wants to lecture the Framers that the Constitution did not mean what _they_ thought it meant.




> But more importantly, even if the Constitution did authorize Congress to regulate immigration, that would just make the Constitution wrong. It's not like the Constitution is the legitimate law of the land or something.


That's not a choice that you get to make.  Elected persons swear an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  Therefore to violate that Oath constitutes treason.  If you are unwilling to uphold the Constitution, then you should not do anything which requires you to swear an oath to uphold it.

If you are asking them to just ignore their oaths, then you are asking for a nation controlled by traitors.  i.e. - roughly our current situation.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I see you like to say "LMAO" a lot in lieu of making points.


That's because almost nothing on this planet pisses me off more than sophistry.  Laughing is a defence mechanism to keep me from ripping off your head and shytting down your neck.




> Is that picture in your avatar your grandfather? Or are you just very immature?


How about try finding a shred of integrity before engaging your mouth and you will find that I actually treat you with respect.




> You're actually wrong. The federal government did regulate naturalization as far back as that. But it placed no limits on mere entering of the country until much later.
> 
> I believe the first time it did so was the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Is that your idea of constitutionality?


The colonies were controlling human emigration as early as 1763, and then in US Law the Intrusion Act of 1807 (dealing with un authorized immigrants settling land designated for American settlers) criminalized illegal settlement and authorized fines and imprisonment for lawbreakers.

Soo, basically once again what you are saying is pure fiction.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Therein is the problem. You considered it so obvious that you merely assumed it, or perhaps simply believed others who told you that.
> 
> But as you can see, now that you have actually consulted the Law itself. It turns out not to be the case.


Do you just say whatever you wish reality to be around you and then hope that your dreams manifest, or do you actually believe the things that you are saying?  Or more likely, are you intentionally twisting the truth in the hopes to get a rise out of me as if an angry reaction would make anybody around here sympathetic to you?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> @lilymc neg repped me for this with a comment saying that they are in the country illegally.
> 
> But that's the problem. In fact, there is no federal law that they are breaking just by being in the country.
> 
> Lilymc, if you disagree, please cite that law. Gunny just tried, and as you can see if you read what he found, he failed.


You are delusional.




> If there were such a law, it would be void, inasmuch as it would be an unjust law, and unjust laws are no laws at all. But, that's a moot point for now, since there isn't such a law.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Eduardo?


If so, then he is progressively getting stupider.  Or if we assume the sophistry is intentional, wickeder.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Nope, but does make them illegal aliens versus legal aliens.


Yes, thank you.  This person is deploying a kind of sophistry called 'equivocation.'

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But notice how the thread title just says "illegals."



Oh, you mean someone called them the exact same thing Ron Paul calls them?  On Ron Paul Forums?  Oh the humanity!  Oh the scandal!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Maybe because advocating that the federal government cease to enforce its current tyrannical immigration laws is part of the mission of this website, according to its official mission statement.


Ron Paul carried primary platform planks in 2008 and 2012 to enforce the immigration laws on the books.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It's not that I can't understand that. It's that I'm actually right, according to the law.


Pure unmitigated fiction.




> It's not a Lennon/Lenin view. It's more of a Rothbard/Paul view. Immigration restriction is, and always has been, a hallmark of Marxism and progressivism. Free movement of people and labor is, and always has been, a hallmark of free market economics and libertarianism.
> 
> ETA: "Wow. Just wow." is only marginally better than LMAO.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You can argue that we shouldn't have immigration laws, but as long as we do you can't say that the term "illegal alien" is inaccurate. It's wholly accurate, and the most apt description. This is how Marxists always operate, by changing the language. You can't convince people that we should open the borders, so you change the language to alter perceptions.
> 
> ETA: LMAO would be more response than your sophistry was worth.


Yes! Sophistry is _precisely_ what he is doing.  I am so glad that someone else knows what sophistry is and can identify it here.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> That's because almost nothing on this planet pisses me off more than sophistry.  Laughing is a defence mechanism to keep me from ripping off your head and shytting down your neck.


I haven't resorted to any sophistry. Words mean things, and the distinctions are important, especially in law. The words "unlawful" and "illegal," when used in laws, have different meanings. And the difference is totally relevant to this conversation. The actual law that you yourself referenced designates the people you and others call "illegal immigrants" as "unlawful residents." You seem to think those terms are synonymous, but they are not.

The question of whether or not there is any federal law that so-called "illegal immigrants" perpetually violate by virtue of merely existing in the USA is a question of fact. And it is a fact that there is no such law. You have tried to prove me wrong about that and failed.





> The colonies were controlling human emigration as early as 1763


That's not the federal government.




> and then in US Law the Intrusion Act of 1807 (dealing with un authorized immigrants settling land designated for American settlers) criminalized illegal settlement and authorized fines and imprisonment for lawbreakers.


That was for specially designated land, not the whole USA.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the legal settlers in those lands could welcome onto their own property as guests, renters (so long as they fulfilled their own requirements of living there), or employees, the very same immigrants whom the federal government prohibited from settling those lands, and those legal settlers would not thereby be in violation of any federal laws. That's totally different than what today's immigration laws impose on each and every one of us regarding our own property.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Ron Paul carried primary platform planks in 2008 and 2012 to enforce the immigration laws on the books.


Perhaps some immigration laws on the books, but not the ones that are most impactful.

Check out Numbers USA's write ups on it (which I'm surprised you haven't already done, since you seem like you'd be a fan of theirs).

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Right.  Because doing something unlawfully is so much different from doing something illegally.


And there we have it.

I'm sorry I missed this line my first time through your responses.

Yes, "unlawful" and "illegal" are significantly different.

I have already addressed this more than once in the thread, but for the sake of you and other text-speak users, here is what Black's Law Dictionary says about the difference:



> What is UNLAWFUL?
> That which is contrary to law. Unlawful and illegal are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, unlawful, as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, although not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy. It is on this ground that contracts in restraint of marriage or of trade are generally void. Sweet. And see Hagerman v. Buchanan, 45 N. J. Eq. 292, 17 Atl. 946, 14 Am. St Rep. 732; Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 467; Johnson v. State, 66 Ohio St. 59. 63 N. E. 607. 61 L. R. A. 277, 90 Am. St. Rep. 564; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 South. 837, 26 Am. St. Rep. 75; MacDaniel v. U. S






> Because that would mean they are attempting to maintain legal status.


On the contrary. They are actual unlawful residents trying to get, not maintain, legal status. 




> An unlawful presence is an illegal presence. What you are doing is a type of sophistry called "equivocation."


As you see, no it isn't. So in fact, it's you who are equivocating. You are taking laws that refer to people as "unlawful" residents and trying to treat that word as though it is the same as designating them as "illegal."

The whole reason the US Code does not use the word "illegal" in this context is because of this difference between unlawful and illegal.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> That's not a choice that you get to make.  Elected persons swear an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.


It's also not a call Congress, or SCOTUS, or the US Constitution itself get to make. The Creator makes the call of what is right and wrong. And any law that is unjust is no law at all, constitutional or not.

That said, a legislator could take an oath to uphold the Constitution and still recognize that the Creator's law is the highest one, because that oath to uphold the Constitution generally should only keep them from passing unconstitutional laws. It doesn't obligate them to pass any given law just because it exercised a power the Constitution delegates to them.

And, consistent with your command of terminology so far in this thread (illegal, unlawful, naturalization, equivocate), you need a refresher on treason. The Constitution itself defines "treason," and it is not simply any time a legislator violates their oath of office. It is when somebody wars against the states.




> It's funny how the men who actually wrote the Constitution seemed to think it covered immigration


They didn't. But more importantly than what they thought is what it actually says. You can't take its use of the word "naturalization" and just willy nilly extrapolate that out to include "immigration." That's not what "naturalization" means.

Also, in my opinion the proper way to approach originalism is not just to consider what the writer of the Constitution's words intended (especially Hamilton), but more importantly what they signified to those who ratified them.

And even when it comes to those who wrote them, it's fallacious to fall into the trap so many big-government conservatives often do of appealing to unconstitutional actions of early politicians as proof that their unconstitutional actions were actually constitutional just because they were "founders" and had to know what the original intent was. For while they were "founders," they were also corrupt politicians.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I haven't resorted to any sophistry.


Bull$#@!. And that's why I'm not going to waste my valuable time answering your same concern trolls over and over and over.

----------


## Superfluous Man

The parts of the US Code Gunny already copied sufficiently proved my case. But there's another part that puts the nail in the coffin. It's  Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part IV, § 1229c - "Voluntary Departure."

I won't copy and paste the whole long section, but here's the opening subsection:



> (a) Certain conditions
> (1) In general
> The Attorney General may permit an alien voluntarily to depart the United States at the alien’s own expense under this subsection, in lieu of being subject to proceedings under section 1229a of this title or prior to the completion of such proceedings, if the alien is not deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) or section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229c

So, in fact, depending on the circumstances, it can actually be illegal for unlawful residents to leave the USA. They're mere existence in the USA isn't a violation of any law, but rather an actual requirement of the law.

Also, here's another portion from elsewhere in the Code. This one might at first make the people who think that just being in the USA is a continuous breaking of a law for unlawful residents, until you notice a key part. Then it's clear that it doesn't support that claim.  It's  Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, § 134d - "Civil Penalties for Failure to Depart."



> (a) In general
> Any alien subject to a final order of removal who—
> (1) willfully fails or refuses to—
> (A) depart from the United States pursuant to the order,
> (B) make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary for departure, or
> (C) present for removal at the time and place required by the Attorney General; or
> (2) conspires to or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper the alien’s departure pursuant to the order,
> shall pay a civil penalty of not more than $500 to the Commissioner for each day the alien is in violation of this section.


The key part to which I referred is that this daily accrual of civil penalty only applies to aliens who are subject to a final order of removal. For unlawful residents in general, there is no such continuously growing penalty, for indeed, until they receive that order, they are not perpetually breaking any law, but rather have only committed some singular misdemeanor at the time they entered the USA (similar to jay walking).

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Bull$#@!. And that's why I'm not going to waste my valuable time answering your same concern trolls over and over and over.


Good idea.

Rather, invest that time in looking up definitions of all the words you misuse.

But this hasn't been a total waste of time. I can already see that you are getting incrementally more articulate than when you first engaged me.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> He's right about the door to door knocking and paperz pleez


No.  Gary is LYING about door-to-door knocking.  Trump is not proposing that.  It's a shame Gary feels he has to lie so much.

----------

