# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

## XTreat

> Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney was stunned on Monday to hear that former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano believed the federal government had no right to restrict immigration.
> 
> While discussing the latest plan for immigration reform, Napolitano doubted Republicans would do the right thing by expanding the freedoms of immigrants.
> 
> If Stuart Varney & Company were a real company, lets say you were a small manufacturing company, you made widgets in northern New Jersey, you should be able to hire whoever you want, Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst for Fox News, said. As long as the person obeys the law and pays taxes what business is it of the federal government where they were born?
> 
> 
> This is the natural law, a natural right, he added. Rights come from your humanity. It doesnt matter where your mother was when you were born.
> 
> ...


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/2...natural-right/

----------


## XTreat

For the record I agree with the judge on this and I am glad he laid it out there. Immigration will never be controlled by armies or police forces or drones or machine gun nests. The economy will always control the border. Cheap labor is a good thing and market forces will decide when cheap labor is needed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Bull$#@!.

There is no right to become a citizen of our country.   There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?

I firmly disagree with the Judge.

----------


## Confederate

Love the Judge but I completely disagree with this.  

There is no right to violate US sovereignty, you do not have a right to go wherever you want. Citizenship is also not a right.

----------


## rp08orbust

> Love the Judge but I completely disagree with this.  
> 
> There is no right to violate US sovereignty, you do not have a right to go wherever you want. Citizenship is also not a right.


There is no "US sovereignty", there is only individual sovereignty, and no government has any right to violate it.

----------


## BAllen

The judge is way off on this. The reason being, that everything else in the market is manipulated, so the economy will not be able to determine the best wages. Someone needs to show him that clip of lawyer firms that teach companies how to cheat Americans out of high tech jobs. And he needs learn about the over-inflated housing market. You can't leave labor wide open without fixing the other things in the marketplace. Plus they drain the resources of our country. With millions out of work, there is no reason at all to allow any more immigrants.

----------


## XTreat

Who said anything about a right to citizenship?

----------


## CaptUSA

The Judge is once again absolutely right.  However, there is a problem.

In our current system of entitlement governance, you can't have the type of immigration the Judge speaks of without causing serious damage.  If we return our system back to one based on natural law, then the Judge would be correct.  

How many of _us_ want to become "undocumented"?!

----------


## itshappening

There's no right to walk into another country and become a citizen. 

total B.S!

----------


## rp08orbust

> There's no right to walk into another country and become a citizen.


You have a right to walk anywhere you want without trespassing on private property.

I agree, though, that no one has a right to citizenship.  But at the same time, non-citizens have the same natural rights as citizens.

----------


## otherone

the Judge is not talking about _"citizenship"_.

----------


## LibertyEagle

As long as the welfare state exists, this should be a non-issue.

Get rid of the welfare state and birthright citizenship and THEN we will talk.  Until then, NO!

----------


## XTreat

I don't support immigrants getting welfare handouts exactly the same amount as I support citizens getting handouts.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Cheap labor is a good thing


There are already 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country.  How many more do you think we need for prosperity?

----------


## XTreat

For those of you who disagree what is your proposal for removing the immigrants and stopping them from coming in?

Should we borrow the money from china or the Fed to fund this?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't support immigrants getting welfare handouts exactly the same amount as I support citizens getting handouts.


They aren't "immigrants"; they are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

----------


## XTreat

> There are already 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country.  How many more do you think we need for prosperity?


You left out the part where I said the economy controls the border. If the market has a demand for unskilled labor then they will find a way to get here to provide it. I am sure at some point there is a high enough wall you can build to make it cost prohibitive, but until then the market will rule.

----------


## fisharmor

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> There is no right to become a citizen of our country.   There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?


We've been over this ad nauseum.  There is nothing constitutional about the laws to begin with.  You need to ridiculously stretch the meaning of the word "invasion" in order to make your point.  Blah blah.  Please come up with a coherent argument about why the laws are valid, which doesn't simultaneously destroy any other original intent interpretation of the constitution that you actually DO believe.

However I do agree with you that they have no right to become citizens.  That is not the issue.  I do not care if you prevent them from voting.  I do care that you have created two classes of individual rights, based on nothing more than a total "living document" interpretation of the constitution.




> I firmly disagree with the Judge.


And I support him now more than ever.  He can obviously read and process English sentences.

----------


## XTreat

> They aren't "immigrants"; they are ILLEGAL ALIENS.


I support illegal aliens getting handouts exactly as much as I support citizens getting handouts.

----------


## fisharmor

> There is no right to violate US sovereignty, you do not have a right to go wherever you want.


Then I take it you are also in favor of sobriety checkpoints?
The TSA is A-OK, because we have no right to travel?
Shall we implement similar measures at train stations and bus stops?

How about we pass a law requiring citizens to register travel outside their home city?  
It's about the only thing from 1984 that I haven't seen seriously considered recently, so congratulations: the liberty movement is responsible for figuring out how to make Orwell's predictions more complete.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I support illegal aliens getting handouts exactly as much as I support citizens getting handouts.


I'm pretty sure the Judge would feel the same way about this, too.

----------


## CaptUSA

> They aren't "immigrants"; they are ILLEGAL ALIENS.


They are only "illegal" because the government made them illegal.  When a law is unjust, do you feel an obligation to adhere to that law?

I'm with you about making sure they are not profiting from our welfare system, but they are most certainly immigrants.  If it were easier to declare themselves such, most of them would do so.  When the Judge speaks of natural law, he's not speaking about the law of this government, but the natural right to move freely.  The natural right to provide a better life for your family.  The natural right to flee poor economic conditions for better ones.  This is how nature fights tyranny.  Of course, governments want to control movement of people - they don't want people to have freedom.

----------


## CT4Liberty

How can anyone begrudge an individual for trying to make a better life for themselves and their family?  If I were in Mexico, living in poverty and could cross an imaginary line and get a job working hard scrubbing toilets and be able to put my kids into school in order to better their lives, I would do it as well.

So long as they dont come in and try to take my property or infringe on my rights, all the best to them on improving their lives.

----------


## gwax23

As always I agree with the judge.

----------


## otherone

lol.  Statists in Liberty clothing.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> So long as they dont come in and try to take my property or infringe on my rights, all the best to them on improving their lives.


In reality, they're sucking up tax dollars and clogging up schools, prisons and hospitals.  And if given the vote by being legalized, they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too.  Hope that is okay with you.

----------


## CaptUSA

> lol.  Statists in Liberty clothing.


Liberty for me, but none for thee?

----------


## CaptUSA

> In reality, they're sucking up tax dollars and clogging up schools, prisons and hospitals.  And if given the vote by being legalized, they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too.  Hope that is okay with you.


It's not ok with me.  Hell, I don't think it's ok for any of us.  But you can't defend liberty by restricting it.

----------


## otherone

> *they*'re sucking up tax dollars and clogging up schools, prisons and hospitals.  And if given the vote by being legalized, *they*'ll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too.


uh oh.  Dropping the "they" bomb.  And what are "they" having for breakfast today, o Great Karnak?

----------


## fisharmor

> In reality, they're sucking up tax dollars and clogging up schools, prisons and hospitals.  And if given the vote by being legalized, they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too.  Hope that is okay with you.


Eliminate the schools and prisons: problem solved.
Deregulate the hospitals: problem solved.
Support a national party that doesn't treat them like subhuman vermin: problem solved.

Let's see how this logic works....
Problem A is a completely independent problem that causes far-reaching societal issues, including brainwashing children and locking up the ones whose conditioning doesn't take.
Problem B is, however, making problem A more expensive.
Therefore if we eliminate problem B, we'll all live happily ever after.

Does that sum it up?

----------


## dinosaur

Firmly disagree with a judge on this as well. 

But it is an interesting position in that it would put an end to all wars if implimented internationally.  All any bigger country would have to do when taking over a smaller country, is move a big enough "army" in there.

----------


## CT4Liberty

> In reality, they're sucking up tax dollars and clogging up schools, prisons and hospitals.  And if given the vote by being legalized, they'll mostly be voting for statist Democrats too.  Hope that is okay with you.


You're talking about 2 different topics though:
1 is the right for someone to move their family and try to better themselves so long as they are not hurting anyone else.  
The other is talking about our welfare state, which is something I dont support regardless of an individuals citizenship.

So if youre question is, do you support the welfare state? The answer is no, but I dont see how that has any impact on someone else moving their family to where they see the best opportunity and working hard to better themselves.

Are there leaches that move here with the sole intent of sucking the system dry? Absolutely, but the solution to that problem isnt to restrict people movement, its to stop the welfare state magnet that sucks them in.  Because even without illegals, the welfare state will eventually bust itself, who knows, letting them in may just accelerate the process.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> uh oh.  Dropping the "they" bomb.  And what are "they" having for breakfast today, o Great Karnak?


It's 12-20 million people.  How else do you propose anyone speak of them?  One by one?

Yes, well, Jose spent last week with his MS-13 buddies smuggling drugs...

----------


## CT4Liberty

> It's 12-20 million people.  How else do you propose anyone speak of them?  One by one?
> 
> Yes, well, Jose spent last week with his MS-13 buddies smuggling drugs...


So he got a job as a delivery man for a major pharmaceutical company?  Good for Jose, I wish him the best, sounds like hes earning his place in society.

----------


## BAllen

> You're talking about 2 different topics though:
> 1 is the right for someone to move their family and try to better themselves so long as they are not hurting anyone else.  
> The other is talking about our welfare state, which is something I dont support regardless of an individuals citizenship.
> 
> So if youre question is, do you support the welfare state? The answer is no, but I dont see how that has any impact on someone else moving their family to where they see the best opportunity and working hard to better themselves.
> 
> Are there leaches that move here with the sole intent of sucking the system dry? Absolutely, but the solution to that problem isnt to restrict people movement, its to stop the welfare state magnet that sucks them in.  Because even without illegals, the welfare state will eventually bust itself, who knows, letting them in may just accelerate the process.


 Have you forgotten the history of communists? They kill millions. If the funds for the welfare state run dry, they'll simply murder millions of citizens.

----------


## UMULAS

Anyone who has a problem with immigration (any type), please argue with me.

1_ Immigrants pay taxes
2_ Most immigrants don't get handouts
3_ Immigrants pay more taxes than most Americans


Finally, I fully support Judge Napolitano as a President for a libertarian using their brains.

----------


## UMULAS

> Have you forgotten the history of communists? They kill millions. If the funds for the welfare state run dry, they'll simply murder millions of citizens.


I want evidence that if welfare (since minority of immigrants use it, and why not since they pay taxes) will they kill citizens. 

Other than that, I smell the stormfront of the RPF's.

----------


## CT4Liberty

> Have you forgotten the history of communists? They kill millions. If the funds for the welfare state run dry, they'll simply murder millions of citizens.


Well if we all agree that the funds WILL run dry, the question is a matter of when...lets get it over with sooner rather than later so that I may be the one to suffer and not my grandkids.

----------


## UMULAS

> It's not ok with me.  Hell, I don't think it's ok for any of us.  But you can't defend liberty by restricting it.


Again I agree, abolish welfare. But most immigrants pay for welfare which is then a "right" since they are paying it.

----------


## UMULAS

> There are already 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country.  How many more do you think we need for prosperity?




Then you are a mercantilist, not a believer in the free-market.

And not all immigrants take jobs, immigrants make jobs. If you don't believe me, one day when you come and visit South Florida, I'll show you the average business men.

----------


## thoughtomator

The question is, do we as Americans have the right to self-determination? If so, then we also have the right to have a say in whether new people are allowed to come into the country.

Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.

----------


## Darguth

Judge is absolutely correct on this.  People confuse border security and immigration control.  We as a sovereign nation have the right and authority to secure our border.  This would include repelling invasion, preventing espionage, or other law enforcement necessary to enforce just laws (i.e. prevent a bank fraudster from fleeing to or from our nation).  However, we should not (and cannot justify morally) preventing immigration without just cause.  Doing so would violate the individual rights of immigrants as well as upset the free flow of labor necessary for a successful free market (in the exactly same way a free flow of capital is necessary).  "We don't want them here" or "we need to save American jobs" is not just cause under any concept of individual sovereignty and self-ownership.

----------


## UMULAS

> The question is, do we as Americans have the right to self-determination? If so, then we also have the right to have a say in whether new people are allowed to come into the country.
> 
> Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Although Artical 1, Section 8 of Constitution allows regulation of immigration, immigrants here have the right to stay here since you don't have to be a citizen to stay or live here.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Although Artical 1, Section 8 of Constitution allows regulation of immigration, immigrants here have the right to stay here since you don't have to be a citizen to stay or live here.


I'm fairly certain that that interpretation would not have been agreed on by the authors of the Constitution. If it allows regulation of immigration then it must necessarily have a provision to disallow an immigrant from coming here and living here, otherwise there's little point to the exercise.

----------


## XTreat

> How can anyone begrudge an individual for trying to make a better life for themselves and their family?  If I were in Mexico, living in poverty and could cross an imaginary line and get a job working hard scrubbing toilets and be able to put my kids into school in order to better their lives, I would do it as well.
> 
> So long as they dont come in and try to take my property or infringe on my rights, all the best to them on improving their lives.


Exactly.

----------


## CaptUSA

> The question is, do we as Americans have the right to self-determination? If so, then we also have the right to have a say in whether new people are allowed to come into the country.
> 
> Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.


Strange you should bring Jefferson into this...




> "I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration."





> "Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness."





> "Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."


All Thomas Jefferson.

His only concern was too rapid a growth of immigrants bringing with them a lust for tyranny.  I share that concern.  Which is why if we ended the entitlement system we have, immigration wouldn't need to be illegal and wouldn't be a problem.

----------


## XTreat

> Eliminate the schools and prisons: problem solved.
> Deregulate the hospitals: problem solved.
> Support a national party that doesn't treat them like subhuman vermin: problem solved.
> 
> Let's see how this logic works....
> Problem A is a completely independent problem that causes far-reaching societal issues, including brainwashing children and locking up the ones whose conditioning doesn't take.
> Problem B is, however, making problem A more expensive.
> Therefore if we eliminate problem B, we'll all live happily ever after.
> 
> Does that sum it up?



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Strange you should bring Jefferson into this...
> 
> 
> All Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> His only concern was too rapid a growth of immigrants bringing with them a lust for tyranny.  I share that concern.  Which is why if we ended the entitlement system we have, immigration wouldn't need to be illegal and wouldn't be a problem.


Note he specified _emigration_ as a right - but not immigration. You have the right to leave a place, but the place you want to go, if an established society exists there, is not required to accept you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm pretty sure the Judge would feel the same way about this, too.


Goody, then get out your checkbook and pay for the illegal aliens.  In fact today, why don't you go to your nearest emergency room and empty your bank account to pay for the illegal aliens who pop up there to get free medical care.  And then, go to your nearest public school and shell out the rest of your money to fund the illegal aliens education.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Even Ron Paul is NOT for open borders.  Most assuredly not while we have the welfare system we have.

If you guys want to pay for the illegal aliens, go for it.  But, get your hand out of my pocket.

----------


## LibertyEagle

*Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration.  If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad.  But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.*

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society.  They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked.  “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

read the rest...

----------


## CaptUSA

> Note he specified _emigration_ as a right - but not immigration. You have the right to leave a place, but the place you want to go, if an established society exists there, is not required to accept you.


How far down this hole do you want to go before you realize you don't understand Jefferson's position on this matter???



> "Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?"





> "It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and... the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times."





> "America is now, I think, the only country of tranquility and should be the asylum of all those who wish to avoid the scenes which have crushed our friends in [other lands]."





> "[We wish] but to consecrate a sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel to seek happiness in other climes. This refuge, once known, will produce reaction on the happiness even of those who remain there by warning their task-masters that when the evils of Egyptian oppression become heavier than those of the abandonment of country, another Canaan is open where their subjects will be received as brothers and secured against like oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government."


Again, all Jefferson.

Again, Jefferson cautioned about too rapid a growth, but it was never a question in his mind that this was a natural right and that this nation would be the sole nation on the planet that would not interfere with natural rights.  

We would not even be having this argument if it was not for the welfare state.  That is where the problem lies and that is where we should direct our attention.

----------


## supermario21

Dismantling the welfare state isn't going to happen. If we lived in Judge Nap's America I would be fine with it because there would be no welfare to go around, but they are leeches to the system and will keep voting for Democrats to boot. We're on a slippery slope. Let's keep caving into these fools. First, it will be citizenship. Then, when they realize that doesn't work, let's promise to keep Obamacare so they can get cheap health care...All while the state keeps growing and growing.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> How far down this hole do you want to go before you realize you don't understand Jefferson's position on this matter???


Did you even read this?
http://www.humanevents.com/2007/07/2...tion-skeptics/

Apparently not.

----------


## CaptUSA

LE, be careful about how you're reading Jefferson...  It was not a question of should immigration occur, it was a concern about the speed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LE, be careful about how you're reading Jefferson...  It was not a question of should immigration occur, it was a concern about the speed.


Of course.  No one here is against orderly immigration where people who WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS can be assimilated.  That is NOT what we have now.  Nor is it what many here in this thread are advocating.

----------


## sailingaway

We have seen how little power we have to end the welfare state.  I think it is disingenuous to suggest we start with that when the abuse of the system those who are forced to depend on because their money is stripped from them by law is ongoing and real.  

Yes, I agree it is the welfare system, but that exists, and the movement is to be all more 'inclusive' in letting those who didn't pay in into the various programs, after all, the elite don't use them, govt even has a pension system separate from Social Security.

It reminds me of when I worked at a company that wanted a program to give incentives for carpooling.  All sorts of prizes were thought up by those who weren't going to pay for them, but the CEO went with ENTRIES to a sweepstakes.  Then he could cap the cost of the prize and however many entries there were was no skin off the company's nose, and no extra cost.  So he could be outright lavish with awarding ENTRIES.

----------


## CT4Liberty

> Of course.  No one here is against orderly immigration where people who WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS can be assimilated.  That is NOT what we have now.  Nor is it what many here in this thread are advocating.


I see a big difference between immigration and citizenship... Article 1 Section 8 talks about naturalization (citizenship) but nowhere is the word immigration mentioned.  People should be able to freely move through our country, so long as they obey the laws of the State they are in and any Federal laws.

If they want to "become Americans" then there is a process for that, which not everyone will be allowed to become.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Of course.  No one here is against orderly immigration where people who WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS can be assimilated.  That is NOT what we have now.  Nor is it what many here in this thread are advocating.


Perhaps, this is the most instructive quote:



> "If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." - TJ


Jefferson most certainly was in favor of immigration, but was concerned that some wanted to actively encourage more to come.  This is the welfare state.  It is encouraging people to come by giving them favors when they arrive.  Jefferson, and all of us, oppose this.  If you end this encouragement, you end the problem.

You don't need to further restrict the liberty of people.  Freedom solves problems.  Restrictions on freedom causes problems.


So to sum up Jefferson's _real_ thoughts on the matter... He didn't want the government to restrict what he saw as a natural right, but he also cautioned against actively promoting more immigration unnaturally.  This is almost exactly what the Judge is saying.

----------


## CT4Liberty

> You don't need to further restrict the liberty of people.  Freedom solves problems.  Restrictions on freedom causes problems.


So very true, which is why legislators love to do what they do... they write a law to fix a problem they created through unintended (I'll be generous and assume it was unintended) consequences of a previous law... rinse and repeat. Then they all high five each other and have a giant circle jerk of what great humanitarians they are because they "fixed" the problem.

----------


## Origanalist

> Dismantling the welfare state isn't going to happen. If we lived in Judge Nap's America I would be fine with it because there would be no welfare to go around, but they are leeches to the system and will keep voting for Democrats to boot. We're on a slippery slope. Let's keep caving into these fools. First, it will be citizenship. Then, when they realize that doesn't work, let's promise to keep Obamacare so they can get cheap health care...All while the state keeps growing and growing.


And there is reality, thank you.

----------


## fr33

Rights exist regardless if a government recognize them or not.

----------


## KingNothing

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> There is no right to become a citizen of our country.   There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?
> 
> I firmly disagree with the Judge.



There is no right to become a citizen?  Says who?  Why are we free to move where we want, worship as we want, speak as we want, and defend ourselves.... but not free to live where we want without some arbitrary documentation issued by an arbitrary group of people?

The Judge is exactly right.  His stance is the principled and consistent one.

----------


## KingNothing

> [B]Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration.



Any many owned slaves.  So what?  They were just men.  Intelligent though they may have been, they were still just men, complete with all the failings of man.  And the justification that Jefferson gave was totally utilitarian - and not the least bit principled.

----------


## erowe1

> There are already 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country.  How many more do you think we need for prosperity?


If we just legalized immigration, there would be zero illegal immigrants.

I want there to be zero illegal immigrants. Don't you?

Or is it really immigrants in general, and not just illegal ones, that you're concerned about?

----------


## familydog

How dare the Judge suggest that people outside of our imaginary lines on a map have natural rights? Doesn't he realize that only Amuricans have the right to move?

----------


## KingNothing

> As long as the welfare state exists, this should be a non-issue.
> 
> Get rid of the welfare state and birthright citizenship and THEN we will talk.  Until then, NO!



How about we get rid of citizenship, in general.

----------


## KingNothing

> How dare the Judge suggest that people outside of our imaginary lines on a map have natural rights? Doesn't he realize that only Amuricans have the right to move?




AMERICA, EFFF YEAH!

----------


## Carehn

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> There is no right to become a citizen of our country.   There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?
> 
> I firmly disagree with the Judge.


It may not be a right to become part of our club, but it is a natural right to move your body without concern for imaginary lines.

----------


## jllundqu

> There is no right to become a citizen?  Says who?  Why are we free to move where we want, worship as we want, speak as we want, and defend ourselves.... but not free to live where we want without some arbitrary documentation issued by an arbitrary group of people?
> 
> The Judge is exactly right.  His stance is the principled and consistent one.


Technically he is right, but only in theory... not in reality.  Reality is we live in a nation.  A nation has borders.  The open-borders crowd always buckles when you ask them how to keep criminals out and keep legal immigration in check.  In a truly free and sovereign world, yes, I would like to simply walk anywhere and do anything I wanted, regardless of borders and nation states... that ain't never gonna happen y'all!

I wish I lived in The Judge's world, and Ron Paul's world for that matter, but alas... we live in this one.  Granting citizenship to 12 million illlegals (whom all data shows would vote overwhelmingly Democrat) would end the two party system forever.  We would have a total socialist/communist statist's wet dream.

----------


## sailingaway

> And there is reality, thank you.


The huge problem they won't discuss is the chain family migration from it.  That is what 'broke' our system, the 1983 amnesty STILL has family members using preference visas making it almost impossible to enter for those not wealthy from the countries where the majority of people got amnesty.  What they should do is totally redo the system and let in those let in with their entire nuclear family (mom, dad, kids) but it is their choice to do it or not, after that, their family members would have to apply separately.  What happens is the poorest self select to root themselves up precisely BECAUSE the govt paid education and health care etc makes it worth it, in an unending stream.  the incentives are all wrong.  

But it is one thing to legalize those here a long time who have been good neighbors and have family here.  That is still rewarding bad behavior, but for those here a long time (and I think it should be drafted like that) it is really cruel to send them back.  That does not apply to their extended families not here, and it is NOT cruel imho to not reward them with voting.  I think a separate, unconvertible, permanent residency for those people should be considered.  But no chain migration should stem from it, because that is many times the count of the number of people already here.  I don't trust those in congress to actually do it, I expect them to keep the parts of law that says once you are here legally you can change status etc, and to pretend the existing law of change from green cards to citizenship doesn't exist in their discussion. That is what happened last time -- it was downright dishonest with the American people.

----------


## Carehn

> Dismantling the welfare state isn't going to happen. If we lived in Judge Nap's America I would be fine with it because there would be no welfare to go around, but they are leeches to the system and will keep voting for Democrats to boot. We're on a slippery slope. Let's keep caving into these fools. First, it will be citizenship. Then, when they realize that doesn't work, let's promise to keep Obamacare so they can get cheap health care...All while the state keeps growing and growing.



Have you ever had a mosquito bit you? Next time you do and catch it flex your muscles so it cant escape. It will just get bigger and bigger till it POPS. Think of the state like that mosquito. Maybe if it just keeps getting bigger and bigger one day it will pop. It will leave us with a bad case of lyme disease, but at least it got what was coming to it.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> How dare the Judge suggest that people outside of our imaginary lines on a map have natural rights? Doesn't he realize that only Amuricans have the right to move?


Only 'Merkins have God-given natural rights, because God is an American

----------


## KingNothing

> Technically he is right, but only in theory... not in reality.


You do realize that this is basically what everyone outside of Libertarians says about most liberty-oriented ideals, right?  "It sounds good, but we NEED government to do such and such."

I don't care much about "keeping criminals out" because I have absolutely no faith that the current system works any better in that regard than a totally borderless system would.  As far as "immigrants voting Democrat" I don't particularly care for that line of thinking either.  If the Republicans stop being a party built on fear and bigotry and become a party that embraces Liberty on all fronts, they may actually attract new voters.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> lol.  Statists in Liberty clothing.


Really?  Ok, I'll play.  That would make you a globalist in Liberty clothing; as you are doing their bidding, whether you realize it or not.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

Kudos to the Judge for out-libertarian-ing Ron on this issue--although Ron actually wasn't that bad--always cautioning against walls and the police state which are actually being built to keep us in and oppress us further.

If Judge Nap will challenge Rand for the Republican nomination, I'll have a reason to attend my county central committee meetings and keep my voting status current:

http://revolutionpac.com/articles/draft-judge-napolitano-for-president

----------


## KingNothing

> Really?  Ok, I'll play.  That would make you a globalist in Liberty clothing; as you are doing their bidding, whether you realize it or not.



LOL!

Right.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> How about we get rid of citizenship, in general.


Because it would be stupid, that's why.

Look, we cannot change how all the people in the world want to live or what kind of government, if any, that they want to have.  The best we can do right now is to carve out a piece of the world and live by the rules we want in that small piece.  That is what a country should be about and borders separate it from the rest of the world.  

It is la la land to believe that there aren't people in this world, and yes, outside our own government, who want the entire damn world under their control and they will stop at nothing to make it so.  These people want borders to disappear.  That is what all the so-called free trade agreements are about and all the "unions"... African Union, European Union, etc.  There are a lot of them and they are just a precursor to the globalists' wet dream of world government.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LOL!
> 
> Right.


Yes.  Right!  And the sad thing is that you do not even realize it.

----------


## sailingaway

> How dare the Judge suggest that people outside of our imaginary lines on a map have natural rights? Doesn't he realize that only Amuricans have the right to move?



this ignores that people have sums stripped from them without their agreement by govt to pay for things like schools, medical and retirement funds which are over burdened so the quality is terrible. The amounts are too great for the middle class in the areas worst hit by illegal immigration to afford the private schools (about $30,000 per child per year in Los Angeles for a decent one, right now.)  So they need the quality of what they are being forced to pay for to stay as good as possible.  I DO believe in sovereignty and I do believe a govt has a duty to look out for its citizens above anyone else.  How else would you ever have local self determination of government?  Note I am speaking of a government, not anarchy, because I do believe in a small government.

Regardless of the philosophical underpinning, I don't think the government of this country can legitimately force its citizens to pay for services and then let unlimited poor people from elsewhere use them.  Those who get more in benefits then they pay in do drain what is available, and language is an additional cost.   Language is also now cut in most schools until high school, in Los Angeles and then only Spanish is available, typically.  It is very difficult to become fluent in ANY language with that, so only kids of those who speak English do NOT come out of the school system bilingual.  That is a major market disadvantage, right there.

you can't have open borders and a welfare state, and there is no plan on the table to end the welfare state, to the contrary.  

This is one of the topics there has always been a split on here, however, abortion being the other.  Some people do believe in sovereignty and the ability of a country to set the rules of entry, some don't.  Some believe life begins at conception, some don't.  I have never seen anyone convinced of the opposing position.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It may not be a right to become part of our club, but it is a natural right to move your body without concern for imaginary lines.


You believe national sovereignty is imaginary?

----------


## jllundqu

> You do realize that this is basically what everyone outside of Libertarians says about most liberty-oriented ideals, right?  "It sounds good, but we NEED government to do such and such."
> 
> I don't care much about "keeping criminals out" because I have absolutely no faith that the current system works any better in that regard than a totally borderless system would.  As far as "immigrants voting Democrat" I don't particularly care for that line of thinking either.  If the Republicans stop being a party built on fear and bigotry and become a party that embraces Liberty on all fronts, they may actually attract new voters.



So in your world view... we have complete and total open borders, no nation states at all, and all will just be peachy?  And you also expect other nations to dissolve their borders as well right?  If we don't have a border, we no longer have a country... but I guess from a true Libertarian perspective that is what you would advocate.  I am not a libertarian... I am a minarchist... I like having a country with a founding document... and i like defending my country from those would would seek to dissolve it.  Globalists around the world are smiling at the fact that Ron Paul supporters like you are playing right into their plans to become borderless and further integrate nations into giant conglomerate corporate states ala the EU and North American Union.  No thanks...  I like my country with imaginary lines.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.   -theconstitution.org

----------


## fisharmor

> Controlling immigration is a prerequisite for sovereignty, which in turn is a prerequisite for the protection of rights, which in turn is why we instituted a government in the first place as per the Declaration of Independence. It is not quite so simple in declaring immigration to be a "right", because then you undermine the basis for protection of rights in the first place.


What right is being protected by disallowing immigration?
What right is being destroyed by allowing immigration?
Does the ninth amendment not exist?

----------


## fisharmor

> What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society.  They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.


Page 1 dealt with this.  Nobody is advocating that they be able to vote the second their clothes dry out.

----------


## CaptUSA

> you can't have open borders and a welfare state, and there is no plan on the table to end the welfare state, to the contrary.


I agree with this entirely.  I think the Judge would agree with you as well.  But when you are talking about natural rights, he was right on point.  The consistent position here is to dismantle the welfare state to stop luring people in, and then allow anyone who wants to come, to come.  If you don't do it in this order, you are asking for destruction.  I believe this position is held by both Ron Paul and the Judge.

----------


## familydog

The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving. 

I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving. 
> 
> I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."


Spoken like a true world government aficionado.

Sorry, but none for me.

----------


## jllundqu

> The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving. 
> 
> I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."


It is not a lack of empathy...  it is a matter of property rights.  The Judge is spot on in terms of all human beings have natural rights.  Put that into the context of a massive welfare state and it gets complicated.  If I am forced to pay thru taxation etc for the endless masses that come here illegally, of course I don't want an open border!  That would lead to ruin and a complete destruction of my property rights!  You can't simultaneously have millions of people flooding the country while an oppressive government says "Oh by the way, we are going to steal from the rest of you to pay for all of them"

If we lived in a world where my property rights were intact and we had a minarchist form of government, you could erase the border, no issues!

----------


## KingNothing

> The resounding lack of empathy for fellow human beings here is quite unnerving. 
> 
> I feel very sad for those who will use violence and domination to uphold the archaic concept of a "nation."


I totally agree with you.  I know that I don't have the heart to actually turn anyone away.

----------


## KingNothing

> Spoken like a true world government aficionado.
> 
> Sorry, but none for me.


World Government Aficionado's are concerned with individuals and basic human freedom?  News to me.  

You do realize that just because one entity that may be "bad" holds a belief, that does not necessarily make the belief "bad," don't you?



"You love your wife?  Why, you know that Hitler loved his too, don't you, you Nazi sympathizer!"

----------


## Carehn

> You believe national sovereignty is imaginary?


Yep, I don't believe the guns are or the welfare. but the idea of a nation is made up. If I was a mexican I would jump the border too. To you think the animal life on the border give a rats ass what site they are on? Why should humans? Its just land.

----------


## jllundqu

> Yep, I don't believe the guns are or the welfare. but the idea of a nation is made up. If I was a mexican I would jump the border too. To you think the animal life on the border give a rats ass what site they are on? Why should humans? Its just land.


Wow... so now we are simply dumb animals.  Okie dokie!

----------


## familydog

> It is not a lack of empathy...  it is a matter of property rights.  The Judge is spot on in terms of all human beings have natural rights.  Put that into the context of a massive welfare state and it gets complicated.  If I am forced to pay thru taxation etc for the endless masses that come here illegally, of course I don't want an open border!  That would lead to ruin and a complete destruction of my property rights!  You can't simultaneously have millions of people flooding the country while an oppressive government says "Oh by the way, we are going to steal from the rest of you to pay for all of them"
> 
> If we lived in a world where my property rights were intact and we had a minarchist form of government, you could erase the border, no issues!


I understand your argument. However...

-They didn't choose the circumstances of their birth.
-They didn't choose to exist in a "War on Drugs" which destabilized their economy, destroyed millions of families and murdered millions more. 
-They didn't choose a government that subsidizes corporate agriculture at the expense of small farmers.
-They didn't choose to live in one of the most dangerous places in the world, under a government that will murder them for having guns to protect themselves.
-Finally, they didn't choose to be so impoverished by government that they need to use government welfare services afforded to all Amuricans. 

Look, the problems are not the victims of government violence.

The problem is government.

----------


## supermario21

Looks like the national immigration debate where the pro-amnesty crowd cries racism has made it to even these forums...sad to see, I'm sure many of us came from immigrant families within the last few generations. The problem isn't now, but in a few years. You know who's going to benefit the most from the proposed Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, or the subsidies for those that don't have it? Yep-the freshly amnestied illegals. Gee, I wonder who they vote for when candidate A is on the ballot (hopefully Rand Paul) saying he wants to dismantle Obamacare and reform entitlements and candidate B is saying how we need to preserve the safety net because Americans "take care of everyone." If you thought the environment was bad now, try when you've got millions who have brand new voting rights and are far more pro-big government than any of you could ever think. Pick 1, entitlements/welfare, or amnesty, but both are destructive to this country and will further push us to 1-world European/UN government.

----------


## QuickZ06

Americans telling other immigrants they are not welcome unless the king of the land (government) allows it, IRONY!

----------


## jllundqu

> I understand your argument. However...
> 
> -They didn't choose the circumstances of their birth.
> -They didn't choose to exist in a "War on Drugs" which destabilized their economy, destroyed millions of families and murdered millions more. 
> -They didn't choose a government that subsidizes corporate agriculture at the expense of small farmers.
> -They didn't choose to live in one of the most dangerous places in the world, under a government that will murder them for having guns to protect themselves.
> -Finally, they didn't choose to be so impoverished by government that they need to use government welfare services afforded to all Amuricans. 
> 
> Look, the problems are not the victims of government violence.
> ...


I agree with everything you just said!

--Just like I didn't choose to live in a welfare state
--I didn't choose to persecute the war on drugs
--I didn't vote to elect frauds for so called "leaders"
--It is not my problem that their country is a 3rd world narco state (admittedly a US created one)... I don't want that spilling into my back yard (Im in Arizona).

The problem IS government, as you say, but you are advocating more government force against me to pay for mexico's failed state!

----------


## CaptUSA

Pretty slick trick for the State, eh?

You know, get people all hooked on special favors by taking money from other people.  Then, people in foreign lands want to get in on those favors and it attracts them.  Then, the people whose money was being stolen want MORE government to keep those other people out.  

If that doesn't work well enough, let's make certain plants illegal that people want.  Then, we'll fight with guns anyone who tries to bring those plants over the border.  When crimes increase and things start to crumble, the people whose rights to those plants were being infringed, want MORE government to build higher walls and use more violence and tougher restrictions to prevent the chaos.

Damn, it feels good to be a statist.  It's so easy.

Government causes problems -> people want MORE government to solve them!

----------


## jllundqu

> Pretty slick trick for the State, eh?
> 
> You know, get people all hooked on special favors by taking money from other people.  Then, people in foreign lands want to get in on those favors and it attracts them.  Then, the people whose money was being stolen want MORE government to keep those other people out.  
> 
> If that doesn't work well enough, let's make certain plants illegal that people want.  Then, we'll fight with guns anyone who tries to bring those plants over the border.  When crimes increase and things start to crumble, the people whose rights to those plants were being infringed, want MORE government to build higher walls and use more violence and tougher restrictions to prevent the chaos.
> 
> Damn, it feels good to be a statist.  It's so easy.
> 
> Government causes problems -> people want MORE government to solve them!

----------


## jclay2

> As long as the welfare state exists, this should be a non-issue.
> 
> Get rid of the welfare state and birthright citizenship and THEN we will talk.  Until then, NO!


Absolutely agree with this. As long as we are borrowing like its going out of style, we need to be firmly against any advances for amnesty and lax immigration.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Absolutely agree with this. As long as we are borrowing like its going out of style, we need to be firmly against any advances for amnesty and lax immigration.


Trust me, I fully understand the order in which things need to occur, but I find it incredibly difficult to argue _for_ liberty while arguing _against_ it.  I will not allow the failures of this government to drive me into their arms asking for MORE government.  It won't happen.

----------


## otherone

> Spoken like a true world government aficionado.
> 
> Sorry, but none for me.


ok.  Let's play.
America..."land of the free".  People want to come here because they want to be "free".   It's a nice idea.  Why America is supposed to be so frickin' sweet is that WE as an OF FOR and BY state acknowledge that ALL people have u-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e Rights, and that this state is in existence fundamentally to protect those Rights.  Saying "citizens only" for those unalienable Rights means the STATE NOW CONTROLS who has unalienable Rights, as it's the State that grants citizenship.  The state does NOT create Rights.   As far as "globalism" is concerned, America is supposed to be the frickin' city on the hill....
(this is a Liberty Movement, right?)

----------


## jllundqu

> Trust me, I fully understand the order in which things need to occur, but I find it incredibly difficult to argue _for_ liberty while arguing _against_ it.  I will not allow the failures of this government to drive me into their arms asking for MORE government.  It won't happen.


So what would be your solution? Government cannot be completely removed from the equation.  If you remove government from one part of the equation (lets say just dissolve the border and let everyone in) then one would have to remove government from the other parts of the equation (welfare, taxation, etc.).  It's an impossible situation.. and like you said, created that way intentionally by statists.  How does one REALISTICALLY solve the problem?

----------


## The Goat

+1, very well stated. 




> ok.  Let's play.
> America..."land of the free".  People want to come here because they want to be "free".   It's a nice idea.  Why America is supposed to be so frickin' sweet is that WE as an OF FOR and BY state acknowledge that ALL people have u-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e Rights, and that this state is in existence fundamentally to protect those Rights.  Saying "citizens only" for those unalienable Rights means the STATE NOW CONTROLS who has unalienable Rights, as it's the State that grants citizenship.  The state does NOT create Rights.   As far as "globalism" is concerned, America is supposed to be the frickin' city on the hill....
> (this is a Liberty Movement, right?)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You have a right to walk anywhere you want without trespassing on private property.


 In a free society, _everywhere_ is private property.  So no, you have no _right_ to walk anywhere except on property which you own.  In a free society like this, immigration goes from a macro problem to a micro one -- each person must decide to whom he wishes to grant the _privilege_ of occupying his property.

----------


## presence

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

----------


## Romulus

You can not legalize a natural right, says the Judge.

----------


## Dick Chaney

wow... judge.

----------


## familydog

> I agree with everything you just said!
> 
> --Just like I didn't choose to live in a welfare state
> --I didn't choose to persecute the war on drugs
> --I didn't vote to elect frauds for so called "leaders"
> --It is not my problem that their country is a 3rd world narco state (admittedly a US created one)... I don't want that spilling into my back yard (Im in Arizona).
> 
> The problem IS government, as you say, but you are advocating more government force against me to pay for mexico's failed state!


Actually, I'm advocating the dissolution of all welfare. What I am not advocating for is holding a gun to someone's head in order to stop them from crossing an imaginary line.

----------


## otherone

> Actually, I'm advocating the dissolution of all welfare. What I am not advocating for is holding a gun to someone's head in order to stop them from crossing an imaginary line.


I believe step one is starving the federal government.

----------


## Ender

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> There is no right to become a citizen of our country.   There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?
> 
> I firmly disagree with the Judge.


I say bull$#@! to your statement- the Judge is spot-on.

If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, then you believe in the natural rights that come with being human. Get rid of entitlements and let people work and support free enterprise. Then EVERYONE prospers.

This country was never more prosperous than when immigration was easy.

----------


## CaptUSA

> So what would be your solution? Government cannot be completely removed from the equation.  If you remove government from one part of the equation (lets say just dissolve the border and let everyone in) then one would have to remove government from the other parts of the equation (welfare, taxation, etc.).  It's an impossible situation.. and like you said, created that way intentionally by statists.  How does one REALISTICALLY solve the problem?


Really, it's either a dismantling of the welfare state or a collapse of the welfare state.  There is no other solution.  But I will NOT give the government more power to restrict the liberty of people.  I will NOT.  They don't get to do this.  They don't get to receive more power to "fix" a problem they created.  They can either dismantle the welfare state or allow it to collapse.

----------


## Ender

> In a free society, _everywhere_ is private property.  So no, you have no _right_ to walk anywhere except on property which you own.  In a free society like this, immigration goes from a macro problem to a micro one -- each person must decide to whom he wishes to grant the _privilege_ of occupying his property.


Really.

So the English settlers were trespassing on private Indian property?

----------


## Ender

> ok.  Let's play.
> America..."land of the free".  People want to come here because they want to be "free".   It's a nice idea.  Why America is supposed to be so frickin' sweet is that WE as an OF FOR and BY state acknowledge that ALL people have u-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e Rights, and that this state is in existence fundamentally to protect those Rights.  Saying "citizens only" for those unalienable Rights means the STATE NOW CONTROLS who has unalienable Rights, as it's the State that grants citizenship.  The state does NOT create Rights.   As far as "globalism" is concerned, America is supposed to be the frickin' city on the hill....
> (this is a Liberty Movement, right?)


Well said.

----------


## sailingaway

> Really.
> 
> So the English settlers were trespassing on private Indian property?


If they had that system of laws, yes, but they had an open borders approach. See how that worked out for them...

--
LOL!  I shouldn't get into this. I was looking to see if anyone addressed my points and no one did.  They are my basis for what I believe, though, and all the rest, to me, doesn't address the situation we are actually in.

----------


## Ender

> If they had that system of laws, yes, but they had an open borders approach. See how that worked out for them...


The "system of laws" you are advocating are antithesis to freedom.

----------


## sailingaway

> The "system of laws" you are advocating are antithesis to freedom.


I'm not in the all land is private property camp, I'm in the sovereign nation camp. Were there no forced payments for school and medical and retirement and limited funds already insufficient for the burden on those systems, I would argue and vote as policy to my nation to have very, very welcoming immigration.  However, where those things exist and have real impacts on those using, for example, a school system for their kids after years and years of working and paying for the schools so they would be there when needed, I don't think it is a legitimate use of government to swamp those systems with unlimited amounts of people who take out more in benefits than they pay in to those systems.

It is the existence of the use of force in the first instance that created the situation, but now here we are.

----------


## otherone

> --
>  They are my basis for what I believe, though, and all the rest, to me, doesn't address the situation we are actually in.


Everything boils down to this question:
Who is sovereign: The state, or the individual?

----------


## Carehn

> Wow... so now we are simply dumb animals.  Okie dokie!


Yes. that's exactly what I said.

----------


## Ender

> I'm not in the all land is private property camp, I'm in the sovereign nation camp. Were there no forced payments for school and medical and retirement and limited funds already insufficient for the burden on those systems, I would argue and vote as policy to my nation to have very, very welcoming immigration.  However, where those things exist and have real impacts on those using, for example, a school system for their kids after years and years of working and paying for the schools so they would be there when needed, I don't think it is a legitimate use of government to swamp those systems with unlimited amounts of people who take out more in benefits than they pay in to those systems.
> 
> It is the existence of the use of force in the first instance that created the situation, but now here we are.


I repeat my earlier remark:

_If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, then you believe in the natural rights that come with being human. Get rid of entitlements and let people work and support free enterprise. Then EVERYONE prospers.

This country was never more prosperous than when immigration was easy._

----------


## sailingaway

> Everything boils down to this question:
> Who is sovereign: The state, or the individual?



No, that is how you start your decision tree. I think individuals formed nationstates to defend their rights to create their own system of governance, and they have a right, if they are dumb enough, to want socialism, but when the state forces people to give up the fruit of their labor to pay for it the state has the obligation to manage it with integrity to deliver the promised services.  I don't like socialism, but I do believe in self determination through local rule, and sovereignty, to me, is necessary to that, or how do you create your own way of life and protect it?

I am not an anarchist, as I said.

----------


## sailingaway

> I repeat my earlier remark:
> 
> _If you believe in the Declaration of Independence, then you believe in the natural rights that come with being human. Get rid of entitlements and let people work and support free enterprise. Then EVERYONE prospers.
> 
> This country was never more prosperous than when immigration was easy._


And it didn't have public schools mandated by the federal govt etc etc. As I said the issues are two, sovereignty and what is it moral to get rid of first? I think you have to ween off the welfare state because people who have already paid in have been rendered dependent.  Meanwhile impacts on the systems is a very real point to consider.

I agree with your perfect world, on this point, but government is continually INCREASING the welfare state, not getting rid of it, and that is our reality.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

Reasons like this are why I don't identify as a libertarian.

----------


## otherone

> I don't like socialism, but I do believe in self determination through local rule, and sovereignty, to me, is necessary to that, or how do you create your own way of life and protect it?
> 
> I am not an anarchist, as I said.


Socialism violates those Rights that you say your formed government was created to protect.  I'm not an anarchist either.  It's not the governments job to protect your "way of life", it would have to violate yours or someone elses Rights in order to do so.  It's government's job to protect your Rights.

----------


## Ender

> And it didn't have public schools mandated by the federal govt etc etc. As I said the issues are two, sovereignty and what is it moral to get rid of first? I think you have to ween off the welfare state because people who have already paid in have been rendered dependent.  Meanwhile impacts on the systems is a very real point to consider.
> 
> I agree with your perfect world, on this point, but government is continually INCREASING the welfare state, not getting rid of it, and that is our reality.


So- your solution is more government? More government to solve too much government?

Time to understand what real freedom is, my friend; and it has nothing to do with a "perfect world" scenario.

----------


## otherone

> Time to understand what real freedom is, my friend; and it has nothing to do with a "perfect world" scenario.


Maybe we can ask the mods for a "Liberty" subforum?

----------


## Ender

> Maybe we can ask the mods for a "Liberty" subforum?


+1

----------


## AuH20

> Reasons like this are why I don't identify as a libertarian.


On paper, Libertarians are right on this subject. When you actually start practicing such policies in the physical realm with with real human bodies, they are extremely mistaken.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So- your solution is more government? More government to solve too much government?
> 
> Time to understand what real freedom is, my friend; and it has nothing to do with a "perfect world" scenario.


Be sure and tell Ron Paul too, why don't you?  Because he is a strong advocate of national sovereignty and is totally against any semblance of open borders while the welfare state is in place.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Maybe we can ask the mods for a "Liberty" subforum?


There is already one for political philosophies.  That is where the anarchist stuff goes.  Knock yourself out.

----------


## XTreat

> Goody, then get out your checkbook and pay for the illegal aliens.  In fact today, why don't you go to your nearest emergency room and empty your bank account to pay for the illegal aliens who pop up there to get free medical care.  And then, go to your nearest public school and shell out the rest of your money to fund the illegal aliens education.


Immigrants pay for their own public schooling. Do they not pay property tax? Do they not pay sales tax? Do they not pay excise tax? 

AS far as hospitals go, again your problem seems to be with government regulation of the market, not immigrants particularly. Do you have a problem with citizens crowding ER's? Should we deport them?

----------


## CT4Liberty

I still do not get the whole argument that by allowing immigration we are losing national sovereignty ... unless we still do not distinguish immigration from citizenship?

If someone wants to come here, find a job, rent a house and obey the laws, how are we losing any sovereignty?  They are not citizens, they are merely migrant workers who will help keep the balance in the markets.

Unless your claim is that only US Citizens should have rights to jobs or be allowed to come visit the US...because if thats the case we should start booting out all those people on visas or vacationing in Disney!

Bottom line is, if someone is the best qualified person for a job and wants to take it, who am I to stop him. Using the current welfare state to advocate against someone freely and legally obtaining a job and living somewhere, while not infringing on anyone elses rights is the same type of arguments gun grabbers make to take away everyones guns. 1- it doesnt solve the real problem, it merely goes after the symptoms and 2- you cannot defend liberty by taking it away.

----------


## XTreat

I have yet to hear a solution as to how we are going to remove 15 million "illegals" or stop anymore from coming in.

----------


## CaptUSA

> I have yet to hear a solution as to how we are going to remove 15 million "illegals" or stop anymore from coming in.


MOAR GUVMINT!

----------


## jllundqu

> I have yet to hear a solution as to how we are going to remove 15 million "illegals" or stop anymore from coming in.


Dont remove them.  Give them a path to legalization but not a path to citizenship.  Give all 15 million a choice:

1.  Self-Deport and apply to become a USC the legal way

or

2. Stay in the US LEGALLY (simply amend the Immigration and Nationality Act) and make them all Lawful Permanent Residents.  They would have legal status, be out of the shadows, paying taxes, etc.  If they choose to stay in the US legally as LPRs, they would forever forfeit becoming US Citizens (aka could never vote democratic).

This seems to me to be a great comprimise.  The left gets what they want (mostly):  victory lap on immigration, etc.  The right gets what they want.

----------


## KingNothing

> Wow... so now we are simply dumb animals.  Okie dokie!




I think in this instance he's saying that we're much dumber than other animals, and he's right.

----------


## KingNothing

> --It is not my problem that their country is a 3rd world narco state (admittedly a US created one)... I don't want that spilling into my back yard (Im in Arizona).



It is your problem.  It is my problem.  Every single one of us contributes to this problem, and every single one of us is hurt by it in some form or another.

For better or worse, we are citizens.  We vote.  Politicians, by definition, must listen to enough of us to win or retain their seats.  If government policy is failing us as individuals or as society, it is our fault -- either because we are not active enough, or because we are not capable enough to overcome its obfuscation and manipulation.

To say this isn't your problem is to ignore your inherent obligation as a human being.

----------


## QuickZ06

> If they had that system of laws, yes, but they had an open borders approach. See how that worked out for them...


It was not the lack of laws that got the in the situation they were in, it was the fact they did not organize until it was too late.

----------


## KingNothing

> Trust me, I fully understand the order in which things need to occur, but I find it incredibly difficult to argue _for_ liberty while arguing _against_ it.  I will not allow the failures of this government to drive me into their arms asking for MORE government.  It won't happen.


Amazing post!

----------


## QuickZ06

> MOAR GUVMINT!


MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## KingNothing

> Immigrants pay for their own public schooling. Do they not pay property tax? Do they not pay sales tax? Do they not pay excise tax? 
> 
> AS far as hospitals go, again your problem seems to be with government regulation of the market, not immigrants particularly. Do you have a problem with citizens crowding ER's? Should we deport them?



Does Liberty Eagle think poor people shouldn't be allowed to have children?  The effect is exactly the same - they will just receive welfare.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This is the natural law, a natural right,


That seems correct if it stands by itself. But does that trump other rights?

- As a private property owner, we have the *right* to say who comes on and off our property, who stays on our property, who eats dinner at our property, who lives on our property.

- As an employer, I have the *right* to decide who I hire.

- A private club or organization has the *right* to decide who becomes a member, and what rules apply.

All of the above can or do consist of more than one individual. These are group rights, in addition to being individual rights.

If a community of people all live together, with continuous adjacent properties (no unowned property) can they exercise all of the above rights? If we call that a nation, can they exercise all of the above rights?

Is this a matter of scope or size?

----------


## Ender

> Be sure and tell Ron Paul too, why don't you?  Because he is a strong advocate of national sovereignty and is totally against any semblance of open borders while the welfare state is in place.



I am totally anti-entitlement and agree that the welfare state should be abolished. BUT- I am not going to advocate more government to solve government idiocy.

To deny a law-abiding person, who contributes to the economic health of the country, access to living and working here is stupidity at its highest.

----------


## sailingaway

> So- your solution is more government? More government to solve too much government?
> 
> Time to understand what real freedom is, my friend; and it has nothing to do with a "perfect world" scenario.


I understand your position, but in the reality of how things are, I come down in a different place

----------


## Southron

I bet a billion people from Asia are just waiting for the US government to declare immigration to the US a human right.  At least we won't have to worry about petty politics anymore.

----------


## sailingaway

> Immigrants pay for their own public schooling. Do they not pay property tax? Do they not pay sales tax? Do they not pay excise tax? 
> 
> AS far as hospitals go, again your problem seems to be with government regulation of the market, not immigrants particularly. Do you have a problem with citizens crowding ER's? Should we deport them?



All countries with govt funded (taxpayer funded) benefits limit entry to those who pay below a level where they would net drain the system.  it is simply a fact that some don't pay much into these things, and disproportionately avail themselves of them.  As for hospitals, yes, an ideal system would be very different.  Looking at the direction our country is going, do you think we are likely to get that in the time frome of the bill under consideration?

Of course my issue isn't with the immigrants as people(the bulk of them).   And if you looked at my earlier posts, I am not talking about deporting those here a long time, but not having chain migration stem from them, or reward them further with votes, when they aren't here legally.  LEGAL immigration is a very different subject to me.  I'm just discussing the philosophic point of whether a sovereign nation has a right to say who comes in and who doesn't, period.  And I believe it does. I also know some here think it doesn't.  that tends to prove despositive of this issue on a 'which comes first' way of looking at it.

----------


## erowe1

Even if immigration isn't a right, is there any way for the federal government to control immigration without violating our rights?

----------


## loveableteddybear

Isn't the problem not immigration, but the President can arbitrarily do whatever he wants? If there is a law on the books, even bad, the President's job is to "execute" the law, hence "executive branch."

----------


## jllundqu

> Be sure and tell Ron Paul too, why don't you?  Because he is a strong advocate of national sovereignty and is totally against any semblance of open borders while the welfare state is in place.


+rep

And how!

----------


## Confederate

> Although Artical 1, Section 8 of Constitution allows regulation of immigration, immigrants here have the right to stay here since you don't have to be a citizen to stay or live here.


Actually you don't have a right to stay in the US unless you are a citizen. But then again, that hasn't stopped you from overstaying your visa and living in the country illegally.

----------


## erowe1

> That seems correct if it stands by itself. But does that trump other rights?
> 
> - As a private property owner, we have the *right* to say who comes on and off our property, who stays on our property, who eats dinner at our property, who lives on our property.
> 
> - As an employer, I have the *right* to decide who I hire.
> 
> - A private club or organization has the *right* to decide who becomes a member, and what rules apply.
> 
> All of the above can or do consist of more than one individual. These are group rights, in addition to being individual rights.
> ...


It's not just a matter of scope and size, but also unanimity.

You have a right to keep people off your property. You just don't have a right to keep them from anywhere else. You and a bunch of other people can all apply the same restrictions to all of your properties. But you can never include anyone in that outside of those who agree to it.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Obama is pushing his version of immigration reform with a speech right now...

----------


## libertygrl

> How can anyone begrudge an individual for trying to make a better life for themselves and their family?  If I were in Mexico, living in poverty and could cross an imaginary line and get a job working hard scrubbing toilets and be able to put my kids into school in order to better their lives, I would do it as well.
> 
> So long as they dont come in and try to take my property or infringe on my rights, all the best to them on improving their lives.


Especially since we were the ones that caused it because of NAFTA. 

The only problem with having an open border is that along with decent people coming in, we've had thousands of murderous gangs and drug cartels that have murdered, and raped American citizens.  Our jails are overcrowded with them.  I don't know what the answer is.

----------


## erowe1

> Actually you don't have a right to stay in the US unless you are a citizen.


What do you base that on?

----------


## UpperDecker

Ugh, Obama is comparing the illegal immigrants of today to those who came through Ellis Island legally long ago.  I hate when people do that, it is not even remotely close to the same thing.

----------


## Confederate

> What do you base that on?



The law.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It's not just a matter of scope and size, but also unanimity.
> 
> You have a right to keep people off your property. You just don't have a right to keep them from anywhere else.


Every decision made by a club is unanimous? Every decision made in a household is unanimous?

----------


## CaptUSA

> Obama is pushing his version of immigration reform with a speech right now...


Scary.  Is he saying that he will allow any immigrant permanent citizen status if they register as a democrat?  Because then, he'd at least be being honest.

----------


## erowe1

> The law.


What law? One that a bunch of people made up?

----------


## loveableteddybear

> What law? One that a bunch of people made up?


Yeah.

The opposite of having laws is anarchy. Which obviously isn't constiutional. But, it might blow your mind that not everyone here is an anarchist.

----------


## erowe1

> Every decision made by a club is unanimous? Every decision made in a household is unanimous?


In a club, yes, because every individual personally chooses whether or not to join the club and to accept its rules and decisions that are made according to those rules. A club (at least one that's not a criminal gang) can't go around forcing people to join.

I see households differently. I don't think the arrangement of a household can be imposed on groups outside that. One way to think of authority in a household might be to think about the owner of the household having the right to set the rules. Personally, that's not how I look at it, but either way I think households can be set aside from other groups.

----------


## James Madison

There are already too many Americans and too few jobs to go around. Let's encourage more immigration and drive down wages even further. 

And while we're at it, let's bring in people from cultures with no tradition of free society. That way they can turn the US into the same hellhole they just escaped from.

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah.
> 
> The opposite of having laws is anarchy. Which obviously isn't constiutional. But, it might blow your mind that not everyone here is an anarchist.


I never said anything about anarchy. Do you think I'm an anarchist or something?

Do you think our rights come from laws that a bunch of people made up?

----------


## erowe1

> There are already too many Americans and too few jobs to go around.


The number of jobs to go around is infinite. And most of America is uninhabited wilderness. We're not even one tenth of the way to being close to anything that could be considered overpopulated.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Let's face reality. Very few people that argue for open immigration do so primarily out of ideological purity. They do so for their own self-interest.

Some examples:

- To get cheaper labor.
- To get more voters (Primarily Democrats, but many in the GOP now foolishly believe they will somehow convince Democrats to turn into Republicans).
- To bring in more of their own (Family, friends, people from the same village, country, religion, ethnicity or race).
- To bring in more of their own, self-identified group in order to eventually outnumber other groups they feel are in opposition. Conquest.
- Non US-citizens who want to get into the US in the first place.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> There are already too many Americans and too few jobs to go around. Let's encourage more immigration and drive down wages even further. 
> 
> And while we're at it, let's bring in people from cultures with no tradition of free society. That way they can turn the US into the same hellhole they just escaped from.


+Rep.  We need controlled immigration so we can assimilate people into Americans. My wife isn't American, but by virtue of marrying me, she will have the same voting power as a natural born citizen. There is obviously a conflict of interests.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> I never said anything about anarchy. Do you think I'm an anarchist or something?
> 
> Do you think our rights come from laws that a bunch of people made up?


No, but gov't inherently limits and regulates rights, which is why immigration is a power given to the gov't to regulate. If we accept gov't, we accept limits on our rights.

----------


## erowe1

> No, but gov't inherently limits and regulates rights, which is why immigration is a power given to the gov't to regulate. If we accept gov't, we accept limits on our rights.


Do you think the government can only do that for those who accept it? Or does the government have the right to limit the rights of those who don't accept it too?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> In a club, yes, because every individual personally chooses whether or not to join the club and to accept its rules and decisions that are made according to those rules. A club (at least one that's not a criminal gang) can't go around forcing people to join.


Force is not necessary. People want to members of the club. They will stay members of the club, even if a particular issue doesn't go the way they want it. Unanimity is not required. Even people who complain that they want to leave the club after a vote rarely do. Where is Alec Baldwin these days?

----------


## erowe1

> Let's face reality. Very few people that argue for open immigration do so primarily out of ideological purity. They do so for their own self-interest.
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> - To get cheaper labor.
> - To get more voters (Primarily Democrats, but many in the GOP now foolishly believe they will somehow convince Democrats to turn into Republicans).
> - To bring in more of their own (Family, friends, people from the same village, country, religion, ethnicity or race).
> - To bring in more of their own, self-identified group in order to eventually outnumber other groups they feel are in opposition. Conquest.
> - Non US-citizens who want to get into the US in the first place.


Aren't all those things perfectly valid things to pursue? What right do I have to interfere with someone else who wants to do any of those?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I see households differently. I don't think the arrangement of a household can be imposed on groups outside that. One way to think of authority in a household might be to think about the owner of the household having the right to set the rules. Personally, that's not how I look at it, but either way I think households can be set aside from other groups.


Not the master of your own home, eh?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> On paper, Libertarians are right on this subject. When you actually start practicing such policies in the physical realm with with real human bodies, they are extremely mistaken.


Everyone's got theoretical fixes that aren't practical.  Small l libertarians differ on how to deal with this problem wildly, too.  I'm of the opinion that all land should be privately owned-giving owners an incentive to rationally deal with people wanting to move from point A to point B.  The mixed economy in land we currently have leads to numerous unnecessary conflicts, including immigration "issues".  IOW, the extremes on all sides are all wrong.

----------


## erowe1

> Force is not necessary. People want to members of the club. They will stay members of the club, even if a particular issue doesn't go the way they want it. Unanimity is not required. Even people who complain that they want to leave the club after a vote rarely do. Where is Alec Baldwin these days?


What you just described is unanimity. Even without unanimity on a particular issue, all members are unanimous in the acceptance of all that belonging to the club entails, including the parts they would like to change. They have no right to make others members of their club who don't want to be.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Aren't all those things perfectly valid things to pursue? What right do I have to interfere with someone else who wants to do any of those?


What right do you have to interfere with *anything* that anybody else wants to do?

----------


## erowe1

> Not the master of your own home, eh?


On the contrary, I said decisions in the household DON'T have to be unanimous.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Do you think the government can only do that for those who accept it? Or does the government have the right to limit the rights of those who don't accept it too?


Gov't is force and it limits the rights of individuals. For example, sacrificing your first born child to Molech is against the law, and it thereby deprives the rights of people who want to practice near-eastern ancient religious rites. So yes, the gov't can limit the rights of people without consent. The "consent of the governed" ultimately will deprive certain people who do not give consent. The rawest version of this is democracy where there is a tyranny of a majority.

What do you propose, no laws without 100% acceptance? These ideological fancies are bad for our mov't.

----------


## erowe1

> What right do you have to interfere with *anything* that anybody else wants to do?


I have lots of rights to interfere with what others want to do, but only if what they want to do impinges on my rights. If it doesn't, then I have no right to stop them.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Really.
> 
> So the English settlers were trespassing on private Indian property?


 Some English settlers trespassed, yes.  I think you can agree on that, being familiar with some of the history, yes?  However, as best as I can tell, there was only a portion of the land in North America, a relatively small percentage of the total square mileage, which was actually owned by Indians.  Most was simply unused and unoccupied, and thus up for homesteading.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> What you just described is unanimity. Even without unanimity on a particular issue, all members are unanimous in the acceptance of all that belonging to the club entails, including the parts they would like to change. They have no right to make others members of their club who don't want to be.


At last check, the right of emigration still exists in the club of the United Socialist States of America.

----------


## erowe1

> Gov't is force and it limits the rights of individuals. For example, sacrificing your first born child to Molech is against the law, and it thereby deprives the rights of people who want to practice near-eastern ancient religious rites. So yes, the gov't can limit the rights of people without consent. The "consent of the governed" ultimately will deprive certain people who do not give consent. The rawest version of this is democracy where there is a tyranny of a majority.
> 
> What do you propose, no laws without 100% acceptance? These ideological fancies are bad for our mov't.


I can't tell what your answer to the question is. You're the one who said that government has a right to limit the rights of those who accept it. Do you really think acceptance of it is necessary? Or would you rather eliminate that part of what you said, and just say that government has a right to limit peoples' rights, whether they accept it or not.

Nobody has a right to sacrifice someone else to Molech. So that's not an example of someone's rights being limited.

----------


## erowe1

> At last check, the right of emigration still exists in the club of the United Socialist States of America.


What does that mean? Moving somewhere?

----------


## Raudsarw

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Welcome immigrants, or send back the statue of liberty. The Welfare state is NOT sufficient reason to deny immigration rights. Because of one infringement on liberty, you want even more? If anything, a stream of immigrants coming to collect benefits strengthens the argument that the welfare state is unsustainable.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I have lots of rights to interfere with what others want to do, but only if what they want to do impinges on my rights. If it doesn't, then I have no right to stop them.


So you will wait until you are surrounded, outnumbered, outvoted, and outgunned, and when they come to your home to remove you, you will then say that your rights are being infringed?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think individuals formed nationstates to defend their rights to create their own system of governance


They didn't actually do that, of course.  Not historically.  I don't know how important it is that you think this to your ultimate conclusions and world-view, perhaps it doesn't really matter one way or the other.  But regardless, if you're interested in the truth, you should eventually stop thinking this.  Because it did not happen.

I recommend reading, for example, The State, by Franz Oppenheimer.

----------


## twomp

> MOAR GUVMINT!


LOTS MORE!! 

We need walls and armed guards on the walls. We need identifications for EVERYONE. We need cameras in every corner and drones over every city. We need to treat the immigrants like POKEMON. GOTTA CATCH EM ALL!!!

----------


## erowe1

> So you will wait until you are surrounded, outnumbered, outvoted, and outgunned, and when they come to your home to remove you, you will then say that your rights are being infringed?


Or when anyone does anything against my rights. But until they do, what option do I have? It seems like what you're getting at is that I should do something that is wrong right now, in order to prevent someone from having the ability to do something wrong to me in the future.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> I wish I lived in The Judge's world, and Ron Paul's world for that matter, but alas... we live in this one.  Granting citizenship to 12 million illlegals (whom all data shows would vote overwhelmingly Democrat) would end the two party system forever.  We would have a total socialist/communist statist's wet dream.


Yes. GOP is fooling themselves by pretending to be illegal alien friendly. Most illegals will become democrats. GOP should probably offer an alternative to amnesty, like revamping the immigration process so it is faster and/or cheaper even if it might cost more money. GOP know hispanics mostly lean towards democrats.. which is why GOP is trying to pander to them. Immigration and Rubio. I respect hispanics enough to say that they are not going to fall for it. Many asians will be democrats as well.

Ending 2 party system might not be so bad... Not like we get anything done with the 2 party system (although it does keep SOME bad things from passing). If democrats have sole power, then they can take sole blame. Instead of passing the puck to each other and perpetuating this bullS--t.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> What does that mean? Moving somewhere?


You keep talking about the right to leave the club. That right exists.

If someone doesn't want to be a member of an HOA, they have the right to leave that club too.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> At last check, the right of emigration still exists in the club of the United Socialist States of America.


 If there really was a group of people who had legitimately, through purely voluntary means, achieved ownership of 1/3 of North America, then yes, it would be perfectly legitimate for them to treat it as their property -- since it is their property -- and to make rules regarding who is welcome and how they must behave while guests "in their house" so to speak.  So your logic is totally sound and fine, given such a group.

Since there is no such group, any men arrogating to themselves the right to do this are mere usurpers.  I oppose usurpation.  I think we all do.  Don't _you_?

----------


## sailingaway

> They didn't actually do that, of course.  Not historically.  I don't know how important it is that you think this to your ultimate conclusions and world-view, perhaps it doesn't really matter one way or the other.  But regardless, if you're interested in the truth, you should eventually stop thinking this.  Because it did not happen.
> 
> I recommend reading, for example, The State, by Franz Oppenheimer.


I spoke sloppily, but I will take a look at your link.  I should have said that in currently analyzing where we are now and the comparative evils I see local rule as best and most likely to let people live as they want.  but then they need to enforce, locally, how they want it.  Cities, counties, states, Federal.... each needs to have their jurisdiction, more local the better.  Vs global, I think national sovereignty permits more local policy influence. The bigger and more distant the decision making body the bigger the special interest has to be to influence it, the less voice the individual has.  That is sort of what I meant, not that when they were initially formed people went through this same mindset.

----------


## erowe1

> You keep talking about the right to leave the club. That right exists.
> 
> If someone doesn't want to be a member of an HOA, they have the right to leave that club too.


First of all, joining a club in the first place has to be by choice, that includes HOA's. 

And if the right of the regime in DC to rule over me is based on my supposedly accepting that rule by not moving away, then is emigrating really a way out of the club? Like, if I went to, say, Iraq, I'd be free from having my rights violated by the club I never joined? And let's say that were true, what would happen when we did get one-world-government (if you don't think it's here already)? Would you tell me that you have a right to violate other peoples' rights on the grounds that if they don't like it they can always go to Mars?

----------


## erowe1

> You keep talking about the right to leave the club. That right exists.
> 
> If someone doesn't want to be a member of an HOA, they have the right to leave that club too.


First of all, joining a club in the first place has to be by choice, that includes HOA's. 

And if the right of the regime in DC to rule over me is based on my supposedly accepting that rule by not moving away, then is emigrating really a way out of the club? Like, if I went to, say, Iraq, I'd be free from having my rights violated by the club I never joined? And let's say that were true, what would happen when we did get one-world-government (if you don't think it's here already)? Would you tell me that you have a right to violate other peoples' rights on the grounds that if they don't like it they can always go to Mars?

----------


## loveableteddybear

> I can't tell what your answer to the question is. You're the one who said that government has a right to limit the rights of those who accept it. Do you really think acceptance of it is necessary? Or would you rather eliminate that part of what you said, and just say that government has a right to limit peoples' rights, whether they accept it or not.
> 
> Nobody has a right to sacrifice someone else to Molech. So that's not an example of someone's rights being limited.


You're complicating it Rowe. Yes, the gov't can limit the rights of people. That's what gov't does. That's why we make a constitution to address what boundaries exist for gov't.

Molech worship is a right to those tha believe in it and your consent of 100% of those governed is silly.

----------


## otherone

Come to think of it, undocumented immigrants may be the last free people in the world.  Why would anyone WANT to be saddled with a social security number?

----------


## erowe1

> You're complicating it Rowe. Yes, the gov't can limit the rights of people. That's what gov't does. That's why we make a constitution to address what boundaries exist for gov't.


I'm not complicating it. I'm asking questions based on what you're saying. You're the one who said that the government has a right to limit the rights of those who accept it. I still can't tell if you meant that or not. Do you really think acceptance is necessary?




> Molech worship is a right to those tha believe in it


Do you really believe that? So all I have to do to have the right to kill you is to believe I have that right?




> and your consent of 100% of those governed is silly.


Who has the right to rule over someone without their consent? And where does that authority come from?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Yes. GOP is fooling themselves by pretending to be illegal alien friendly. Most illegals will become democrats. GOP should probably offer an alternative to amnesty, like revamping the immigration process so it is faster and/or cheaper even if it might cost more money. GOP know hispanics mostly lean towards democrats.. which is why GOP is trying to pander to them. Immigration and Rubio. I respect hispanics enough to say that they are not going to fall for it. Many asians will be democrats as well.


It's utterly foolish nonsense for the GOP to think that they will get more voters out of this. The California GOP is notorious for this thinking. The last two Senate races, they put up women because they wanted to get the female vote against a sitting female Senator. Hello McFly?!  Why would a Democrat vote for a Republican? Just because they are both women? Yeah, that's some logic there.

(And no, this is not conjecture. I was in attendance at a small gathering where a GOP leadership old-timer was introducing Fiorina as the Senate candidate, and he explicitly said that it was about running a woman against a woman.)

----------


## loveableteddybear

All this comes down to your final question:

"Who has the right to rule over someone without their consent? And where does that authority come from?"

No one is born with the right. The right is taken by force and imposed upon the party with less force.

As Thrasymachus correctly observed in The Replubic, "Justice is the will of the stronger."

That's just reality, as no governing system can get 100% to agree on anything. The fact you stubbornly don't accept molech worship (which is just ancient abortion by the way) is simply an example of that.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I spoke sloppily, but I will take a look at your link.  I should said that in currently analyzing where we are now and the comparative evils I see local rule as best and most likely to let people live as they want.  but then they need to enforce, locally, how they want it.  Cities, counties, states, Federal.... each needs to have their jurisdiction, more local the better.  Vs global, I think national sovereignty permits more local policy influence. The bigger and more distant the decision making body the bigger the special interest has to be to influence it, the less voice the individual has.  That is sort of what I meant, not that when they were initially formed people went through this same mindset.


 I agree with all of this wholeheartedly.  The smaller the polity, the more local the control, the better the situation will be.  Decentralization is always preferable to centralization when it comes to states. 50 totally sovereign states would be such a much better situation than what we have now, which is essentially one mammoth nation-state ruling over the whole continent.  And as you say, with counties: an America of 3000 independent, sovereign former-counties now-states, this would be like paradise on Earth!  Liberty would blossom like out-of-control weeds.  It would be _amazing_.  And you go further and mention cities.  Yes, sure, of course; cities should also be allowed to secede from their county-states and become independent city-states.

So up to that point, we're both on the same page.  I just take the logic a mere two steps further.  First, neighborhoods.  Should a neighborhood not be permitted to peacefully choose independence from the city?  And finally, families/individuals.  Should they not be able to be masters of their own destinies?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> "Give me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
> Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door."


You are quoting a pro-immigration propaganda poem.

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree with all of this wholeheartedly.  The smaller the polity, the more local the control, the better the situation will be.  Decentralization is always preferable to centralization when it comes to states. 50 totally sovereign states would be such a much better situation than what we have now, which is essentially one mammoth nation-state ruling over the whole continent.  And as you say, with counties: an America of 3000 independent, sovereign former-counties now-states, this would be like paradise on Earth!  Liberty would blossom like out-of-control weeds.  It would be _amazing_.  And you go further and mention cities.  Yes, sure, of course; cities should also be allowed to secede from their county-states and become independent city-states.
> 
> So up to that point, we're both on the same page.  I just take the logic a mere two steps further.  First, neighborhoods.  Should a neighborhood not be permitted to peacefully choose independence from the city?  And finally, families/individuals.  Should they not be able to be masters of their own destinies?


Maybe, if they don't depend on the larger structure.  I guess I'd have to think about implication, but I'm not opposed to the idea.

----------


## erowe1

> All this comes down to your final question:
> 
> "Who has the right to rule over someone without their consent? And where does that authority come from?"
> 
> No one is born with the right. The right is taken by force and imposed upon the party with less force.


You're equivocating between is and ought. A right isn't simply what a person happens to succeed at. A right is something that they can do without being morally wrong. If there does not exist such a thing as right and wrong, then there is no such thing as rights. In that case there would be no meaning to a discussion about what a country's immigration laws ought to be, since there would be no such thing as ought.

Our rights (if such things exist) aren't given to us by whatever strong regime rules us. And if that regime violates our rights, that doesn't make them any less our rights.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> If there really was a group of people who had legitimately, through purely voluntary means, achieved ownership of 1/3 of North America, then yes, it would be perfectly legitimate for them to treat it as their property -- since it is their property -- and to make rules regarding who is welcome and how they must behave while guests "in their house" so to speak.  So your logic is totally sound and fine, given such a group.
> 
> Since there is no such group, any men arrogating to themselves the right to do this are mere usurpers.  I oppose usurpation.  I think we all do.  Don't _you_?


So are we talking once again about size and scope?

An HOA is very easily usurped, and it happens all the time.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> You're equivocating between is and ought. A right isn't simply what a person happens to succeed at. A right is something that they can do without being morally wrong. If there does not exist such a thing as right and wrong, then there is no such thing as rights. In that case there would be no meaning to a discussion about what a country's immigration laws ought to be, since there would be no such thing as ought.
> 
> Our rights (if such things exist) aren't given to us by whatever strong regime that rules us. And if that regime violates our rights, that doesn't make them any less our rights.


Yes I'm talking about is, and not ought, because the reality is that rights are an illusion. It's cute to say that God gives us rights, but I don't read that in my Bible. God gives man "responsibilities" which include our interactions with others, our own motivations and feelings, and our feelings and love towards Him. Nothing there is about what we're entitled to.

If you want to go invent a made up God that gives people "rights" go ahead. But, in reality, we're all just made from mud with neurons flickering in our brains giving us the feeling of consciousness. And we imagine these things called rights and wish that things were more fair, but reality, might makes right.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So are we talking once again about size and scope?
> 
> An HOA is very easily usurped, and it happens all the time.


 No, we (or at least I) am talking about *legitimacy*.  A very wealthy person could buy up a vast tract of land, fence it off, and make it kind of his own private country, wherein he sets the rules.

What he cannot do, what no one can do, is to simply decree "this is all mine; I make the rules".  Just draw an arbitrary line and poof! everybody in that line has to follow his rules.  "Stroke of the pen, law of the land... kinda cool".  Sorry, that is illegitimate.  You can't just decide that stuff is yours which, in point of fact, isn't yours.  Wouldn't you agree?

So often in life, two people could be doing what on the surface looks like the same action, but depending on the situation one could be totally legitimate and on the up-and-up, while the other is totally evil and outrageous.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Maybe, if they don't depend on the larger structure.  I guess I'd have to think about implication, but I'm not opposed to the idea.


Cool!   

It's always nice talking with you, sailingaway.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes I'm talking about is, and not ought, because the reality is that rights are an illusion. It's cute to say that God gives us rights, but I don't read that in my Bible.


Sure you do. "Thou shalt not steal," is another way of saying the other guy has a right not to be robbed.

If you prefer not to put biblical laws into the terminology of rights, I'm fine with that. We don't need to put it in terms of rights. We can just talk about God's moral law. The immigration policy I support would be one that does not involve me in violating God's moral law. For example, if you want to hire people to work for you, and I pursue some policy of stealing money from you any time I catch you hiring someone without my permission, I would be violating God's law.

----------


## otherone

> Yes I'm talking about is, and not ought, because the reality is that rights are an illusion. It's cute to say that God gives us rights, but I don't read that in my Bible. God gives man "responsibilities" which include our interactions with others, our own motivations and feelings, and our feelings and love towards Him. Nothing there is about what we're entitled to.


Could have come from (paraphrased) Obama's, Hillary's, JFK's. or FDR's mouth.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Sure you do. "Thou shalt not steal," is another way of saying the other guy has a right not to be robbed.
> 
> If you prefer not to put biblical laws into the terminology of rights, I'm fine with that. We don't need to put it in terms of rights. We can just talk about God's moral law. The immigration policy I support would be one that does not involve me in violating God's moral law. For example, if you want to hire people to work for you, and I pursue some policy of stealing money from you any time I catch you hiring someone without my permission, I would be violating God's law.


Hey, I have 3 immigrants working for me, so I don't disagree with your morality. I'm just talking about the nature of rights and laws. It was an interesting discussion.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Could have come from (paraphrased) Obama's, Hillary's, JFK's. or FDR's mouth.


Comes straight from Plato and the Book of Job my friend.

----------


## AuH20

Either utilize the monopoly of force encoded in the political process or the new guests will gladly utilize it on you tenfold. It's very simple to understand. Now if we could just move away from this absurd democracy and get back to a decentralized republic that would not intentionally attract a mass exodus of people for purely selfish reasons.

----------


## otherone

> Comes straight from Plato and the Book of Job my friend.


....and this is relevant to a discussion about freedom how?  Are you saying we aren't supposed to be free?  What are you advocating for, friend?

----------


## erowe1

> Hey, I have 3 immigrants working for me, so I don't disagree with your morality. I'm just talking about the nature of rights and laws. It was an interesting discussion.


How does any state limit immigration without doing something immoral?

----------


## loveableteddybear

> ....and this is relevant to a discussion about freedom how?  Are you saying we aren't supposed to be free?  What are you advocating for, friend?


They are relevant to people asking headier questions as to why we accept things like laws.

We're here to talk about a return to governance that permits human freedom, but that adheres to the Constitution. Without libertarianism being confined by Constitutionalism, we have anarchy.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> How does any state limit immigration without doing something immoral?


It is immoral. Gov't is immoral. It's a necessary evil.

----------


## erowe1

> No, we (or at least I) am talking about *legitimacy*.  A very wealthy person could buy up a vast tract of land, fence it off, and make it kind of his own private country, wherein he sets the rules.


I'm not so sure about that.

----------


## erowe1

> It is immoral. Gov't is immoral. It's a necessary evil.


So you positively support doing things you know are immoral?

----------


## loveableteddybear

> So you positively support doing things you know are immoral?


No, I accept things as they are. I'd like to be a Christian Anarchist, but in reality I'd like legal recourse if someone destroyed my property. So, now we need courts, police..and BAM...now we are exercising immoral force over people. The greater immorality is allowing people to just have a free for all on each other.

----------


## erowe1

> No, I accept things as they are. I'd like to be a Christian Anarchist, but in reality I'd like legal recourse if someone destroyed my property. So, now we need courts, police..and BAM...now we are exercising immoral force over people.


I accept things as they are too. I don't imagine that I'll ever live in a world with no theft this side of the return of Jesus. But when I'm given a vote for more theft or less theft, my vote will always be for less. And there is no point at which theft can be reduced far enough that I will say, "That's the right amount of theft. We shouldn't reduce it any more."




> The greater immorality is allowing people to just have a free for all on each other.


If I allow you to hire whomever you want without me stealing from you whenever you hire someone without my permission, that's not a free-for-all. That's just me not doing something that I ought not do.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> I accept things as they are too. I don't imagine that I'll ever live in a world with no theft this side of the return of Jesus. But when I'm given a vote for more theft or less theft, my vote will always be for less. And there is no point at which theft can be reduced far enough that I will say, "That's the right amount of theft. We shouldn't reduce it any more."


Fair enough, I'm not is disagreement. My feelings towards individuals that work with me (or my wife for that matter), is that there are good immigrants but open-borders is a bad policy because it will destroy the country in which these immigrants want to go to to begin with.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm not so sure about that.


 Well, at what point do you want to restrict his freedom?  Do you want to ban him from buying the land?  Perhaps some anti "land hoarding" statute?  Or do you want to force him to allow anyone and everyone on his land?  Do you want to micro-manage people's "house rules"?

Now there are limits to the house rules people can make.  And, most importantly perhaps, to the penalties which can be imposed.  I can say "all visitors to my home must stand on their heads" but if they refuse, I cannot lock them in my basement.  I can only ask them to leave.  So the rich landowner wouldn't be able to recreate _all_ the features of the modern nation-state we know and love.  Mass-murder and mass-enslavement would be out.

----------


## AuH20

In a non-socialist, uncoddled environment, we wouldn't have a mass immigration problem. Only the true believers would stay, which would make our country collectively stronger as opposed to weaker and  consequently more oppressive.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, at what point do you want to restrict his freedom?  Do you want to ban him from buying the land?  Perhaps some anti "land hoarding" statute?  Or do you want to force him to allow anyone and everyone on his land?  Do you want to micro-manage people's "house rules"?


An anti-land-hoarding statute would require a state to prevent it. I'd rather just see no state positively protecting his ownership of the land.

----------


## Ender

> Some English settlers trespassed, yes.  I think you can agree on that, being familiar with some of the history, yes?  However, as best as I can tell, there was only a portion of the land in North America, a relatively small percentage of the total square mileage, which was actually owned by Indians.  Most was simply unused and unoccupied, and thus up for homesteading.


Uh....no.

You've been reading too much public education history.

The Indians were a dense population and pretty sophisticated. The plague brought by early Europeans wiped 9/10's of the population out.

Here is a fun review on some real history- enjoy:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19864...merica_p2.html

----------


## loveableteddybear

> In a non-socialist, uncoddled environment, we wouldn't have a mass immigration problem. Only the true believers would stay, which would make our country collectively stronger as opposed to weaker and  consequently more oppressive.


Exactly. Immigration is being used as a weapon by collectivists to destroy the middle class and throw elections.

Soon, anyone who's family that came to this country before 1965 will realize that by 2065 they have been totally politically displaced by new immigrants and people on welfare.

----------


## AuH20

> Exactly. Immigration is being used as a weapon by collectivists to destroy the middle class and throw elections.
> 
> Soon, anyone who's family that came to this country before 1965 will realize that by 2065 they have been totally politically displaced by new immigrants and people on welfare.


If you can't sell the stubborn clingers on a NWO superstate, then you REPLACE them with a less educated, more desperate group that is receptive to your tricks. At least that's what I would do if I was a power-mad social engineer.  I get cheap labor and my superstate all rolled into one.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

This country was founded on federal immigration laws and restrictions. That's why we all had jobs back then. Now we've run out of jobs because too many people came here. We're now going bankrupt because of them (even if they don't get SS or Medicare).

----------


## loveableteddybear

> If you can't sell the stubborn clingers on a NWO superstate, then you REPLACE them with a less educated, more desperate group that is receptive to your tricks. At least that's what I would do.


Exactly, it's a plot from the ruling class to totally subjugate the strongest middle class in history.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> I bet a billion people from Asia are just waiting for the US government to declare immigration to the US a human right.  At least we won't have to worry about petty politics anymore.


So I can finally be tall?

----------


## loveableteddybear

> So I can finally be tall?


You'll get to be big in  the pants too.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Sure you do. "Thou shalt not steal," is another way of saying the other guy has a right not to be robbed.
> 
> If you prefer not to put biblical laws into the terminology of rights, I'm fine with that. We don't need to put it in terms of rights. We can just talk about God's moral law. The immigration policy I support would be one that does not involve me in violating God's moral law. For example, if you want to hire people to work for you, and I pursue some policy of stealing money from you any time I catch you hiring someone without my permission, I would be violating God's law.


Biblical example of borders:




> 3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spoke unto Moses. 4 From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, *shall be your border*.

----------


## erowe1

> Biblical example of borders:


Do you infer from that that you have the right to violate God's laws?

----------


## No Free Beer

Easy fix:

Create a law that states any "illegal" immigrant who is currently in our country and wants citizenship, to come forward. They can fill out the necessary paper work and take the citizenship test.

However, upon approval, the individual must then pay a fine for not respecting our sovereignty. 

For all those others who don't have a visa of any kind, and do not come forward, if the law comes across you and you don't have nec. identification, YOU GET THE BOOT!

----------


## AGRP



----------


## loveableteddybear

> 


LOL, IT WORKED OUT REAL WELL FOR THE INdIANS!

/FACEPALM

----------


## UMULAS

> this ignores that people have sums stripped from them without their agreement by govt to pay for things like schools, medical and retirement funds which are over burdened so the quality is terrible. The amounts are too great for the middle class in the areas worst hit by illegal immigration to afford the private schools (about $30,000 per child per year in Los Angeles for a decent one, right now.)  So they need the quality of what they are being forced to pay for to stay as good as possible.  I DO believe in sovereignty and I do believe a govt has a duty to look out for its citizens above anyone else.  How else would you ever have local self determination of government?  Note I am speaking of a government, not anarchy, because I do believe in a small government.
> 
> Regardless of the philosophical underpinning, I don't think the government of this country can legitimately force its citizens to pay for services and then let unlimited poor people from elsewhere use them.  Those who get more in benefits then they pay in do drain what is available, and language is an additional cost.   Language is also now cut in most schools until high school, in Los Angeles and then only Spanish is available, typically.  It is very difficult to become fluent in ANY language with that, so only kids of those who speak English do NOT come out of the school system bilingual.  That is a major market disadvantage, right there.
> 
> you can't have open borders and a welfare state, and there is no plan on the table to end the welfare state, to the contrary.  
> 
> This is one of the topics there has always been a split on here, however, abortion being the other.  Some people do believe in sovereignty and the ability of a country to set the rules of entry, some don't.  Some believe life begins at conception, some don't.  I have never seen anyone convinced of the opposing position.


Immigrants pay taxes, you argument is invalid.

----------


## UMULAS

> Easy fix:
> 
> Create a law that states any "illegal" immigrant who is currently in our country and wants citizenship, to come forward. They can fill out the necessary paper work and take the citizenship test.
> 
> However, upon approval, the individual must then pay a fine for not respecting our sovereignty. 
> 
> For all those others who don't have a visa of any kind, and do not come forward, if the law comes across you and you don't have nec. identification, YOU GET THE BOOT!


We might as well give everyone National ID cards as well right?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Uh....no.
> 
> You've been reading too much public education history.
> 
> The Indians were a dense population and pretty sophisticated. The plague brought by early Europeans wiped 9/10's of the population out.


Uh....no, to what?  What did I say that was wrong?  The part about some English settlers trespassing?  Surely we are in agreement on that.  The United States nation-state behaved reprehensibly towards the natives on many occasions.

Perhaps you think *all* English settlers were trespassing?  I find the history does not support that.  There were vast uninhabited areas in North America as the English (and related) settlers spread westward homesteading across the continent 1600-1900 (and in fact, to present).

They were uninhabited only because of plague?  Previously they were "densely populated"?  That is a gross overstatement of the facts as we have them.  We have, actually, very few facts.  It has proven remarkably difficult to find any solid archeological or other evidence pinning down pre-Columbus American population sizes.  As Wikipedia puts it:

"While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus, estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983)."

Most of these (let's take the high end and say) 18 million were in Mexico.  Relatively few were in Idaho, Kansas, or Minnesota.  How many, we don't know.  But the evidence does not suggest very many.  2 million in the entire area of the United States west of the Mississippi is not an unrealistic estimate.  I think I have, in fact, heard an estimate of 2 million for the _entire_ United States, east and west.  Anyway, the bulk of the land in the west was empty, even before any Europeans and any plagues they brought.

9/10s is a made-up number.  We really don't know how high the population was pre-Columbus.  In any case, one cannot blame John Q. Homesteader, circa 1860, setting up shop in South Dakota, for a plague that happened 300 years earlier.  That doesn't make him a trespasser.  What would make him a trespasser would be actual actions he took which were trespassing.  

Not all English settlers did any such actions.




> Here is a fun review on some real history- enjoy:
> 
> http://www.cracked.com/article_19864...merica_p2.html


 He overstates and oversimplifies some things.  But, whatever.  It's just an entertainment piece written for shock value.  I rather think that nearly everyone is aware at this point that the Vikings got here before Columbus.  That there is lot of evidence that there was, in fact, even more extensive cross-oceanic contact going on for centuries and centuries long before the Vikings came is, however, not well known.  So I'm gratified to see him mention the Indians who came to Holland in 60 B.C.  They weren't the only ones.  There was quite a bit of Old World-New World travel going on.

~~~

In any case, I do not know exactly what all this has to do with the immigration debate, and specifically to the post I made which you were replying to.  I expect you will tie it all in eventually and make your point.

----------


## UMULAS

> Come to think of it, undocumented immigrants may be the last free people in the world.  Why would anyone WANT to be saddled with a social security number?


It's not as fun as you think. We pay a larger amount of taxes on programs that we don't get and then get blamed on by people that were wasting taxpayers money.

----------


## AGRP

> LOL, IT WORKED OUT REAL WELL FOR THE INdIANS!
> 
> /FACEPALM


Land does not belong to anyone.  You laugh now, but you too will move or die one of these days and it will be passed onto another person.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Land does not belong to anyone.  You laugh now, but you too will move or die one of these days and it will be passed onto another person.


/2 X Facepalm

Exactly, you just proved my point. I'm not exactly thrilled to watch my people commit national suicide. Even though death is inevitable to all, no need to end it shorter.

These feel-good open border people simply need to take some common sense pills or something. They think invoking indians and people dying somehow helps their position, when it only cuts it at the knees.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> An anti-land-hoarding statute would require a state to prevent it. I'd rather just see no state positively protecting his ownership of the land.


 Well of course.  It goes without saying that a free society has no state, no coercively-enforced monopoly on dispute resolution.  So, in a free society I could buy up property, in whatever quantity I want, and manage that property, in whatever way I want.  In a free society, every man's home is his castle, and he the king of it.

----------


## AGRP

> /2 X Facepalm
> 
> Exactly, you just proved my point. I'm not exactly thrilled to watch my people commit national suicide. Even though death is inevitable to all, no need to end it shorter.
> 
> These feel-good open border people simply need to take some common sense pills or something. They think invoking indians and people dying somehow helps their position, when it only cuts it at the knees.


Not owning land, nationalship, non-citizenship, etc. was not what killed the indians.

----------


## No Free Beer

> We might as well give everyone National ID cards as well right?



Typical irrational answer. 

We all have SS numbers, dude.

Get real.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Not owning land, nationalship, non-citizenship, etc. was not what killed the indians.


The fact that they often sold land, fought over territory and had solid political entities (i.e. Iroquois Confederation) disproves that. Resorting to calling someone a troll when the just served you on a silver platter doesn't make your "please, let's just let the WHOLE WORLD go to America, it'd be great" argument not sound any smarter.

----------


## William R

The Judge sounds like a crackpot on this one!!  95 percent of the illegals coming across the southern border are trespassing on private property.  The ranchers haven't given their permission for people to do this.   Doesn't the Judge believe in private property rights??

The Libertarians Case Against Open Borders 

http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_3.pdf

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

There was never an immigration issue. People immigrate here based on good intentions. Even if they immigrate here illegally, they are not "illegal." The issue is the economy. Nobody would care about the immigration issue or the borders, if everyone was free and prosperous.

People complain about the illegals "taking our jobs." The only reason people complain is because the economy has been declining rapidly for a while. Meaning, that the massive amounts of immigrants are coming here simultaneously while the economy is declining. They're not the cause of economic decline, per se, as much as it's just bad timing. Yes, the immigration issue compounds the economic issue, but it's not the cause.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> For the record I agree with the judge on this and I am glad he laid it out there. Immigration will never be controlled by armies or police forces or drones or machine gun nests. The economy will always control the border. Cheap labor is a good thing and market forces will decide when cheap labor is needed.


The problem arises when, after the dust has settled revealing the truth, those who work in cheap labor mirror the same social function once performed by the common housewife; likewise, those who work in the promiscuity of management mirror the same function as the husband.  When the government of doers steps in, they alter the situation to the benefit of tyranny and to the detriment of the disadvantaged by trying to make everyone equal.  So they advance women up into management with those being jobs that the husband would have typically handle.  In doing so, they express their hypocritical beliefs in the status that the husband is more valuable to the family than the wife - that rather than they be a joint business they are separate.  This shames a women away from being a woman who stays at home taking care of children.  In the meantime, those who would be taking on more husband like jobs are forced into doing those jobs typically performed by the common housewife.   
The fallacy is established that to rise up to the height of society, one has to read books and to go places.  Women feel cheated having to stay at home while at the same time the husband gets to go out out into the world to involve himself in the mysterious matters of intrigue and romance.  So, they talk to lawyers.  These workers of inequity convince them that they can have their cake and eat it to.  You can have the children at home and also the job in the high rise office building.  Indeed, you can buy domestic servants to help you, one being a nanny to take care of the children and the other a housekeeper to clean the house.
When a woman calls a man a sexist, she is hypocritical in how she is buying into the fallacy that there is something wrong with being a woman and something right with being a man with this being one false dichotomy among an endless number of them.  This is why I'm always trying to establish just one true dichotomy of an enthroned king on one of the political spectrum and a homeless prostitute on the other end of it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Bull$#@! if ILLEGAL ALIENS do, Umulas.  They don't deserve anything but their asses kicked out of the country.  We are a nation of laws and they chose to  break it.

----------


## otherone

> Typical irrational answer. 
> 
> We all have SS numbers, dude.
> 
> Get real.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

What good is it to have a free and prosperous country if we're going to be Isolationists and close our borders to people who are simply seeking a better life?

----------


## misean

> There was never an immigration issue. People immigrate here based on good intentions. Even if they immigrate here illegally, they are not "illegal." The issue is the economy. Nobody would care about the immigration issue or the borders, if everyone was free and prosperous.
> 
> People complain about the illegals "taking our jobs." The only reason people complain is because the economy has been declining rapidly for a while. Meaning, that the massive amounts of immigrants are coming here simultaneously while the economy is declining. They're not the cause of economic decline, per se, as much as it's just bad timing. Yes, the immigration issue compounds the economic issue, but it's not the cause.


The second part isn't correct. Immigrants do not hurt the economy or further economic decline. They decidedly help it as long as they don't get access to the social welfare system. The United States had essentially open borders for 130 years.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> That isn't correct. Immigrants do not hurt the economy. They decidedly help it as long as they don't get access to the social welfare system. The United States had essentially open borders for 130 years.


I never stated that immigrants hurt the economy. I stated, that more people immigrating to the U.S. Compounds the economic problems. Why? Inserting more people into the job market when opportunities are gradually fading away, just means less opportunity for more and more people.

Immigration is good during prosperity.
Immigration is bad during decline.

----------


## misean

> I never stated that immigrants hurt the economy. I stated, that more people immigrating to the U.S. Compounds the economic problems. Why? Inserting more people into the job market when opportunities are gradually fading away, just means less opportunity for more and more people.
> 
> Immigration is good during prosperity.
> Immigration is bad during decline.


I got that's what you meant.  That's why I modified my post. In practice you may be right. In a free market jobs are never scarce if prices and wages are allowed to normalize. Unions, minimum wage laws, and regulations may make that though. So maybe I agree with you. Lol.

----------


## torchbearer

everyone has a right to travel, and a person can only restrict such travel on their own land.
this thread is filled with tyrants who want to tell others what to do with their land.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> What good is it to have a free and prosperous country if we're going to be Isolationists and close our borders to people who are simply seeking a better life?


We aren't prosperous because we have the best government, the best lawyers, the best schools, the best teachers, the best corporations, or the best business executives.  We are the most prosperous because of our Civil Purpose.  This is our lightening in a bottle that we need to keep people away from.  This is the reason so many have died in battles and in the workforce.  Perhaps it is time for Mexicans to sign their Declaration of Independence, wrote their Mexican Constitution, and fought their revolutionary war?

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> We aren't prosperous because we have the best government, the best lawyers, the best schools, the best teachers, the best corporations, or the best business executives.  We are the most prosperous because of our Civil Purpose.  This is our lightening in a bottle that we need to keep people away from.  This is the reason so many have died in battles and in the workforce.  Perhaps it is time for Mexicans to sign their Declaration of Independence, wrote their Mexican Constitution, and fought their revolutionary war?




Yes, their conclusions about why we're that way are wrong. But, our system enables them to think that way. They still have no intention to "harm" others when immigrating here.

----------


## otherone

> Perhaps it is time for Mexicans to sign their Declaration of Independence, wrote their Mexican Constitution, and fought their revolutionary war?


Funny, I was born here and didn't do any of those things.  And Mexico wasn't mentioned.

----------


## erowe1

> Well of course.  It goes without saying that a free society has no state, no coercively-enforced monopoly on dispute resolution.  So, in a free society I could buy up property, in whatever quantity I want, and manage that property, in whatever way I want.  In a free society, every man's home is his castle, and he the king of it.


In a free society, from whom could you buy land? Is there someone out there who owns it to begin with and can sell it to you?

----------


## RickyJ

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> There is no right to become a citizen of our country.   There are all kinds of people who have followed our laws who are waiting in line to become citizens and we now are going to grant amnesty to those who broke our laws?
> 
> I firmly disagree with the Judge.


I agree, immigration to a different nation is not a "right," it is a "request" of the nation that you would like to immigrate to. Nations should have the right to accept people they want to accept and reject people they want to reject. I like Judge Napolitano, but I wholeheartedly disagree with him here. The sovereignty and independence of the USA has been fought for by brave men and women that sacrificed everything to have a nation of their own, they deserve the right to allow in who they want to and reject who they want to. Anyone that thinks different is welcome to leave this nation.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Yes, their conclusions about why we're that way are wrong. But, our system enables them to think that way. They still have no intention to "harm" others when immigrating here.


Why do we always think aliens are harmless whether they be terrestrial or extra terrestrial?

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> Why do we always think aliens are harmless whether they be terrestrial or extra terrestrial?



"Outsider's. Hisssss."

----------


## otherone

> everyone has a right to travel, and a person can only restrict such travel on their own land.
> this thread is filled with tyrants who want to tell others what to do with their land.


Nah...they're not tyrants....they're just jealous.  Who wouldn't want to be unplugged from the matrix?  Who wouldn't want to be free?
There's a whole forum dedicated to "freedom living".....

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Funny, I was born here and didn't do any of those things.  And Mexico wasn't mentioned.


We don't have a immigrant problem, but a tyranny problem.  Mexico is a rich tyranny.  We shouldn't allow their people from Mexico into our Democratic Republic because they embody tyranny.  The nationalism they keep in their hearts towards the Mexican Junta is a danger to our American Civil Purpose.

----------


## otherone

> Why do we always think aliens are harmless whether they be terrestrial or extra terrestrial?


we don't.  Both Eurasians and Eastasians are hostile to us Oceanians.  Thank You Big Brother for protecting us.

----------


## RickyJ

> everyone has a right to travel, and a person can only restrict such travel on their own land.
> this thread is filled with tyrants who want to tell others what to do with their land.


Being a "tourist" and being an "immigrant" are two different things entirely. No one is arguing that we should not allow tourists to come to the USA.

----------


## TXcarlosTX

> There is no "US sovereignty", there is only individual sovereignty, and no government has any right to violate it.



dang!!! that was hard. for liberty!!!

----------


## erowe1

> We don't have a immigrant problem, but a tyranny problem.  Mexico is a rich tyranny.  We shouldn't allow their people from Mexico into our Democratic Republic because they embody tyranny.  The nationalism they keep in their hearts towards the Mexican Junta is a danger to our American Civil Purpose.


If having nationalism in one's heart is the criterion, then should we let in foreigners if they don't have nationalism in their hearts? And should we deport people who are here already who do have nationalism in their hearts?

----------


## erowe1

> Being a "tourist" and being an "immigrant" are two different things entirely. No one is arguing that we should not allow tourists to come to the USA.


Are people arguing that we should limit how long those tourists can stay here?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> "Outsider's. Hisssss."


In normal times, a locust looks just like a grass hopper.  Oh, they eat some of the plants, but nothing that would be thought destructive.  It is when these grasshoppers become over crowded that they morph in their physical appearance becoming locusts taking to the air to eat every green thing in sight multiplying out of control to the extent that their dead bodies poison all life in the rivers and the oceans.
So, yes, I do think we should be concerned about the lightning we have in our bottle.  We need to preserve that gold we inherited from our Founders by crossing the legs of our Democratic Republic.  If the little whores living on the street saw how our present government is disrespecting our Founding Fathers and prostituting the people, she'd leave at once for home to kiss her father and to work at the most pathetic job she can find.

----------


## otherone

> If having nationalism in one's heart is the criterion, then should we let in foreigners if they don't have nationalism in their hearts? And should we deport people who are here already who do have nationalism in their hearts?


I think it's hilarious that we here in the Liberty Movement can't come together on many issues, but apparently an ENTIRE nationality of people are all in cahoots with each other against us.  Damn those Mexicans and their single-mindedness of purpose!

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> If having nationalism in one's heart is the criterion, then should we let in foreigners if they don't have nationalism in their hearts? And should we deport people who are here already who do have nationalism in their hearts?


During World War 1 and 2, as our men were dying fighting against tyranny, those in the Hispanic world were dancing and drinking celebrating tyranny.  We have something no one else in the world does.  Can you define what that is without using the terms liberty and equality?  Even a drunken tyrant can remember to cry out those words to incite the people into an emotional frenzy.

----------


## Deborah K

If this stupid government didn't make coming here to live, or work so freakin hard in the first place, amnesty wouldn't even be an issue.

----------


## otherone

> In normal times, a locust looks just like a grass hopper.


uh huh.  Mr. Uncle, do undocumented locusts have Rights?

----------


## misean

> I think it's hilarious that we here in the Liberty Movement can't come together on many issues, but apparently an ENTIRE nationality of people are all in cahoots with each other against us.  Damn those Mexicans and their single-mindedness of purpose!


There is always going to be split on abortion and immigration and on a lot or Rothbard's ideas about government and money.  I think people agree on most other issues.

----------


## No Free Beer

> 


You clearly missed my point...

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> uh huh.  Mr. Uncle, do undocumented locusts have Rights?


I'm suggesting to you that these harmless looking Mexicans might look like grass hoppers, but they are locusts.  For one thing, the Catholic church isn't into Christ for quality, but they are into the religion for quantity in numbers.  They think of the truth in terms of the majority in numbers.

----------


## otherone

> You clearly missed my point...


You were being sarcastic about having commissars checking papers at checkpoints and train stations?

----------


## otherone

> I'm suggesting to you that these harmless looking Mexicans might look like grass hoppers, but they are locusts.



uh huh. Mr. Uncle, do undocumented locusts have Rights?

----------


## erowe1

> During World War 1 and 2, as our men were dying fighting against tyranny


I don't see it that way. I think all our men who died in those wars died on behalf of tyranny.

----------


## No Free Beer

> You were being sarcastic about having commissars checking papers at checkpoints and train stations?


Sorry, no.

----------


## otherone

> Sorry, no.


ok.  So yeah, i got your point. If you don't have the proper papers, bad things happen.  I've seen many a political thriller set in fascist-occupied countries that utilize that whole "vere are your payperz" thing.   Pretty awesome idea for imprisoning one's population...you know, like SSNs do...

----------


## Giuliani was there on 911

I'm extremely disappointed to hear him say that

----------


## RickyJ

> If this stupid government didn't make coming here to live, or work so freakin hard in the first place, amnesty wouldn't even be an issue.


Hard for some people, very easy for others. Considering the job market here, we really don't need any more immigration for a while.

----------


## No Free Beer

> ok.  So yeah, i got your point. If you don't have the proper papers, bad things happen.  I've seen many a political thriller set in fascist-occupied countries that utilize that whole "vere are your payperz" thing.   Pretty awesome idea for imprisoning one's population...you know, like SSNs do...



That's not what I am saying.

What I was saying is that we ALREADY (essentially) have national ID cards.

----------


## erowe1

> What I was saying is that we ALREADY (essentially) have national ID cards.


We should get rid of them. Right?

----------


## otherone

> That's not what I am saying.
> 
> What I was saying is that we ALREADY (essentially) have national ID cards.


THAT's what I'm saying you said!  Except you also put forth the idea that we should have a LAW that kicks out foreigners if they don't have one!  And that local authorities should check for these papers!

----------


## BSWPaulsen

I side with Napolitano on this one. 

As for the arguments about people crossing private property in order to traverse the border, it is *highly* doubtful that the "owners" actually use *all* of that property, and arbitrarily deciding where people can travel based on imaginary lines is irrational. Any understanding of property rights that creates ownership of unused land can and should be rejected on logical grounds.

What is _not_ a right is to violate the rights of others when there is no clear way that yours have been aggressed against. If immigrants destroy private property in the process (and this has happened), *then* they should be punished in accordance with law. If not, then they should be free to pursue their own prosperity - this was one of the principles that made the USA great.

If we're going to deal with the State at all, then it can safely be assumed that one within the Nation-State's boundaries is subject to its laws by virtue of voluntarily moving themselves into its territory.

The *real* problem here is the State's welfare programs providing an incentive that we are coerced into providing, and _that_ is where a lot of the xenophobia stems from. I cannot imagine we'd be having this conversation if the Federal authority weren't so damn out of control, and restricting _all_ of our opportunities.

The problem isn't immigrants. The problem is the State not fulfilling what should be its only responsibility - administering law based on human rights - and choosing other priorities.

----------


## Brett85

I think a guest worker program should be created that makes it easier for immigrants to come here and work and feed their families.  But, we should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> There is always going to be split on abortion and immigration and on a lot or Rothbard's ideas about government and money.  I think people agree on most other issues.


Okay, let me use the American spectrum, something I concocted, to reduce the issue of immigration to our Founding Fathers.  You see, that is the one thing people miss right off the bat.  In discussing an issue, the first necessity is to reduce down to common ground.  This is no small matter as neither William F. Buckley nor Noam Chomsky did this in their debating each other.  Yet, Socrates himself never quit reducing period.  Or, as Plato portrayed him, he never elaborated.  Over twenty years of studying under him, Plato finally unraveled enough about him to elaborate on Socrates's theories. 
Pretend that you are Socrates and I am Plato living today.   In his question about what is the United States and how would people living their think of the issue of immigration, I'd first narrow down to our Founding Fathers.
Okay, so his first question in response is why I would refer to our Founders in the higher case.
I'd answer, unlike lessor fathers, it is because they took up the issue concerning truth. 
He would ask what truth?
I'd say the self-evident truths pertaining to the one unapproachable Truth.
He would ask me to define Truth?
I'd say that this is the Truth the sophists argued in favor of during the times of ancient Greece when they would put on performances for money in front of rich Greeks arguing both sides of a debate.  In contrast, the self evident truths our Founders declared as unalienable were the Platonic best principled ways traveling in a direction towards that unapproachable Truth.  
What is unalienable.
Unalienable is a conclusion which is bipartisan and apolitical.  The self evident and unalienable truths were established by natural law.
What is natural law?
Natural law was the metaphysical scientific method used during the time of our Fathers.
What is a metaphysical scientific method?
It is a reduced truth to the extent that it is undeniable, but incomprehensible.  It isn't a theory of this and / or that.  The conclusion isn't up for debate because, as it was believed during the time, an analysis was included in with the incomprehensible conclusion to explain it such a way that wasn't misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misconveyed (the reason for the development of linguistics).  
And so on . . . 
Pertaining to the question of immigration, our conversation would go like this:
As an American, what do you think about the issue of immigration?
Well, the American spectrum is different from the Aristotilian golden mean as I put a enthroned tyrant at the farthest point of one end of the scale and a prostitute at the farthest point of the other end of the scale.  As a tyrant, an immigrant would be perceived as a good thing as he or she as workers would drive down the price of labor.  As a prostitute, an immigrant would be perceived as a bad thing as he or she would drive down the price of labor.  
Reducing this down even further, Socrates would learn that those in tyranny, the ones represented by the king, are the ones who read and understand the news.  Meanwhile, those who are disadvantaged, the ones represented by the prostitute, wither don't read, don't understand, or are ones deceived by the news.  
There is just so much that can be learned by reducing to our Founders that one never really has to elaborate from an established platform of the left and right false dichotomy.

----------


## RickyJ

> I think a guest worker program should be created that makes it easier for immigrants to come here and work and feed their families.  But, we should not make it easier for immigrants to become citizens.


How about a citizen worker program for Americans to work in their own nation? I got no problems with foreigners working here as long as they aren't taking a job that a qualified American is perfectly capable of doing. But that is not the case for the majority of foreign workers in this nation right now. Most foreigners working here now are directly displacing qualified Americans for the job they are doing.

----------


## erowe1

> THAT's what I'm saying you said!  Except you also put forth the idea that we should have a LAW that kicks out foreigners if they don't have one!  And that local authorities should check for these papers!


When you get down to details, everyone who wants the federal government to regulate immigration ultimately has to be for that.

----------


## erowe1

> How about a citizen worker program for Americans to work in their own nation? I got no problems with foreigners working here as long as they aren't taking a job that a qualified American is perfectly capable of doing. But that is not the case for the majority of foreign workers in this nation right now. Most foreigners working here now are directly displacing qualified Americans for the job they are doing.


It's not like there's some finite number of jobs out there where when one person gets one that leaves one less for someone else.

----------


## Danke

> Typical irrational answer. 
> 
> We all have SS numbers, dude.
> 
> Get real.


You know one has to voluntarily apply for a SSN (or one's parents) right?  I did it when I was 16.

If it was mandatory (ie, a must have gov. ID), the government would just assign you one.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> I side with Napolitano on this one. 
> 
> As for the arguments about people crossing private property in order to traverse the border, it is *highly* doubtful that the "owners" actually use *all* of that property, and arbitrarily deciding where people can travel based on imaginary lines is irrational. Any understanding of property rights that creates ownership of unused land can and should be rejected on logical grounds.
> 
> What is _not_ a right is to violate the rights of others when there is no clear way that yours have been aggressed against. If immigrants destroy private property in the process (and this has happened), *then* they should be punished in accordance with law. If not, then they should be free to pursue their own prosperity - this was one of the principles that made the USA great.
> 
> If we're going to deal with the State at all, then it can safely be assumed that one within the Nation-State's boundaries is subject to its laws by virtue of voluntarily moving themselves into its territory.
> 
> The *real* problem here is the State's welfare programs providing an incentive that we are coerced into providing, and _that_ is where a lot of the xenophobia stems from. I cannot imagine we'd be having this conversation if the Federal authority were so damn out of control, and restricting _all_ of our opportunities.
> ...


By natural law, the homeless prostitute owns all that land as well as the wealth.  The enthroned king, the necessary tyrant, just owns their title meaning that he or she are the true trespassers on the land and the borrowers of everything they own.  In other words, to blow this out of the water, the only reason for keeping any government around or the law for that matter is to advance the new order our Founders established in the Declaration of Independence.  "All men," both male and female, were born endowed with the same exact business agenda for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This means the highest enthroned king and the lowest homeless prostitute.  That is the new order we live by.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> How about a citizen worker program for Americans to work in their own nation? I got no problems with foreigners working here as long as they aren't taking a job that a qualified American is perfectly capable of doing. But that is not the case for the majority of foreign workers in this nation right now. Most foreigners working here now are directly displacing qualified Americans for the job they are doing.


Quit viewing jobs as a finite resource and tell the State to undo their stupidity _vis a vis_ property rights preventing us from going out, claiming our own unused land, creating our own job, and generating our own wealth. Tell the State to stop regulating industry in such a way that we don't have the same opportunities as our ancestors to foment our own business.

There is wealth to be had, and the State keeps us from it. The State has won this conversation by dictating its terms, and training us to think the limit of our ambitions is working for some company. By doing that, we're pitted against our own fellow man that is just trying to make his way in life.

Pardon the language, but here's what all liberty-minded folk should be saying: $#@! that.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> By natural law, the homeless prostitute owns all that land as well as the wealth.  The enthroned king, the necessary tyrant, just owns their title meaning that he or she are the true trespassers on the land and the borrowers of everything they own.  In other words, to blow this out of the water, the only reason for keeping any government around or the law for that matter is to advance the new order our Founders established in the Declaration of Independence.  "All men," both male and female, were born endowed with the same exact business agenda for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This means the highest enthroned king and the lowest homeless prostitute.  That is the new order we live by.


Private property stems from the principle of self-ownership, a natural right. "Natural law" does not point to universal ownership of everything as an _a priori_ understanding. No more than a bird's nest belongs to all its fellow birds, than does a man's house belong to all other men. Evidence rejects your proposition.

----------


## Danke

What makes me a "US Citizen?"  The fact that I was born in one of the States?  (Yes I know what the 14A says).

But if it was a home birth (as an example) with no gov. records, who is to say otherwise?  And where are the Gov. agents gonna send me as I don't have official "papers?"

----------


## otherone

> When you get down to details, everyone who wants the federal government to regulate immigration ultimately has to be for that.


_The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
_

Why is it I got to tolerate some jack-booted statie peering into my jeep asking for my papers just because someone thinks Mexicans shouldn't be here....haven't we had enough of this crap from the TSA?  Maybe the TSA subhumans should check our floorboards and attics in case we're harboring Jews Latinos

----------


## otherone

> But if it was a home birth (as an example) with no gov. records, who is to say otherwise?  And where are the Gov. agents gonna send me as I don't have official "papers?"


yeah. we have a sub-forum for living off the grid; but I guess one has to be on the grid first to live off it?   You know..no "off-gridding" for illegals!!!

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Private property stems from the principle of self-ownership, a natural right. "Natural law" does not point to universal ownership of everything as an _a priori_ understanding. No more than a bird's nest belongs to all its fellow birds, than does a man's house belong to all other men. Evidence rejects your proposition.


On the political spectrum, one never arrives at either the enthroned king or the homeless prostitute.  The significance of the spectrum is how we all exist somewhere in the middle either in prosperity represented by the king or in subsistence represented by the prostitute.  As the multitude were represented by the prostitute, the twelve disciples were represented by tyranny.  When the disciples ordered the uncomely multitude away to take care of themselves at the market (basically telling them to go to hell and to get lost), Jesus interceded on their behalf Willing all property to the most worthless by commanding that they "Lay back where you stand."  He then turned to His Disciples stripping them of their birthright ownership making them serving trespassers by commanding that they "give them something to eat!"  
This is on the highest level here.  In other words, a natural right during the time of John Locke reduced on the physical level as there existed no such thing as the cognitive sciences during his time.  So, a natural right reduced on the level of DnA.  It is a different right than a civil right.  As Americans, we have both civil and natural rights.  Human rights are just confusion caused by people who don't understand that we have both natural and civil rights.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> On the political spectrum, one never arrives at either the enthroned king or the homeless prostitute.  The significance of the spectrum is how we all exist somewhere in the middle either in prosperity represented by the king or in subsistence represented by the prostitute.  As the multitude were represented by the prostitute, the twelve disciples were represented by tyranny.  When the disciples ordered the uncomely multitude away to take care of themselves at the market (basically telling them to go to hell and to get lost), Jesus interceded on their behalf Willing all property to them by commanding that they "Lay back where you stand."  He then turned to His Disciples stripping them of their birthright ownership making them serving trespassers by commanding that they "give them something to eat!"  
> This is on the highest level here.  In other words, a natural right during the time of John Locke reduced on the physical level as there existed no such thing as the cognitive sciences during his time.  So, a natural right reduced on the level of DnA.  It is a different right than a civil right.  As Americans, we have both civil and natural rights.  Human rights are just confusion caused by people who don't understand that we have both natural and civil rights.


Confusing an admonishment to the disciples to care for their fellow man as pertinent to a discussion of what constitutes rights is tantamount to a red herring.

Human rights, those rights granted to us by virtue of our humanity, trump civil rights. Failure to recognize the arbitrary nature of civil rights inevitably leads to an inflated sense of importance attached to the State, and passive acquiescence to its abuse(s) of power. You have fallen into this trap.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Confusing an admonishment to the disciples to care for their fellow man as pertinent to a discussion of what constitutes rights is tantamount to a red herring.
> 
> Human rights, those rights granted to us by virtue of our humanity, trump civil rights. Failure to recognize the arbitrary nature of civil rights inevitably leads to an inflated sense of importance attached to the State, and passive acquiescence to its abuse(s) of power. You have fallen into this trap.


If you are going to call red herrings, then you need to quit talking about natural law, the scientific method our Founders utilized in throwing out the old order of Europe and replacing it with a new one.  Natural law wasn't created by science, but allowed in by the Catholic Church because of Aristotle's works.  Natural philosophers, elites who had to be members of the clergy, played the part of scientists during that time.
And our Founders were existential in their concerns when declaring a natural law.  Human rights aren't existential.

----------


## loveableteddybear

I think what a lot of the open borders crowd ignores is that just like there are barely any native Americans left, making half of the U.S. population recent-immigrant is going to do the same thing in many parts of the country. No one here is saying they despise Mexicans. They just don't want the USA to become Mexico or any other country.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> If you are going to call red herrings, then you need to quit talking about natural law, the scientific method our Founders utilized in throwing out the old order of Europe and replacing it with a new one.  Natural law wasn't created by science, but allowed in by the Catholic Church because of Aristotle's works.  Natural philosophers, elites who had to be members of the clergy, played the part of scientists during that time.
> And our Founders were existential in their concerns when declaring a natural law.  Human rights aren't existential.


The principles of natural law and natural rights can be derived independently of the church, and are based entirely on _a priori_ assumptions. The association fallacy is noted, and your argument dismissed as logically invalid.

As human rights only apply to humans they are dependent on the existence of humans, by definition. If you wish to minimize the importance of rights via claiming the _fallacy of reification_ and appealing to science, then I'll simply point out that this negation includes morality and ethics; this, in turn, negates any point to this discussion and renders it a relativistic quagmire with no value to any given position - yours included.

If you think the "science" the Founders used lies in the social contract they created, thereby giving it legitimacy and acting as a means of reification, then allow me to be the first to point that you are, just like I said, acquiescing to all of the State's abuse(s) of power.

If, instead, you recognize the "social contract" merely enumerates what is already ours to begin with, then the people are empowered to restrain the State when it oversteps its bounds. If not, then you have no argument when the State decides to do *anything*.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> I think what a lot of the open borders crowd ignores is that just like there are barely any native Americans left, making half of the U.S. population recent-immigrant is going to do the same thing in many parts of the country. No one here is saying they despise Mexicans. They just don't want the USA to become Mexico or any other country.


But people don't see Mexicans as an asset.  I think a city would rather sell the idea that they have African Americans living there.  Asians are basically just whites on the scale, aren't they?  I know it is dangerous to think this way as expressing what one feels is the truth is always frowned upon.  Fortunately, we are in a Ron Paul forum protected by the prime directive of the Federation to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go misconjugate, grammatically speaking, where no sexist man has gone before.

----------


## Danke

> But people don't see Mexicans as an asset.  I think a city would rather sell the idea that they have African Americans living there.  Asians are basically just whites on the scale, aren't they?  I know it is dangerous to think this way as expressing what one feels is the truth is always frowned upon.  Fortunately, we are in a Ron Paul forum protected by the prime directive of the Federation to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go misconjugate, grammatically speaking, where no sexist man has gone before.


Talk to the farmers in California.

And I'd like to see full amnesty for "Confederate."  We are scheduled to go canoeing one of these days, and I don't want to have to vouch for him.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> The principles of natural law and natural rights can be derived independently of the church, and are based entirely on _a priori_ assumptions. The association fallacy is noted, and your argument dismissed as logically invalid.
> 
> As human rights only apply to humans they are dependent on the existence of humans, by definition. If you wish to minimize the importance of rights via claiming the _fallacy of reification_ and appealing to science, then I'll simply point out that this negation includes morality and ethics; this, in turn, negates any point to this discussion and renders it a relativistic quagmire with no value to any given position - yours included.
> 
> If you think the "science" the Founders used lies in the social contract they created, thereby giving it legitimacy and acting as a means of reification, then allow me to be the first to point that you are, just like I said, acquiescing to all of the State's abuse(s) of power.


You see why it is necessary to first reduce down in any debate?  In utilizing the American spectrum I have devised, while the king will always be considered educated and rational regardless (or else), the worthless prostitute will always be considered ignorant and insane also regardless.  Okay.  Let me attempt to reduce here.  When speaking about a priori, are you referring to it in reference to the actual reduced conclusion of an experiment; or, are you referring to it in reference to the analysis provided along with the conclusion?

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> You see why it is necessary to first reduce down in any debate?  In utilizing the American spectrum I have devised, while the king will always be considered educated and rational regardless (or else), the worthless prostitute will always be considered ignorant and insane also regardless.  Okay.  Let me attempt to reduce here.  When speaking about a priori, are you referring to it in reference to the actual reduced conclusion of an experiment; or, are you referring to it in reference to the analysis provided along with the conclusion?


_A priori_ as it relates to self-evident propositions born of deductive reasoning, ie: self-ownership.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Talk to the farmers in California.
> 
> And I'd like to see full amnesty for "Confederate."  We are scheduled to go canoeing one of these days, and I don't want to have to vouch for him.


Is there something ethically wrong with saying that the state of California is doomed because of its huge population of Mexicans?  I know it sounds funny to say.  What about Massachusetts speaking more specifically around the Boston area with its huge numbers of whites?  For some reason, we don't think of Mexicans (this means Hispanics in the Texan language) as being someone capable of perceiving and upholding the virtues bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers.  I do think we feel that African Americans are more capable of doing that even though African Americans, or people of color, are often perceived to be the ones most involved in crimes, even though, indeed, as they say, not all people of color commit crimes, but most crimes are committed by people of color . . . ahem.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if a meteor smashed into the atmosphere causing a dust that, when breathed, forced us all to speak openly this way?

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Is there something ethically wrong with saying that the state of California is doomed because of its huge population of Mexicans?  I know it sounds funny to say.  What about Massachusetts speaking more specifically around the Boston area with its huge numbers of whites?  For some reason, we don't think of Mexicans (this means Hispanics in the Texan language) as being someone capable of perceiving and upholding the virtues bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers.  I do think we feel that African Americans are more capable of doing that even though African Americans, or people of color, are often perceived to be the ones most involved in crimes, even though, indeed, as they say, not all people of color commit crimes, but most crimes are committed by people of color . . . ahem.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if a meteor smashed into the atmosphere causing a dust that, when breathed, forced us all to speak openly this way?


California is doomed due to the Californians that think themselves fit to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and a "social contract" that enabled the State to do such a thing.

Blaming Mexicans for it is asinine.

----------


## erowe1

> Is there something ethically wrong with saying that the state of California is doomed because of its huge population of Mexicans?  I know it sounds funny to say.  What about Massachusetts speaking more specifically around the Boston area with its huge numbers of whites?  For some reason, we don't think of Mexicans (this means Hispanics in the Texan language) as being someone capable of perceiving and upholding the virtues bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers.  I do think we feel that African Americans are more capable of doing that even though African Americans, or people of color, are often perceived to be the ones most involved in crimes, even though, indeed, as they say, not all people of color commit crimes, but most crimes are committed by people of color . . . ahem.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if a meteor smashed into the atmosphere causing a dust that, when breathed, forced us all to speak openly this way?


You mean you're not black? I guess I always pictured you after the pattern of Uncle Remus.

----------


## AuH20

> California is doomed due to the Californians that think themselves fit to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and a "social contract" that enabled the State to do such a thing.
> 
> Blaming Mexicans for it is asinine.


California is a magnet for Mexicans. I can't say I completely blame them.

----------


## Danke

> Is there something ethically wrong with saying that the state of California is doomed because of its huge population of Mexicans?  I know it sounds funny to say.  What about Massachusetts speaking more specifically around the Boston area with its huge numbers of whites?  For some reason, we don't think of Mexicans (this means Hispanics in the Texan language) as being someone capable of perceiving and upholding the virtues bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers.  I do think we feel that African Americans are more capable of doing that even though African Americans, or people of color, are often perceived to be the ones most involved in crimes, even though, indeed, as they say, not all people of color commit crimes, but most crimes are committed by people of color . . . ahem.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if a meteor smashed into the atmosphere causing a dust that, when breathed, forced us all to speak openly this way?


You are full of it.  The crimes committed by "whites" do a lot more damage to the average American than some gang crime by "people of color" will ever do.  I, along with my neighbors can easily defend against the threat of local violence.

A little harder against the well organized and funded mafia we call government.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> _A priori_ as it relates to self-evident propositions born of deductive reasoning, ie: self-ownership.


Okay, as in self-ownership as opposed to having ones soul fully owned as a slave by a master?  Deductive reasoning as it was developed by Aristotle?  Self-evident as in reduced to an undeniable proposition as apposed to modern theoretical science?  You see, you still haven't answered the question.  Supposedly, our Founders sent to a king a conclusion within The Declaration of Independence which, to be a natural law, had to have within it both a conclusion and an analysis explaining the conclusion.  So, what would have concern Immanuel Kant with The Declaration of Independence?  The conclusion iself, or the analysis of the conclusion within it?

----------


## Carson

We have become a sick nation.

Controlling immigration is important. 

Having a border is fundamental to establishing law and order. 

We should be upholding our immigration laws. 

*More importantly* we should be respecting other nations borders as independent countries. 
*
More importantly than that* is we should not only protect our Constitution inside of the country but stretch it out and cover others around the world like they are one of us when we react with others. Not have double standards of treatment. Like *Ron Paul* said, "Do unto others" wasn't it?  I don't mean force others outside of our nation comply with our Constitution.

Anyone that thinks playing illegal aliens into the hands of the criminals in the government and business is doing them a favor is sadly mistaken, in my opinion. I remember when companies truly needed people they went through proper channels. I worked with people from all over the world. We worked side by side for the same wages and benefits. Sometimes they renewed their visa's. Sometimes they thought it time to go home. Back then I hoped they took a little bit of the way we did things home with them. I was young and learning an occupation and felt they had helped me and left a little behind. Now I'd be ashamed to be spreading what we've become.

The pendulum swung since that time. Over and over have the criminals wanted compromise. Over and over they have gotten it only to never deliver on their promises. As soon as one batch got amnesty they were replaced by others that were illegal and would work for less wages and benefits. The criminals that hired them found ways to shift the burden of their social services and health on to the remaining business that tried to operate above board.

In San Diego there used to be Safe Houses near the Community Hospital where pregnant women would come and hide out until time to deliver. Once they delivered a child on this side of the border that were able to set up a government sponsored stay at home business of raising babies. Now I hear they have a pill to induce labor so I imagine their are Safe Parking stalls at the hospitals. 

Anyway their are lots of borders for lots of things when you think about it. How far are we all really willing to go.

Antigua: Land of the sun, sand, and super cheap downloads    /// Comments

You know there are borders about everywhere and on about everything and more borders inside of those borders.

Really! Just where do you stand on *lawlessness*?


I find this uncompromisable coming from the Judge. Then again the quote is, "Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."".

Sounds reasonable if your doing it legal.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

I see both sides of the argument as logical. I don't see a wrong answer, to be quite honest. Restoring prosperity will resolve most of it. Getting rid of the welfare state which motivates many of them to come here, is another. It's unnecessary to tackle the 'illegal' immigrants head on with threats of deportation, and government force, when the issue's are both truly related to the economy and system which enables it.

----------


## AGRP

Remind me if im ever dieing on the side of a desolate road to decline help from a driver if they dont have permission to live in the country.

----------


## UMULAS

> Typical irrational answer. 
> 
> We all have SS numbers, dude.
> 
> Get real.


Doesn't matter, don't change the subject.

Do you believe that the government has the right to watch and give National ID's?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> You are full of it.  The crimes committed by "whites" do a lot more damage to the average American than some gang crime by "people of color" will ever do.  I, along with my neighbors can easily defend against the threat of local violence.
> 
> A little harder against the well organized and funded mafia we call government.


As the purpose of therapy is admitting the truth, seems part of the problem causing mental illness today is how we have to pay someone lots of money in order to be in therapy.  When people are honest in public, therapeutically speaking, they are called crazy.  It's all quite funny.  Funny in how Plato once taught people how to generalize in order to gain control over tyranny.  Now the best of the educated today criticize people for generalizing.  Is it any wonder we are all so confused?

----------


## UMULAS

> Bull$#@! if ILLEGAL ALIENS do, Umulas.  They don't deserve anything but their asses kicked out of the country.  We are a nation of laws and they chose to  break it.


So when a national like ours such as half the population don't even pay income tax they can call it "'Murican right", but when illegal immigrants pay taxes more than the Average U.S. American and asks for welfare, it's all Rush Limbaugh here.


I know that illegals and legals pay taxes, how? 

National tax ID's.

So in theory, the government already knows were immigrants and illegals are, but they don't do anything to "deport" them since they will loose revenue.

You don't want to deport people who actually work do you?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> You mean you're not black? I guess I always pictured you after the pattern of Uncle Remus.


I am not black per se.  I am only black in pen name as a fictional author and narrator I created.  This allows me to write about things I wouldn't normally be able to write about.  Just the other day after writing an article accusing blacks of being racists, I was attacked as a racist myself until I justified my comments being as I  was a fictional author of color.  But no wonder people pay little mind to my soulish and jazzy posts!  I now see that they ignored me because they all thought I was a typical shallow African American!  And here I thought it was because they thought I was just being my crazy self?

----------


## UMULAS

> I never stated that immigrants hurt the economy. I stated, that more people immigrating to the U.S. Compounds the economic problems. Why? Inserting more people into the job market when opportunities are gradually fading away, just means less opportunity for more and more people.
> 
> Immigration is good during prosperity.
> Immigration is bad during decline.



Immigrants can make jobs, also it's healthy to have competition on jobs. Look at the guilded age of America.

----------


## Danke

> As the purpose of therapy is admitting the truth, seems part of the problem causing mental illness today is how we have to pay someone lots of money in order to be in therapy.  When people are honest in public, therapeutically speaking, they are called crazy.  It's all quite funny.  Funny in how Plato once taught people how to generalize in order to gain control over tyranny.  Now the best of the educated today criticize people for generalizing.  Is it any wonder we are all so confused?


You know you can't even carry on a rational conversation, right?

----------


## otherone

> Is it any wonder we are all so confused?


I'm not confused at all.  I see you as someone using pointless self-aggrandizing rhetoric to justify your fear of anyone different than you.  This is America, you're free to hate anyone you want.  What I can't abide however, is that you believe assuaging your own personal insecurities is enough cause to have my Rights further trampled upon by the state.

----------


## RickyJ

> It's not like there's some finite number of jobs out there where when one person gets one that leaves one less for someone else.


If there are an infinite number of jobs for a finite number of people then why is unemployment so high? The reason is manipulation of the economy. This nation is purposely being destroyed and most worker-visa holders are being used by the elite to help the destruction of this nation. If you think that is not the case then you are living in a bubble.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Okay, as in self-ownership as opposed to having ones soul fully owned as a slave by a master?  Deductive reasoning as it was developed by Aristotle?  Self-evident as in reduced to an undeniable proposition as apposed to modern theoretical science?  You see, you still haven't answered the question.  Supposedly, our Founders sent to a king a conclusion within The Declaration of Independence which, to be a natural law, had to have within it both a conclusion and an analysis explaining the conclusion.  So, what would have concern Immanuel Kant with The Declaration of Independence?  The conclusion iself, or the analysis of the conclusion within it?


Self-ownership as in one controls their person, and therefore owns it. This is a self-evident proposition that you cannot effectively deny.

Deductive reasoning predates Aristotle. Your _association fallacies_ have previously been dismissed as logically invalid, and it is no different now. Your failure to argue your position on its own merit is noted.

What has also been noted is your willingness to acquiesce to State abuses of human rights so long as it benefits you.

Honest question - why are you on a board dedicated to liberty?

----------


## Danke

> Doesn't matter, don't change the subject.
> 
> Do you believe that the government has the right to watch and give National ID's?


Of course they don't.  It is a voluntary system, that is the only way it passed the constitutional muster.

But of course, if you want to work for someone else, they make it difficult not to have one.

----------


## UMULAS

> Of course they don't.  It is a voluntary system, that is the only way it passed the constitutional muster.
> 
> But of course, if you want to work for someone else, they make it difficult not to have one.



I know, but the federal government caused it for problems; that's why I signed up to get my SSN.

However, she stated that immigrants need documents and paper, which I find it contradicting a liberty state would do. Because _no country ever used documentations and informations as a weapon against the people_.

SSN's are barely voluntarily, since majority of parents give it to their kids without choice.

----------


## AGRP

So, on one side we have people who believe people are human beings regardless of what club card they have or dont have.  On the other, we have people who believe the country is a giant bargain warehouse filled with goodies purchased by taxation and no one with their club card gets in.  Right?

----------


## dinosaur

Mass Immigration from one country to another -> Balkanization -> war

We just need to look at history if we want to find out what happens in real life when the rate of immigration exceeds the rate of cultural assimilation.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> You know you can't even carry on a rational conversation, right?


Man, you have no idea.  Do you realize Socrates spoke with a demon?  It was allowed in Greek society during that time to do so.  But Socrates heard a very clear voice in his head.  It said to him to quit his life in the Athenian army and take up a life of philosophy.  This so bothered him that, according to lore, he prayed for a whole day before obeying the voice.  Do you realize Socrates wasn't even an elite?  By elite, I mean he wasn't a trainer kind of teacher of the very rich as Aristotle was later on.  Socrates wasn't even a professor like Plato.  He didn't write and some question his reading ability.  Yet, out of Socrates didn't come just laws, but a whole new order.  He was a true Sage in this fashion.
Okay, so far we have someone who spoke to a demon.  He wasn't an elite.  
On top of this, he had absolutely no fear for his own life as a hoplite as the Spartans were so in awe of him that they spared his life.  Okay, so think of a great serving kind of a philosopher, one who spoke with the clear voice of a demon in his head, and one who had no fear of death.  
Would you consider this man rational?

----------


## UMULAS

> So, on one side we have people who believe people are human beings regardless of what club card they have or dont have.  On the other, we have people who believe the country is a giant bargain warehouse filled with goodies purchased by taxation and no one with their club card gets in.  Right?



Immigrants pay taxes, therefore they should receive any social program.


Jesus.. Am I going to keep re-posting this all the time every time some argues against immigration?

----------


## Ender

> I side with Napolitano on this one. 
> 
> As for the arguments about people crossing private property in order to traverse the border, it is *highly* doubtful that the "owners" actually use *all* of that property, and arbitrarily deciding where people can travel based on imaginary lines is irrational. Any understanding of property rights that creates ownership of unused land can and should be rejected on logical grounds.
> 
> What is _not_ a right is to violate the rights of others when there is no clear way that yours have been aggressed against. If immigrants destroy private property in the process (and this has happened), *then* they should be punished in accordance with law. If not, then they should be free to pursue their own prosperity - this was one of the principles that made the USA great.
> 
> If we're going to deal with the State at all, then it can safely be assumed that one within the Nation-State's boundaries is subject to its laws by virtue of voluntarily moving themselves into its territory.
> 
> The *real* problem here is the State's welfare programs providing an incentive that we are coerced into providing, and _that_ is where a lot of the xenophobia stems from. I cannot imagine we'd be having this conversation if the Federal authority weren't so damn out of control, and restricting _all_ of our opportunities.
> ...


Thank you! Great post- you are 1000% on the mark.

As for Mexicans, I hate to break it to y'all but California was once part of Mexico. 

I am from California and I have had tons of Hispanic friends- they are the hardest workers on the planet- usually raised by a tough Mexican mama who showed them how to work. They do NOT take jobs from others; they take jobs that no one else will do. As long as people are working and contributing to their community, they are assets.

The welfare state was created to make people prisoners- it needs to be abolished.

----------


## UMULAS

> Mass Immigration from one country to another -> Balkanization -> war
> 
> We just need to look at history if we want to find out what happens in real life when the rate of immigration exceeds the rate of cultural assimilation.


So cultural assimilation = justice

Please...tell me what the 1st amendment is again, I forgot what it was.

----------


## Danke

> I know, but the federal government caused it for problems; that's why I signed up to get my SSN.
> 
> However, she stated that immigrants need documents and paper, which I find it contradicting a liberty state would do. Because _no country ever used documentations and informations as a weapon against the people_.
> 
> SSN's are barely voluntarily, since majority of parents give it to their kids without choice.


Once you are 18, you don't have to use it.

----------


## UMULAS

> You are full of it.  The crimes committed by "whites" do a lot more damage to the average American than some gang crime by "people of color" will ever do.  I, along with my neighbors can easily defend against the threat of local violence.
> 
> A little harder against the well organized and funded mafia we call government.


Actually, not of to brag, but as for studying two months on retribution vs rehabilitation, it was reported that whites make the most crimes, however they have the lowest rate on race. Getting arrested or put in jail is not you did, *but of your ethnic group and race*. It's sad, but true.

----------


## Danke

> Immigrants pay taxes, therefore they should receive any social program.
> 
> 
> Jesus.. Am I going to keep re-posting this all the time every time some argues against immigration?


They do pay taxes, but no one should use any social programs.

----------


## UMULAS

> They do pay taxes, but no one should use any social programs.


Unless it's in the 10th amendment, then it's constitutional.

Hoever, I'm pro-immigrant (as you see in recent posts) and Con on social programs.

So I believe that we can just compromise and allow immigration but end social programs. I'm all for two birds one stone.

EDIT:

Never knew you can voluntarily decide on SSN once your 18. However, government regulations such as artificial loaning and jobs caused it for SSN to go from voluntarily to "there is no way out maaaaaaan".

----------


## Danke

> Actually, not of to brag, but as for studying two months on retribution vs rehabilitation, it was reported that whites make the most crimes, however they have the lowest rate on race. Getting arrested or put in jail is not you did, *but of your ethnic group and race*. It's sad, but true.


You will have to clarify that for me.  Violent crimes?  Whites as a percentage?  Anyway, the lawyers, judges with the backing of bankers are a bigger threat to me than any individual.

----------


## Danke

> Unless it's in the 10th amendment, then it's constitutional.
> 
> Hoever, I'm pro-immigrant (as you see in recent posts) and Con on social programs.
> 
> So I believe that we can just compromise and allow immigration but end social programs. I'm all for two birds one stone.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Never knew you can voluntarily decide on SSN once your 18. However, government regulations such as artificial loaning and jobs caused it for SSN to go from voluntarily to "there is no way out maaaaaaan".


I agree.  I see no reason to restrict one's right to freely travel.

----------


## Danke

> Man, you have no idea.  Do you realize Socrates spoke with a demon?  It was allowed in Greek society during that time to do so.  But Socrates heard a very clear voice in his head.  It said to him to quit his life in the Athenian army and take up a life of philosophy.  This so bothered him that, according to lore, he prayed for a whole day before obeying the voice.  Do you realize Socrates wasn't even an elite?  By elite, I mean he wasn't a trainer kind of teacher of the very rich as Aristotle was later on.  Socrates wasn't even a professor like Plato.  He didn't write and some question his reading ability.  Yet, out of Socrates didn't come just laws, but a whole new order.  He was a true Sage in this fashion.
> Okay, so far we have someone who spoke to a demon.  He wasn't an elite.  
> On top of this, he had absolutely no fear for his own life as a hoplite as the Spartans were so in awe of him that they spared his life.  Okay, so think of a great serving kind of a philosopher, one who spoke with the clear voice of a demon in his head, and one who had no fear of death.  
> Would you consider this man rational?


And there you have it:




> You know you can't even carry on a rational conversation, right?

----------


## liberty2897

Good interview.  I happen to agree with everything The Judge had to say.

----------


## dinosaur

> So cultural assimilation = justice
> 
> Please...tell me what the 1st amendment is again, I forgot what it was.


No borders = free speech?  Why can't countries with diverse cultures exist, and have borders?  Why is that a crime against justice?

----------


## otherone

> Man, you have no idea.  Do you realize Socrates spoke with a demon?  It was allowed in Greek society during that time to do so.  But Socrates heard a very clear voice in his head.  It said to him to quit his life in the Athenian army and take up a life of philosophy.  This so bothered him that, according to lore, he prayed for a whole day before obeying the voice.  Do you realize Socrates wasn't even an elite?  By elite, I mean he wasn't a trainer kind of teacher of the very rich as Aristotle was later on.  Socrates wasn't even a professor like Plato.  He didn't write and some question his reading ability.  Yet, out of Socrates didn't come just laws, but a whole new order.  He was a true Sage in this fashion.
> Okay, so far we have someone who spoke to a demon.  He wasn't an elite.  
> On top of this, he had absolutely no fear for his own life as a hoplite as the Spartans were so in awe of him that they spared his life.  Okay, so think of a great serving kind of a philosopher, one who spoke with the clear voice of a demon in his head, and one who had no fear of death.  
> Would you consider this man rational?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Self-ownership as in one controls their person, and therefore owns it. This is a self-evident proposition that you cannot effectively deny.
> 
> Deductive reasoning predates Aristotle. Your _association fallacies_ have previously been dismissed as logically invalid, and it is no different now. Your failure to argue your position on its own merit is noted.
> 
> What has also been noted is your willingness to acquiesce to State abuses of human rights so long as it benefits you.
> 
> Honest question - why are you on a board dedicated to liberty?



Do you own yourself?  Are you sure?  Are you connected with your ancestors?  Do you consider being plugged in with our Founders in such a way to be bondage?  First off, you don't own yourself as they already have you positioned standing on and arguing from an established platform.  According to what Plato wrote in his numerous dialogues, Socrates never stood on such an established platform.  Instead, he constantly narrowed towards knowing a higher quality truth.  In his works, Aristotle clearly explained both Socrates use and development of inductive reasoning as well as Plato's own theory of the forms (the best principled statements).  Inductive reasoning, theory of the Forms, and deductive reasoning are all truth engine dialectics. 
Our Founders defined tyranny as that point in which the government and the people becomes corrupt.  We should know this as being elemental.  A Democratic Republic dissolves the position of emperor by establishing each sovereign state as its own nation.  We are not an empire regardless of what the confused might claim.  A thousand rulers a mile away can indeed rule less corrupt than one tyrant a thousand miles away.  While the best government is going to be corrupt, it is absolutely necessary to have one.  Therefore, a more perfect Union should be considered, at best, to be a necessary tyranny.  The purpose for it isn't to implement laws mindlessly, but to further advance the established order.  Failure to only maintain the order of a society results in a long standing dynasty.

----------


## UMULAS

> You will have to clarify that for me.  Violent crimes?  Whites as a percentage?  Anyway, the lawyers, judges with the backing of bankers are a bigger threat to me than any individual.


http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0325.pdf

For some reason I can't find anything more updated, maybe due to analyzing taking them forever I guess...

I'm not saying that there is a race that is "violent" or "evil", but there is more reason on why there is a higher ratio on minorities.

Lawyers, judges, and prison makers are the mother loads behind all this due to excessive costs which they receive. 

Inner city hispanics and blacks = people viewing them as "thugs" = put to correctional jail and later legal transfers to other extended periods = $$$$$$$

If you want I can give you my speech on rehabilitation and the sources.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> And there you have it:


The problem lies in your being deceived by those who claim to be rational in place of the true one who was so rational that the whole order of Western Civilization ushered forth from him.  I don't talk with demons.  I do have a fear of losing my life.  I don't spend my time walking to the market to ask questions of the worthless.  Therefore, in comparison to the very model of rationality, I am irrational.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Do you own yourself?  Are you sure?


Yes. Yes, arguing with you reinforces the self-evident point. If I didn't own myself, then you could tell me to agree with you, and I would have to. However, I don't, and this makes self-ownership _a priori_.




> Are you connected with your ancestors?  Do you consider being plugged in with our Founders in such a way to be bondage?


Yes. Yes, social contracts represent bondage - even the good-intentioned ones.




> First off, you don't own yourself as they already have you positioned standing on and arguing from an established platform.  According to what Plato wrote in his numerous dialogues, Socrates never stood on such an established platform.  Instead, he constantly narrowed towards knowing a higher quality truth.  In his works, Aristotle clearly explained both Socrates use and development of inductive reasoning as well as Plato's own theory of the forms (the best principled statements).  Inductive reasoning, theory of the Forms, and deductive reasoning are all truth engine dialectics.


I own myself by virtue of arguing with you. The "established platform" I stand on is called "logic". It's the same means humans have adapted as a reasonable method of determining correct action before Greece ever existed.

The references to Greek philosophers are both _red herring_ and _association fallacies_.




> Our Founders defined tyranny as that point in which the government and the people becomes corrupt.  We should know this as being elemental.  A Democratic Republic dissolves the position of emperor by establishing each sovereign state as its own nation.  We are not an empire regardless of what the confused might claim.  A thousand rulers a mile away can indeed rule less corrupt than one tyrant a thousand miles away.  While the best government is going to be corrupt, it is absolutely necessary to have one.  Therefore, a more perfect Union should be considered, at best, to be a necessary tyranny.  The purpose for it isn't to implement laws mindlessly, but to further advance the established order.  Failure to only maintain the order of a society results in a long standing dynasty.


We're a Constitutional Republic.

Even if one accepts the proposition of a government as necessary, it does not implicate the necessity of a mandatory social contract that obligates those born within its territories. Q does not follow from P.

And there is no such thing as "necessary tyranny". Utter nonsense spouted from the mouths of sophists intent to acquiesce to human rights abuses committed by the State.

----------


## UMULAS

> The problem lies in your being deceived by those who claim to be rational in place of the true one who was so rational that the whole order of Western Civilization ushered forth from him.  I don't talk with demons.  I do have a fear of losing my life.  I don't spend my time walking to the market to ask questions of the worthless.  Therefore, in comparison to the very model of rationality, I am irrational.


Just use Aristotle's syllogism and theory of existance of truth, very simple and you will be extremely reasonable.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Just use Aristotle's syllogism and theory of existance of truth, very simple and you will be extremely reasonable.


I don't mean to stumble you up any.  In time, you will come to appreciate what I'm talking about here.  You know, Jesus first learned the Old Testament as the law.  It wasn't until He asked an old wretch a question that her answer caused Him to understand it spiritually as the Gospel.  I'm referencing the verse when He asked her about the claim that she was feeding the dogs underneath the table while neglecting His children.  In her answer to Him, she used herself as a metaphor from two points of view with one view from the master, the almighty, and the other from the dog, herself.  This caused an immense ushering in of insight for the Lord which further caused Him to rejoice crying out, "Great is your faith!" 
On another level, I've already provided an answer by narrowing down to our Founders using the American political spectrum.  As the enthroned king on one end of the spectrum will always be considered rational and educated regardless, or else, the homeless prostitute on the other end of it will always be considered irrational and ignorant.  
Think of it another way.  What makes you what you are official is a bunch of lawyers.  What made the lawyers official was the ordaining so by a king.  What made the kings official was the blessing by Christ when He fulfilled the prophecies.  Problem is, something to think about, Christ fulfilled the prophecies against His Will.  After finishing up, he abandoned the temple and the law just about as abruptly as a person could do so.  
In the end, the measure of our worth is only important regarding what increased the happiness of others.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Yes. Yes, arguing with you reinforces the self-evident point. If I didn't own myself, then you could tell me to agree with you, and I would have to. However, I don't, and this makes self-ownership _a priori_.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Yes, social contracts represent bondage - even the good-intentioned ones.
> 
> 
> 
> I own myself by virtue of arguing with you. The "established platform" I stand on is called "logic". It's the same means humans have adapted as a reasonable method of determining correct action before Greece ever existed.
> ...


Mexico is a Constitutional Republic as they established their new nation by the old traditions of legal precedence having done so by using an established junta.  This trick replaced the old order with the same old order.  In contrast, our Founders utilized the scientific method of natural law to replace the old order with a new one.  They then established the U.S. Constitution implementing laws to advance the new order.  In prior societies of old, laws were established to maintain an order in chaos.  In the new order that our Founders established, laws are utilized to advance a new order which includes "all men."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Mexico is a Constitutional Republic as they established their new nation by the old traditions of legal precedence having done so by using an established junta.  This trick replaced the old order with the same old order.  In contrast, our Founders utilized the scientific method of natural law to replace the old order with a new one.  They then established the U.S. Constitution implementing laws to advance the new order.  In prior societies of old, laws were established to maintain an order in chaos.  In the new order that our Founders established, laws are utilized to advance a new order which includes "all men."


The Constitution was a reversion to the Old Order.  Tyranny in different stripes.

----------


## purplechoe

Here's the actual clip...




I agree with the judge as well as Ron Paul on this one. Although Ron took a more anti-amnesty position in 2008, he pretty much would agree with everything the judge said. The reason Ron took that position was because we were going through tough times economically and he didn't like the idea of them sucking of the tit of the government. That was also the only time that I think I ever saw Ron pandering the to conservative right on any issue as far as I remember, even though at heart he felt different.

With that said I also understand those who oppose it, there are no winners in this one. The reason I sympathies is that it seems to me that a lot of immigrants in recent times don't bother to assimilate like those in the past and instead create their own communities, be they Hispanic, Polish, Russian, etc...

But just be careful if you wish there was some kind of wall built to keep the Mexicans out. The same wall can be used to keep you in.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> In a free society, from whom could you buy land? Is there someone out there who owns it to begin with and can sell it to you?


 I am surprised you are asking this question.  Don't you believe in homesteading?

All property starts out unowned.  Even our own bodies perhaps, one could say.  Then we homestead it.  We claim it, we start using it, we call it ours.  Other people respect our claim.  We reciprocally respect their claims.  We buy and sell with each other.  Thus we live in peace, with lots of individuals and lots of goods and clear boundaries delineating which individuals have the right to control which goods.

----------


## misean

> The Constitution was a reversion to the Old Order.  Tyranny in different stripes.


What Old Order was that? What country was more free in the history of the world than America right after its founding? Pretty retarded to call a Constitutional America tyranny.

----------


## torchbearer

> I am surprised you are asking this question. Don't you believe in homesteading?
> 
> All property starts out unowned. Even our own bodies perhaps, one could say. Then we homestead it. We claim it, we start using it, we call it ours. Other people respect our claim. We reciprocally respect their claims. We buy and sell with each other. Thus we live in peace, with lots of individuals and lots of goods and clear boundaries delineating which individuals have the right to control which goods.




most people skip philosophy class as bull$#@!, but this really is the basics to liberty.

----------


## torchbearer

> What Old Order was that? What country was more free in the history of the world than America right after its founding? Pretty retarded to call a Constitutional America tyranny.


it may seem strange, but that is a minarchist vs. anarchist debate actually.
i wish we lived in a time that was the biggest debate of our time.
the left and right was anarch and minarchs. that would be the goal. because even in anarchy you would have small groups of voluntary minarchist who understand the idea of an area of protection for right via contract, though we won't make the mistake of making it assumed for all.
each year, the people would have to agree to the contract again. otherwise, no government.
that way, the only government that exist will be those of consent for that year. one year charters.
so many ways to slice it.
anyway- back to 'dey tuk ur jubz!'

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> The Constitution was a reversion to the Old Order.  Tyranny in different stripes.


This would have been the case if our Founders had used the same old method other than Natural Law.

----------


## misean

> it may seem strange, but that is a minarchist vs. anarchist debate actually.
> i wish we lived in a time that was the biggest debate of our time.
> the left and right was anarch and minarchs. that would be the goal. because even in anarchy you would have small groups of voluntary minarchist who understand the idea of an area of protection for right via contract, though we won't make the mistake of making it assumed for all.
> each year, the people would have to agree to the contract again. otherwise, no government.
> that way, the only government that exist will be those of consent for that year. one year charters.
> so many ways to slice it.
> anyway- back to 'dey tuk ur jubz!'


I was just rereading Human Action this weekend. Mises was not charitable toward the anarchy argument. I also remember Hayek saying something to the effect how inefficient anarchy is, even less so than government.  He said it becomes difficult to get large groups of people to cooperate and you don't get any type of economy of scale.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> What Old Order was that? What country was more free in the history of the world than America right after its founding? Pretty retarded to call a Constitutional America tyranny.


We aren't a Constitutional government.  The difference came in our divorce from the old order with this being achieved by way of The Declaration of Independence.  According to the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans, our new nation wouldn't have been justified under God's judgement as the king was the rightful ruler.  But our Founders utilized the science of natural law to establish a new natural law of self evident and unalienable truths.  In utilizing such, they proved the king wasn't a rightful king at all, but a tyrant.  As with all natural laws, they had to submit both a conclusion, and an analysis of that conclusion.
As the first part of the conclusion was all inclusive declaring "all men" as being born equally endowed with the same exact business agendas for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the second part of it was an analysis showing just proof that the king was not fit to be a king.  Therefore, he was divorced justifiably as a tyrant.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Mises was not charitable toward the anarchy argument.


See: http://mises.org/daily/6226/Mises-on-Secession

About the OP, no surprise. The Judge is a voluntaryist.

----------


## RickyJ

> We aren't a Constitutional government.  The difference came in our divorce from the old order with this being achieved by way of The Declaration of Independence.  *According to the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans, our new nation wouldn't have been justified under God's judgement as the king was the rightful ruler.*


No, not according to the Apostle Paul in Romans, just according to the misinterpretations of Romans 13:1-8. Paul in no way was talking about the Roman government there because he openly opposed them and was beaten by them, put in prison by them, nearly killed by them but still ignored their laws. In the end Paul was crucified by them for continuing to break their laws. Paul was talking about a much higher power than any earthly government there, much higher indeed.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I also remember Hayek saying something to the effect how inefficient anarchy is, even less so than government.  He said it becomes difficult to get large groups of people to cooperate and you don't get any type of economy of scale.


Without knowing exactly what Hayek had to say on the matter (I have never read much of him, and nothing on the subject of anarchy), I do not find his conclusions to be very compelling.

Suppose that he is correct - the existence of the State is necessary in order to optimize "large-scale cooperation" (with respect to human resources) and "economies of scale" (with respect to material resources).

This necessarily implies that State allocation/control of resources (human & material) is required in order to optimize cooperation & scaling. (If not, then what is the role of the State supposed to be?)

IOW: Socialism is best means of optimizing cooperation & scaling. Coming from the man who wrote The Road to Serfdom, this seems more than a little contradictory.

Of course, one could argue that the role of the State would be to "facilitate" rather than to "allocate & control" - but this prompts highly problematic questions of semantics & visions of blurry lines and slippery slopes.

These questions & visions are exacerbated by the fact the Hayek (based on what little I have read by & about him) approved of more than just a bare minimum of State "participation" in market & social processes.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> No, not according to the Apostle Paul in Romans, just according to the misinterpretations of Romans 13:1-8. Paul in no way was talking about the Roman government there because he openly opposed them and was beaten by them, put in prison by them, nearly killed by them but still ignored their laws. In the end Paul was crucified by them for continuing to break their laws. Paul was talking about a much higher power than any earthly government there, much higher indeed.


Good ear.  But Christ also fulfilled the prophecy by blessing the same law that hounded after to kill him as a child, that persecuted His own mother as an adulterer, and would eventually capture to crucify Him.  A subtle point was once made by brother Watchman Nee, a Chinese christian, who exposed a subtle difference.  When breaking the law to preach the Gospel, one is speaking of the ruling Truth itself.  Watchman Nee gave the example of what a sister should do if her unbelieving husband would demand that she not attend the meetings of the church.  He said she should submissively bow to the authority of her husband, but then disobey him by going to the meetings anyway.  Likewise, the Apostle Paul bowed to the authority of Rome submissively, but then disobeyed by preaching the gospel anyway.  A similar instance happened when the protestant Catholics in Germany started rebelling against the Pope.  By the encouragement of Martin Luther, they were beheaded not for being disobedient, but for being insubordinate to authority.  This is the perfect way to be as an American.  First off, we should realize how our natural rights are more important than our civil.  As natural rights work on the level of the conscience, doing so on a bipartisan level, the civil rights work on the level of the mind, in a partisan fashion in this case involving the legal process and lawyers.

----------


## XTreat

> Without knowing exactly what Hayek had to say on the matter (I have never read much of him, and nothing on the subject of anarchy), I do not find his conclusions to be very compelling.
> 
> Suppose that he is correct - the existence of the State is necessary in order to optimize "large-scale cooperation" (with respect to human resources) and "economies of scale" (with respect to material resources).
> 
> This necessarily implies that State allocation/control of resources (human & material) is required in order to optimize cooperation & scaling. (If not, then what is the role of the State supposed to be?)
> 
> IOW: Socialism is best means of optimizing cooperation & scaling. Coming from the man who wrote The Road to Serfdom, this seems more than a little contradictory.
> 
> Of course, one could argue that the role of the State would be to "facilitate" rather than to "allocate & control" - but this prompts highly problematic questions of semantics & visions of blurry lines and slippery slopes.
> ...


I have only read Hayek's Serfdom, but he says pretty clearly there that the role of government is to enforce contracts and arbitrate disputes. Thats about it.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I have only read Hayek's Serfdom, but he says pretty clearly there that the role of government is to enforce contracts and arbitrate disputes. Thats about it.


My understanding is that he started out at or near the position of  "contract-enforcement and dispute-arbitration only" and he gradually over time expanded the roles he was  willing to allow the government to take on.

From what little I have read, in his later years, he had no particular problems with things like so-called "social safety nets" (such as Social Security & Medicare), State ownership of things like utilities (e.g., gas & electricity), and other "public goods".

----------


## loveableteddybear

> California is doomed due to the Californians that think themselves fit to vote themselves gifts from the treasury, and a "social contract" that enabled the State to do such a thing.
> 
> Blaming Mexicans for it is asinine.


Not to defend some of the brash things Uncle is saying, but I just came back from LA and the _majority_ of radio stations were in Spanish. Some even played American music, but the DJ and ads were all spanish. This doesn't bode well for a country whose Constitution and traditions are all _in English._

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Mass Immigration from one country to another -> Balkanization -> war
> 
> We just need to look at history if we want to find out what happens in real life when the rate of immigration exceeds the rate of cultural assimilation.


When the Huns immigrated to Rome, everything worked out just great.

And how about when the Mongols immigrated to Russia?

Or what about the Europeans settling in the Americas?

Or how about the whole world immigrating to the United States? Oh yeah, we don't know what will happen yet. Let's hope we'll buck the trends of history!

----------


## loveableteddybear

> No, not according to the Apostle Paul in Romans, just according to the misinterpretations of Romans 13:1-8. Paul in no way was talking about the Roman government there because he openly opposed them and was beaten by them, put in prison by them, nearly killed by them but still ignored their laws. In the end Paul was crucified by them for continuing to break their laws. Paul was talking about a much higher power than any earthly government there, much higher indeed.


Peter was crucified upside down, Paul was beheaded according to tradition.

----------


## romacox

Many years ago my uncle crossed the border annually from Mexico to work on my grandparents ranch.  He worked here for 3 months every year,  returned home, and was able to support his family in Mexico for a full year off of the wages made on the ranch...a big incentive to return home.    

Back then illegal immigration was not a problem.  But the government made it a problem by building a fence which makes it more dangerous to cross, gives welfare to illegal aliens, created the war on drugs, created illegal wars, and illegal occupation all over the globe ....magnets that draw those who would do us harm to cross our borders.  End welfare, stop the fence, end the war on drugs, and end the illegal occupation and wars.....no amnesty needed.  

Amnesty is a smoke screen created by the government who is following the policies of the CFR who advocates a global governance.  If immigration is a natural right, it cannot be governed by government. They cannot deport , and  therefore amnesty is not in their jurisdiction either.   

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...llect-welfare/

*Legal & illegal immigrants struggle, use welfare to make up the difference* http://www.examiner.com/article/lega...the-difference *The globalists (CFR) have been working toward slave labor.  You see my Uncle was free to come an return home.  But the new illegals do not have that choice, and are forced into slave labor.  We are next.
*
http://www.infowars.com/cfr-backs-am...o-style-raids/

----------


## otherone

> Amnesty is a smoke screen created by the government


"Amnesty" is to enslave undocumented aliens as we citizens are enslaved.   More biomass to fuel the furnace of state.

----------


## erowe1

> I am surprised you are asking this question.  Don't you believe in homesteading?
> 
> All property starts out unowned.  Even our own bodies perhaps, one could say.  Then we homestead it.  We claim it, we start using it, we call it ours.  Other people respect our claim.  We reciprocally respect their claims.  We buy and sell with each other.  Thus we live in peace, with lots of individuals and lots of goods and clear boundaries delineating which individuals have the right to control which goods.


I'm with you up to homesteading. But I have never understood how homesteading included the right to sell the land when you were done with it. I think exclusive rights to land should be for the sake of using it. I don't think somebody should be able to claim ownership to a bunch of unused land just so they can be the only people who hunt on it.

----------


## romacox

> "Amnesty" is to enslave undocumented aliens as we citizens are enslaved.   More biomass to fuel the furnace of state.


Very well said.  The CFR has been very clever in tricking many Countries including the U.S..  They forced slave labor here  from Mexico through NAFTA.  They promised the Mexican farmers that if they sold  their land to American businesses moving to Mexico, they would receive higher wages and retirement plans "like Americans have" .  But it was an empty promise.  When these companies found cheaper labor in China and India, they pulled out, leaving in their wake destroyed farm land and large numbers of unemployed Mexicans who poured over into our borders only to find themselves forced in to welfare and low wages which are not enough to survive on.

As you say, amnesty will enslave both U.S. and American Citizens.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm with you up to homesteading. But I have never understood how homesteading included the right to sell the land when you were done with it.


 It's part of the whole package of rights that come with having an absolute property in something.  You have the right to combine it with other things and thus transform it.  You have the right to loan it to people, or gift it, or sell it.  So if I own a gold ring, I can melt it down and make a coin.  I can add it to my ring library from where people can rent out rings for special occasions.  I can bequeath it to my grand-daughter to be her wedding ring.  I can throw it out the window.  I can donate it to Goodwill.  _I can do whatever I want with it._  Otherwise I don't really own it.

It is the same with any good I own -- a forest, an airplane, a pineapple.  I can do whatever I want with it.




> I think exclusive rights to land should be for the sake of using it. I don't think somebody should be able to claim ownership to a bunch of unused land just so they can be the only people who hunt on it.


 Well at some point unused property reverts back to being unowned and is available for homesteading again.  If I just leave my car sitting out in the middle of the road or somewhere, eventually it's up for grabs; it's considered abandoned.  Exactly when this happens and to what extent it must be being used to prevent this reversion will be determined by convention.

In my example of a very rich person buying many square miles of land and forming a country, I was envisioning him recruiting other people filling his country with them, not living all by his lonesome.  If it was just him, he wouldn't need any "house rules" -- he would only be controlling himself.

----------


## erowe1

> It's part of the whole package of rights that come with having an absolute property in something.  You have the right to combine it with other things and thus transform it.  You have the right to loan it to people, or gift it, or sell it.  So if I own a gold ring, I can melt it down and make a coin.  I can add it to my ring library from where people can rent out rings for special occasions.  I can bequeath it to my grand-daughter to be her wedding ring.  I can throw it out the window.  I can donate it to Goodwill.  _I can do whatever I want with it._  Otherwise I don't really own it.
> 
> It is the same with any good I own -- a forest, an airplane, a pineapple.  I can do whatever I want with it.


Right. But how can you own land? What makes it yours? You can own what you produce and build on it. But you can't just put a fence around however much you want and say, "This is mine. No trespassing." and then go on and act like you have the right to sell it to someone else who can then say the same thing.




> Well at some point unused property reverts back to being unowned and is available for homesteading again.


I agree. You can't just buy and sell it.




> In my example of a very rich person buying many square miles of land and forming a country, I was envisioning him recruiting other people filling his country with them, not living all by his lonesome.  If it was just him, he wouldn't need any "house rules" -- he would only be controlling himself.


But from whom would he buy it? Some government?

----------


## AGRP

It seems like theres a certain amount of racism that exists whether people recognize and admit it or not.  Theres plenty of european descended canadians who are illegal and no one is complaining about them.  I dont think many people would care if most people who came from mexico and asia looked like europeans.

----------


## AGRP

> "Amnesty" is to enslave undocumented aliens as we citizens are enslaved.   More biomass to fuel the furnace of state.


x2

This is exactly like the gay marriage debate.  Who says they should be in the marriage business to begin with?

----------


## sailingaway

> It seems like theres a certain amount of racism that exists whether people recognize and admit it or not.  Theres plenty of european descended canadians who are illegal and no one is complaining about them.  I dont think many people would care if most people who came from mexico and asia looked like europeans.



There may be racism in there, too, I've seen some ugly stuff,  but it is the drain on resources that is the issue, while people are forced to pay into a welfare state and made dependent on the services provided because their money was taken to pay for them.  The factor determining is whether you will pay in more than you take out to the system. Things like education level etc factor into that.

----------


## otherone

> It seems like theres a certain amount of racism that exists


What is bigoted is believing that someone will take advantage of welfare programs based solely on their country of origin.

----------


## AGRP

> There may be racism in there, too, I've seen some ugly stuff,  but it is the drain on resources that is the issue, while people are forced to pay into a welfare state and made dependent on the services provided because their money was taken to pay for them.  The factor determining is whether you will pay in more than you take out to the system. Things like education level etc factor into that.


So, youre in the group that believes the US is a giant bargain warehouse that sells or gives away goodies inside which are payed by taxation?  The goodies can only be sold or given to those with a club card?

----------


## sailingaway

> What is bigoted is believing that someone will take advantage of welfare programs based solely on their country of origin.


 It is what is presented in statistics, I suspect, but also, if there isn't a huge concentration of illegal immigration, the impact won't be felt.  I suspect Canadian illegal immigrants tend to be more in those areas.

Trying to paint concern over degraded resources people are forced to pay into and are dependent on as racism isn't a very nice thing to do, imho.

----------


## The Freethinker

I am a former immigrant who became a naturalized citizen of the United States.

I went through ALL the legal channels from start to finish. I never illegally crossed land or maritime borders; I got off an airplane at an international airport, went through immigration with all my papers, and within weeks of my arrival my green cards arrived.

I went to public schools, enrolling at ESL classes first to learn the English language. Those ESL classes taught me about the Pilgrims, the early English influence on the colonies, Halloween, Thanksgiving (it was most probably the first time many of my former classmates ate turkey - many may never even have known turkey meat was edible), etc. I eventually learned English, became Americanized enough to start watching US sitcoms, collecting Marvel comics, learning what a pep rally was, differentiating between junior varsity and varsity sports. I took the SAT. I applied for college. I took out student loans, and later paid them off.

I fell in love with this country, although I have in recent years received an education which no school I earlier went to gave me (Austrian economics and libertarian thought). It is because I love America that I hate the statism that has corrupted the America the Founders wanted it to be.

Immigration is a right, but it is not to be taken lightly. Citizenship is an honor and a privilege one earns.

Mexican immigration laws openly states immigrants must prove they can contribute to society. Canadian immigration laws are strict, and applying for Canadian citizenship has requirements that must be duly followed. Every country has the right to regulate who comes in, who stays in, and who is entitled to acquire the citizenship, and all pertaining privileges, of that country.

I once escorted a senior citizen to court, on the ceremony where all present were awarded their naturalization certificates and swore allegiance to America. Two things stand out from that day.

One, the friendliness and warmth on the judges face. It was the same as the day on the occasion I myself was sworn as an American citizen. I always thought of judges as harsh, and while Im sure those judges were quite capable of sternness during trials, they were kind to all. The humble demeanors on the faces of those being sworn in showed their appreciation.

Two, a comment by that senior citizen. The senior citizen, from a racially and culturally homogenous country, told me how absolutely generous America was as she sat there waiting for her name to be called, for her to retrieve her certificate of naturalization. She said her own country was never and would never be this welcoming to foreigners from all over the world.

That senior citizen, like me, came to America legally through all the proper channels, paying every fee and tax and submitting every required form and document. Sometimes the proper channels include obligatory visits to US consulates for interviews as to why one wants to immigrate to America.

No one deserves to be a US citizen just because they came here. Laws are imperfect and the state is corrupt, but there are at least some benefits with certain imperfect laws imposed by the state. One of them is to prevent people who come here from abusing the generosity of America.

And it is the generosity of America, along with its genius of liberty and freedom that the Founders instituted, that makes me a libertarian, an advocate of sound money, and a staunch defender of many wonderful things about this country. So to those of you who were born here and are dismayed by the deterioration we've witnessed under Bush 43, Obama, and their statist predecessors: things may be bad, but there's still very much to be proud of here in the United States. You may not realize it because you haven't lived abroad.

America, the Beautiful. God shed His grace on thee.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am a former immigrant who became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
> 
> I went through ALL the legal channels from start to finish. I never illegally crossed land or maritime borders; I got off an airplane at an international airport, went through immigration with all my papers, and within weeks of my arrival my green cards arrived.
> 
> I went to public schools, enrolling at ESL classes first to learn the English language. Those ESL classes taught me about the Pilgrims, the early English influence on the colonies, Halloween, Thanksgiving (it was most probably the first time many of my former classmates ate turkey - many may never even have known turkey meat was edible), etc. I eventually learned English, became Americanized enough to start watching US sitcoms, collecting Marvel comics, learning what a pep rally was, differentiating between junior varsity and varsity sports. I took the SAT. I applied for college. I took out student loans, and later paid them off.
> 
> I fell in love with this country, although I have in recent years received an education which no school I earlier went to gave me (Austrian economics and libertarian thought). It is because I love America that I hate the statism that has corrupted the America the Founders wanted it to be.
> 
> Immigration is a right, but it is not to be taken lightly. Citizenship is an honor and a privilege one earns.
> ...


This is a beautiful testimony.

----------


## AGRP

> What is bigoted is believing that someone will take advantage of welfare programs based solely on their country of origin.


Sounds like it.  Is this debate_ really_ about resources? Resources _belonging_ to whom?  The state?  What resources? Public schools? The DMV? The CPS? State colleges? Public utilities? Medicare? Social Security? Roads? Hmm.  I though most libertarians believed _those_ resources should be in private hands, but then by magic they suddenly become extremely valuable public resources when mexicans and asians are added to the mix.

----------


## Deborah K

> It seems like theres a certain amount of racism that exists whether people recognize and admit it or not.  Theres plenty of european descended canadians who are illegal and no one is complaining about them.  *I dont think many people would care if most people who came from mexico and asia looked like europeans.*


I don't think people who are out of work and trying to compete with illegals in the trucking industry, landscaping, construction, hotel, restaurant, and most other service oriented businesses CARE one iota about race.  *facepalm*

----------


## sailingaway

> Sounds like it.  Is this debate_ really_ about resources? Resources belonging to whom?  The state?  What resources? Public schools? The DMV? The CPS? State colleges? Public utilitys? Medicare? Social Security? Roads? Hmm.  Seems like most libertarians believe _those_ resources should be in private hands, but then by magic they suddenly become extremely valuable public resources when mexicans and asians are added to the mix.


The point is you can't have open immigration with a welfare state.  Once people have had thousands a year taken when they didn't have kids to pay for schools, when they do have kids they don't have that money to have private schools instead, at the prices they are in areas where the public schools are seriously degraded.  Schools are one example, hospitals another, welfare is not the one that impacts most people other than in the pocket book. The schools and medical care impact the quality of schools and medical care for all.  

If they had not been created it would be a different situation, but once the force of the state has been used to create those systems and take money for those services, I do believe a nation has an obligation not to swamp the systems it has forced its people into.

----------


## dinosaur

> You may not realize it because you haven't lived abroad.


Everyone who is waiting for the collapse instead of working to right our ship, or who thinks that we should leave our land to whatever other culture wants to inhabit it, should live and work on their own overseas for a year and get a dose of reality.  Visiting is different, really immerse yourself in another culture without the buffer of American freinds and family, and you will see what this person is talking about.

----------


## fisharmor

> There may be racism in there, too, I've seen some ugly stuff,  but it is the drain on resources that is the issue, while people are forced to pay into a welfare state and made dependent on the services provided because their money was taken to pay for them.





> The art of economics consists in not merely looking at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists of tracing the consequences of that policy *not merely for one group but for all groups.*


Last year I completely renovated my kitchen, _including the subfloor_, everything out and new stuff in, for around $4500.
Go check with a couple contractors and see if any of them estimate you at less than ten times that.
We were able to do this in part because of illegal immigrants.  And as a result we have a new kitchen, and there is at least $30,000 in the economy that can be put to a somewhat better purpose than waiting around for four hours and then having to reschedule the inspection because the county official chose the exact moment you couldn't hold in the turtle head any longer to come knocking.

It's just not as simple as "they're a drain on resources".

----------


## otherone

> The point is you can't have open immigration with a welfare state.


Which of your Rights are you willing to part with to prevent it?  Which of my Rights are you willing to sacrifice to prevent it?

----------


## AGRP

> The point is you can't have open immigration with a welfare state.


You value a welfare state more than a human being who doesnt pay into it? That's sad.  Hopefully, one day you will realize a human being is a human being regardless of what club card they have or dont have.

----------


## sailingaway

> Last year I completely renovated my kitchen, _including the subfloor_, everything out and new stuff in, for around $4500.
> Go check with a couple contractors and see if any of them estimate you at less than ten times that.
> We were able to do this in part because of illegal immigrants.  And as a result we have a new kitchen, and there is at least $30,000 in the economy that can be put to a somewhat better purpose than waiting around for four hours and then having to reschedule the inspection because the county official chose the exact moment you couldn't hold in the turtle head any longer to come knocking.
> 
> It's just not as simple as "they're a drain on resources".


I didn't say it was that simple, but they are only able to survive on those wages because they are getting the benefits of taxpayer funded schools for their kids, medical, etc. The taxpayers subsidize the benefit package and many aren't getting the benefit of your floors.  Beyond that, it isn't just cost, but degredation of the health care and schools, etc. That goes way beyond price to people's health and children's futures.  

THAT is why there is so much resistance to open borders in the NON racist part of America.  Which I believe is the vast majority of the country.

----------


## sailingaway

> You value a welfare state more than a human being who doesnt pay into it? That's sad.


That' ^^ is spin.  Valuing a good education for children and decent medical care after being forced to pay for it isn't 'valuing the welfare state'.

----------


## otherone

> *I don't think people* who are out of work and trying to compete with illegals in the trucking industry, landscaping, construction, hotel, restaurant, and most other service oriented businesses *CARE one iota about race*.  *facepalm*







> Everyone who is waiting for the collapse instead of working to right our ship, or *who thinks that we should leave our land to whatever other culture wants to inhabit it,* should live and work on their own overseas for a year and get a dose of reality.  Visiting is different, really immerse yourself in another culture without the buffer of American freinds and family, and you will see what this person is talking about.


With all due respect, Deborah K, there are many who have posted here who disagree with you.

----------


## AGRP

> That' ^^ is spin.  Valuing a good education for children and decent medical care after being forced to pay for it isn't 'valuing the welfare state'.


Thats exactly what you stated.  You said you cant have one without the other.  You value the welfare state more than the human without the club card.

----------


## dinosaur

> With all due respect, Deborah K, there are many who have posted here who disagree with you.


culture = race?

Please explain.

----------


## sailingaway

> Thats exactly what you stated.  You said you cant have one without the other.


No, I didn't I said once it already existed and the money had been taken, the state which should not have taken it was obligated to manage the service properly.  A way it could be done is to ACTUALLY POLICE not letting any but citizens use those things and let everyone go where they want, but it is never going to happen, and would create the situation of dying people being turned away by hospitals, etc.

So as long as the welfare state DOES exist, impacts on services are a real consideration.

----------


## otherone

> culture = race?
> 
> Please explain.


lol. "culture"= code.  Please tell me. In your travels, what foreign "culture" is most compatible with "our" culture.  In addition, please tell me what "our" culture is, so's i may inform my neighbor to put away his Ganesh statue.

----------


## Deborah K

> With all due respect, Deborah K, there are many who have posted here who disagree with you.


I haven't read the whole thread.  Are you implying there are people competing for jobs (posting on this thread) who are upset with illegals who are Mexican, but wouldn't be upset if they were white Canadians?  Because that is my point.

----------


## AGRP

Im willing to bet most of this debate wouldnt exist if Chin Lee resembled Britney Spears and Rosa the cleaning lady looked like a French maid.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It seems like theres a certain amount of racism that exists whether people recognize and admit it or not.  Theres plenty of european descended canadians who are illegal and no one is complaining about them.  I dont think many people would care if most people who came from mexico and asia looked like europeans.


That might apply to some people, but it's a gross generalization. There is certainly a focus in the media on people crossing from south of the border, but this is by no means the only source of immigration. It may also be due to the fact that people tend to become more concerned about "floods" of immigration, where people are not assimilated, and start to form their own sub-society. It could be any racial or ethnic group. It's more a matter of how obvious it is, or how much publicity it gets on the idiot box. Masses of people of Central American heritage, not being able to speak English stand out. Quite literally. They are standing out in front of Home Depots and 7/11s. They are doing jobs that tend to be the visible types; gardening, construction, etc. High visibility leads to more focus.

If every IT person from India spent their entire day sitting at a computer on the edge of the street instead of in buildings, they would get just as much publicity as South of the Border immigration. It would be a good guess that many Americans would literally be shocked at the numbers.

And this does come back around to your point. Obvious racial differences are erroneously used to identify immigrants. It doesn't necessarily mean racism or racial preference, it means jumping to conclusions. In some places, a "white" person walking down the street is just as likely to be a recent immigrant as a Hispanic or Asian.

People who are against illegal immigration usually have the same answer when this is pointed out. "It doesn't matter where they came from, they all need to get in line!" (I.e. follow the legal process.)

----------


## Deborah K

> lol. "culture"= code.  Please tell me. In your travels, what foreign "culture" is most compatible with "our" culture.  In addition, please tell me what "our" culture is, so's i may inform my neighbor to put away his Ganesh statue.


Compare the American culture with the British culture.  Or the Australian culture.  And please, don't confuse culture with religion/spirituality. (Ganesh)

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/choudhury/culture.html




> SOME DEFINITIONS
> Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving. 
> Culture is the systems of knowledge shared by a relatively large group of people. 
> Culture is communication, communication is culture. 
> Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behavior; that is the totality of a person's learned, accumulated experience which is socially transmitted, or more briefly, behavior through social learning. 
> A culture is a way of life of a group of people--the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next. 
> Culture is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a group's skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives. The meanings of the symbols are learned and deliberately perpetuated in a society through its institutions. 
> Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other hand, as conditioning influences upon further action. 
> Culture is the sum of total of the learned behavior of a group of people that are generally considered to be the tradition of that people and are transmitted from generation to generation. 
> Culture is a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.

----------


## sailingaway

> Im willing to bet most of this debate wouldnt exist if Chin Lee resembled Britney Spears and Rosa the cleaning lady looked like a French maid.


It would for me, if the impacts were the same

----------


## dinosaur

> lol. "culture"= code.  Please tell me. In your travels, what foreign "culture" is most compatible with "our" culture.  In addition, please tell me what "our" culture is, so's i may inform my neighbor to put away his Ganesh statue.


It wasn't code.  I was talking about our comparative innocence, and individualism and respect for others.  I have no idea what other culture is most compatable.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Right. But how can you own land? What makes it yours? You can own what you produce and build on it.


 What do you mean "produce"?  What do you mean "build"?  All these type of actions -- producing, building, making, manufacturing -- are actually nothing more than shuffling around pre-existing raw material.  Pre-existing raw material, also known as: _land_.  

When one makes a ring, he takes some metal that used to be in one place (probably buried in the ground), combines it with metal from another place, and some other metal from yet another place, and perhaps a gemstone from someplace else, and by rearranging the spacial locations of these materials to bring them all together, and then rearranging them yet further to make them form a hollow cylinder shape, he does the thing we call "creating a ring".  He really hasn't "created" anything in a metaphysical sense.  All the stuff was already there.  He just moved material around from certain positions at or near the Earth's surface to slightly different positions at or near the Earth's surface.  That's all that the act we call "creation" ever is.  Creation is rearrangement.

You say that producing or building something gives one a legitimate property right in what he built or produced.  Of what does that "producing" or "building" really consist?  Rearrangement of material that was originally land.  So how can one get to own land?  The same way you get to own everything else: by transforming or rearranging it.  We do not usually say "that man has _created_ a furrowed field" or "that man _manufactured_ a lovely garden spot" but he has, just as much as a man may have manufactured a gear or widget.

*Everything originally comes from the land*, from nature.  Then, we remove it from its state of nature.  We modify it.  We start using it, start incorporating it into our lives and goals and plans.  We claim it to be ours.  Thus it becomes our property.  

Again, it's a crucial point: the origin of every material object is land.  If no one can ever truly become the owner of land, then no material object can ever truly be owned.  So there has to be a way for us to take pieces of the Earth out of their natural, unowned state, and inaugurate them into a state of human ownership.  Otherwise, everything will stay unowned forever.  No one will be able to own any rings nor factories nor widgets nor televisions nor books nor any object which was produced from materials gotten from land.  And all materials are gotten from land (that is, from nature).

So what is the way?  How can we get to be owners of pieces of space and matter?  It's the old Lockean formula: we remove them from their natural state.  We "mix our labor" with the raw nature.  We transform it.  We make the wilderness area into a parking lot.  Thus it becomes ours.




> But you can't just put a fence around however much you want and say, "This is mine. No trespassing." and then go on and act like you have the right to sell it to someone else who can then say the same thing.


 No indeed.  There is some amount of transformation/use that must occur.  What amount and just what it can consist of is determined by convention.




> But from whom would he buy it? Some government?


 I don't understand at all why this is even a question.  There's a thousand people who own plots of land in an area.  They all got it from legitimate voluntary sales or gifts, regressed back and back ultimately to homesteaders who got it by removing it from nature.  So those thousand are all legitimate owners under libertarian theory.  Then a rich guy comes in and buys them all out.  No force involved.  They each freely choose to sell their plot to him.  Now he has a really big plot, so he can build a mega-skyscraper or a gated community like I was talking about or whatever he wants to do.  What's the problem?  I see no problem.  It's freedom, baby.  Sounds like he's having a fun project.  Best of luck to him.

----------


## Deborah K

> Im willing to bet most of this debate wouldnt exist if Chin Lee resembled Britney Spears and Rosa the cleaning lady looked like a French maid.


Would you be projecting, by any chance?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I am a former immigrant who became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
> ...
> America, the Beautiful. God shed His grace on thee.


+rep

And you have certainly mastered the English language. Did you get that from a public school?

----------


## AGRP

> It would for me, if the impacts were the same


Yeah right lol. I personally find mexican women to be very pleasant and attractive.  The more the merrier.

----------


## otherone

> I haven't read the whole thread.  Are you implying there are people competing for jobs (posting on this thread) who are upset with illegals who are Mexican, but wouldn't be upset if they were white Canadians?  Because that is my point.


Most of us would agree that the competition for finite resources is the result of the state's interference with markets.  At the same time, many of us would argue that the problem cannot be solved by granting more power to the state to solve it, and indeed that those powers would be detrimental to ALL of our Rights.  
The major arguments against open borders stated in this thread are:

1) Competition for resources (your objection)
2) Abuse of the welfare state
3) Loss of cultural identity

It is the third objection that many here find contrary to the purpose of Liberty.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah right lol. I personally find mexican women to be very pleasant and attractive.  The more the merrier.


weak, imho.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Im willing to bet most of this debate wouldnt exist if Chin Lee resembled Britney Spears and Rosa the cleaning lady looked like a French maid.


Ah, the hot chick angle. If horny guys are the sole arbiters of who immigrates, race, ethnicity, culture, and planet of origin would not matter in the slightest.

----------


## torchbearer

xenophobia does have a lot to play with people's feeling on immigration.
it can be seen in the very fact that 99% of the debate is focus on "the mexicans" and not so much on the canadians..
'dey tuk ur jubz' is bs too. along with the welfare bit-
I actually know hundreds of these immigrant workers. they work hard in a job no one here will do. they aren't on welfare. they aren't diseased or destroy the community.
They add to our local economy as both producers and consumers. Their children go to school with our children. They learn english. 
Why do you fear them?
Because the only thing i hear is the rhetoric of fear from those opposing.

----------


## AGRP

> Would you be projecting, by any chance?


Its a fact darling.

----------


## otherone

> Compare the American culture with the British culture.  Or the Australian culture.  And please, don't confuse culture with religion/spirituality. (Ganesh)


Obviously religion is only one part of culture....but you do recognize that there is no _one_ American culture?  That those living in Baton Rouge LA differ culturally from those living in Fon du Lac Wisconsin?  And even within these areas, different cultures exist?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Its a fact darling.


Reminds me of a classic movie quote... 




> Frost (AGRP): Hey, I sure wouldn't mind getting some more of that Arcturian poontang! Remember that time?
> Spunkmeyer: Yeah, Frost, but the one that you had was a male!
> Frost (AGRP): It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!

----------


## dinosaur

> Most of us would agree that the competition for finite resources is the result of the state's interference with markets.  At the same time, many of us would argue that the problem cannot be solved by granting more power to the state to solve it, and indeed that those powers would be detrimental to ALL of our Rights.  
> The major arguments against open borders stated in this thread are:
> 
> 1) Competition for resources (your objection)
> 2) Abuse of the welfare state
> 3) Loss of cultural identity
> 
> It is the third objection that many here find contrary to the purpose of Liberty.


You can't really separate 3 and 2.  Our respect for the constitution comes from values and convention.  Our battle to save the constitution is a cultural war.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Most of us would agree that the competition for finite resources is the result of the state's interference with markets.


Well, that may be a key difference. I, for one, do not agree with that in the slightest. The government can certainly makes things worse, or create artificial shortages or excesses, but competition for resources is as old as life itself.

----------


## dinosaur

> You can't really separate 3 and 2.  Our respect for the constitution comes from values and convention.  Our battle to save the constitution is a cultural war.


edit: and those of us who want the constitution to be law of the land, are hoping that our will prevails and that other people's will for this country fails.

----------


## AGRP



----------


## Deborah K

> Most of us would agree that the competition for finite resources is the result of the state's interference with markets.  At the same time, many of us would argue that the problem cannot be solved by granting more power to the state to solve it, and indeed that those powers would be detrimental to ALL of our Rights.  
> The major arguments against open borders stated in this thread are:
> 
> 1) Competition for resources (your objection)
> 2) Abuse of the welfare state
> 3) Loss of cultural identity
> 
> It is the third objection that many here find contrary to the purpose of Liberty.


All three arguments have their legitimacy.  Believe it or not, there is collective racism against whitey too.  I've witnessed demonstrations in the past that were so vile, hostile, and racist against white America, that we left for fear of our safety. But, of the three arguments, I don't think loss of culteral identity is nearly as serious as the other two.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "open border". I actually wish the green card process was a whole lot easier because then illegals who want to work over here, wouldn't have to sneak over to do it. I'm okay with Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans crossing over each other's borders to shop, visit, and work (with greencards). So,  I don't want closed borders, just secured ones, so the drug and human traffikers, violent criminals, and the like, can't get in.  

But then, if the 'green card' process was easy like it used to be, and we didn't have a drug war going on, the only thing we'd need to worry about is fugitives from the law in their own countries trying to 'set up shop' here.

----------


## otherone

> All three arguments have their legitimacy.  Believe it or not, there is collective racism against whitey too.


White people didn't invent ignorance, fear, or hatred.  It's common to every race.  But this isn't about color.

----------


## Deborah K

> xenophobia does have a lot to play with people's feeling on immigration.
> it can be seen in the very fact that 99% of the debate is focus on "the mexicans" and not so much on the canadians..
> 'dey tuk ur jubz' is bs too. along with the welfare bit-
> I actually know hundreds of these immigrant workers. they work hard in a job no one here will do. they aren't on welfare. they aren't diseased or destroy the community.
> They add to our local economy as both producers and consumers. Their children go to school with our children. They learn english. 
> Why do you fear them?
> Because the only thing i hear is the rhetoric of fear from those opposing.


What stops them from getting green cards?  Are you not in favor of a country having immigration laws?  Would you be happy if our population swelled to that of India or China?  Resources are not limitless.

----------


## Deborah K

> White people didn't invent ignorance, fear, or hatred.  It's common to every race.  But this isn't about color.


But it seems as though some folks here are trying to make it about 'color'.

----------


## sailingaway

> But it seems as though some folks here are trying to make it about 'color'.


yeah, because then you look like a hateful person and they can dismiss your real concerns.

----------


## otherone

> But it seems as though some folks here are trying to make it about 'color'.


Yes. Yes they are.  I agree with you.  Undocumented aliens is not a racial issue.

----------


## Deborah K

> Obviously religion is only one part of culture....but you do recognize that there is no _one_ American culture?  That those living in Baton Rouge LA differ culturally from those living in Fon du Lac Wisconsin?  And even within these areas, different cultures exist?


I think there is an American culture that most Americans can identify with. If you were to ask a foreigner about the American culture, you'd probably hear that: We love our sports and athletes, our movies and movie stars, we tend to be violent, we prize higher education, and we strive to obtain 'the good life', we have taboos in our culture, we're known for our rugged individualism i.e. leave our guns and religion alone! We celebrate our National Independence, birthdays, anniversaries, etc.  We love our gatherings around the BBQ and the swimming pool (hole).  We try to keep up with the Jones's. Granted some of these values transcend America, but yeah, I would say we have a culture.  

Compare everything I just wrote to Cambodia, or Zimbabwe, etc.  We have a culture.

----------


## The Freethinker

> +rep
> 
> And you have certainly mastered the English language. Did you get that from a public school?


Hahaha, well actually yes. But Marvel comics helped a lot with written English and grammar (I'm not kidding - the grammar was usually spot-on.).

----------


## otherone

> If you were to ask a foreigner about the American culture, you'd probably hear that:


haha!
I guess foreigners would have their stereotypes about us, too!  Like we're all a bunch of cowboys!  bangbang!

----------


## The Freethinker

> haha!
> I guess foreigners would have their stereotypes about us, too!  Like we're all a bunch of cowboys!  bangbang!


You guys will be surprised.

For all the globalization in the 21st Century, people from some countries think everybody in America is a drug-snorting, sexually promiscuous, irreverent, atheistic, liberal nut. They think everyone in America is like the typical urban type in New York City. Then they come here, meet small-town folk, and realize MANY people in America are still quite old-fashioned and conservative.

----------


## No Free Beer

I can never get over why the open border agents bring up Mexicans all the time.

It must be a fetish.

That or THEY'RE the real racists...

----------


## otherone

> You guys will be surprised.
> 
> For all the globalization in the 21st Century, people from some countries think everybody in America is a drug-snorting, sexually promiscuous, irreverent, atheistic, liberal nut. They think everyone in America is like the typical urban type in New York City.


That's how many Saudis view us.  I'm friends with a woman from Ecuador who is extremely conservative, she thinks this is a country of free-loaders and whores.

----------


## AGRP

> Yes. Yes they are.  I agree with you.  Undocumented aliens is not a racial issue.


Its not a racial issue, but it emotionally stems from it.  No one is passionate about stopping illegal euro descended canadians.  This would be like any ho hum topic if mexians and asians looked like europeans.

----------


## Lucille

Not according to Rothbard:




> Actually, Rothbard held the same position his whole life: there is no right to immigrate (as he writes in Ethics of Liberty) but rather immigration should be by invitation, not invasion, as consistent private-property rights economics would dictate. In the exact opposite of what a market policy would be, the state forbids invited people to immigrate, but permits hordes who have no invitation to come on down.

----------


## No Free Beer

> When you get down to details, everyone who wants the federal government to regulate immigration ultimately has to be for that.


Haha.

I find it rather amusing that the same people who are all for open borders, bashed Obama for going into Pakistan to get OBL without respect for Pakistan's sovereignty. 

Interesting....

----------


## otherone

> Haha.
> 
> I find it rather amusing that the same people who are all for open borders, bashed Obama for going into Pakistan to get OBL without respect for Pakistan's sovereignty. 
> 
> Interesting....


Navy Seals are immigrants?

----------


## No Free Beer

> Navy Seals are immigrants?


Navy Seals went into Pakistan without any respect for Pakistan's sovereignty! At least that's what people say on here. 

At the very same time, Open Border Agents, aka: Transnationalists, bashed Obama for that very thing!

I'm still laughing.

----------


## Deborah K

> Its not a racial issue, but its emotionally stems from it.  No one is passionate about stopping illegal euro descended canadians.  This would be like any ho hum topic if mexians and asians looked like europeans.


White Canadians don't flood over the borders to find work here because they aren't under the thumb of a corrupt, tyrannical system like the Mexicans are.  If Mexico was flourishing economically, its people wouldn't want to leave in droves.  If the situation were reversed, it wouldn't change our predicament of having to compete with illegals for jobs.

----------


## otherone

> Navy Seals went into Pakistan without any respect for Pakistan's sovereignty! At least that's what people say on here.


You understand that the military are agents of a state?

----------


## Deborah K

> Not according to Rothbard:


^This

----------


## No Free Beer

> You understand that the military are agents of a state?



And the UN.

Maybe their laws should override ours.

----------


## otherone

> If the situation were reversed, it wouldn't change our predicament of having to compete with illegals for jobs.


Why would anyone choose to hire an undocumented alien over a native?

----------


## dinosaur

> Its not a racial issue, but it emotionally stems from it.  No one is passionate about stopping illegal euro descended canadians.  This would be like any ho hum topic if mexians and asians looked like europeans.


It emotionally stems from wanting limited government.  If californians and new yorkers weren't already part of the union, I wouldn't want an open border with them either.  I'd only want the ones who were yearning to breathe free.

----------


## Deborah K

> You guys will be surprised.
> 
> For all the globalization in the 21st Century, *people from some countries think everybody in America is a drug-snorting, sexually promiscuous, irreverent, atheistic, liberal nut.* They think everyone in America is like the typical urban type in New York City. Then they come here, meet small-town folk, and realize MANY people in America are still quite old-fashioned and conservative.


Yet so many wish to live here.

----------


## AGRP

> White Canadians don't flood over the borders to find work here because they aren't under the thumb of a corrupt, tyrannical system like the Mexicans are.  If Mexico was flourishing economically, its people wouldn't want to leave in droves.  If the situation were reversed, it wouldn't change our predicament of having to compete with illegals for jobs.


So, you dont blame their tyrannical government, but the people who want a better life? Everyone who questions government tomorrow gets thrown if FEMA camps.  Are you staying or "illegally" crossing the border?

----------


## Deborah K

> Why would anyone choose to hire an undocumented alien over a native?


Because of money.  They can pay them less, and under the table.  Which, on its face, sounds damned good to me!  Wish the playing field were equal - wish we could ALL compete for jobs that way, but alas the state sets minimum wages, and then screws us out of our money and uses it to control us.  But as long as the state has that kind of control, people without jobs are going to resent illegals sneaking over, and bypassing our laws.

----------


## otherone

> alas the state sets minimum wages, and then screws us out of our money and uses it to control us.  But as long as the state has that kind of control, people without jobs are going to resent illegals sneaking over, and bypassing our laws.


yup. yup. yup.
Further complicating this is that fully 20 million of the consumers in our economy aren't documented inhabitants, our markets have become dependent on them.

----------


## Deborah K

> So, you dont blame their tyrannical government, but the people who want a better life? Everyone who questions government tomorrow gets thrown if FEMA camps.  Are you staying or "illegally" crossing the border?


Don't ask me rhetorical questions, please.  The whole problem boils down to state control, we all know and agree on that.  And, it can't be solved through amnesty, plain and simple.

----------


## The Freethinker

> Yet so many wish to live here.


Some of the more recent transplants I’ve met are precisely the demographic which would fit into that description. These are early-mid 20something international students who for the most part have well-off parents who foot their tuition and wire them cash. They’re not exactly concerned about their 401k plans, about investing in gold or silver to preserve their purchasing power, or about the federal government’s insolvency.

Being in a country even if for 1, 2, or 3 years for study or work is far different than a tourist experience. And these individuals have told me that America isn’t what they thought they were. Not that they dislike it – on the contrary, many opt to “postpone” their repatriation, and some do what they can to stay here permanently.

My original point is – they had a warped image of the US based on what they see on TV and Hollywood, but being here and actually interacting with Americans is a serious eye-opener (and a great way to erase incorrect stereotypes.).

----------


## otherone

> And, it can't be solved through amnesty, plain and simple.


Nope.  repealing the 14th amendment would be a good start, though.

----------


## AGRP

> Don't ask me rhetorical questions, please.  The whole problem boils down to state control, we all know and agree on that.  And, it can't be solved through amnesty, plain and simple.


Sounds like dont want to answer because you know Ron Paul and I are right.  Legally, you are supposed to stay and get sent to your death.  You cant fight.  Thats illegal too, so youll basically be forced to peacefully flee.  Hopefully, the people you flee to dont send you back for being an "illegal." This is exactly the reason why he changed his position on a wall.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> White Canadians don't flood over the borders to find work here because they aren't under the thumb of a corrupt, tyrannical system like the Mexicans are.


Actually, I've known quite a few white Canadians that have come to the US to live and work. As a generalization, they aren't usually interested in becoming US citizens, unless they want to marry and live here permanently. At an extreme, one guy would actually make fun of people who were proud that they went through the entire process of becoming a US citizen. As an aside, he was also in management, and when manpower was needed, he was adamant that Americans not be hired. He wanted it outsourced, or imported workers brought in. We do have America haters that come here to live and work, and they can be white Canadians.

----------


## The Freethinker

I am personally opposed to an amnesty for a few reasons.

1. It will encourage “bad behavior.” Foreigners who want to come here and are considering skirting US laws will think that there will be no consequence. As a naturalized American, I can say for a fact that however imperfect US laws and courts, that the US is still seen as a “serious country” by foreigners. The impunity Wall Street banks have gotten away with is despicable, but the impunity the common man has to see others enjoy in certain countries would make even the most hard-nosed, jaded American wince.

2. It will be unfair against legal immigrants who have paid hundreds if not thousands of dollars to USCIS and waited a few to many years for their applications to be processed through the bureaucracy. Why is it all right for a college-educated professional from Taiwan or India who is contributing at Microsoft and paying taxes like any US-born white-collar employee to wait years while he petitions for permanent residency (or, once naturalized, petitions to bring his foreign spouse here) WHILE illegal aliens from other countries get a path to residency and citizenship while they’ve fulfilled none of the USCIS requirements as specified by US law?

3. It will be a burden on existing resources. Many undocumented aliens are hard-working; this, I am not afraid to acknowledge. But many others are not able to work, and will depend on state subsidies (food stamps, medical assistance). The poor in America, whether we like it or not, exact a toll on taxpayer money because they cannot provide for themselves. Why enlarge this burden when fiscal health across towns, cities, counties, states, and the country is already so precarious?

----------


## The Freethinker

> Actually, I've known quite a few white Canadians that have come to the US to live and work. As a generalization, they aren't usually interested in becoming US citizens, unless they want to marry and live here permanently. At an extreme, one guy would actually make fun of people who were proud that they went through the entire process of becoming a US citizen. As an aside, he was also in management, and when manpower was needed, he was adamant that Americans not be hired. He wanted it outsourced, or imported workers brought in. We do have America haters that come here to live and work, and they can be white Canadians.


That's a good point. But given Canada is comparable to America in many aspects – standard of living, urban safety, rule of law, etc. – Canadians are not going to be as compelled to move to America illegally as Central Americans might. And I would say that this individual was simply one isolated Canadian who hated America. A coworker of mine is Canadian, married to an American, and she’s not like this at all.

----------


## Deborah K

> Actually, I've known quite a few white Canadians that have come to the US to live and work. As a generalization, they aren't usually interested in becoming US citizens, unless they want to marry and live here permanently. At an extreme, one guy would actually make fun of people who were proud that they went through the entire process of becoming a US citizen. As an aside, he was also in management, and when manpower was needed, he was adamant that Americans not be hired. He wanted it outsourced, or imported workers brought in. We do have America haters that come here to live and work, and they can be white Canadians.


I believe that.   My Father and his family are Canadians.  I know that Canadians come here to live and work.  I wasn't suggesting they didn't, only that it isn't to the same degree that Mexicans do, for the reasons I mentioned.

----------


## Deborah K

> Sounds like dont want to answer because you know Ron Paul and I are right.  Legally, you are supposed to stay and get sent to your death.  You cant fight.  Thats illegal too, so youll basically be forced to peacefully flee.  Hopefully, the people you flee to dont send you back for being an "illegal." This is exactly the reason why he changed his position on a wall.


What is it exactly that you and Ron Paul are right about?  Surely it isn't your assertion that people against amnesty must be racist.

----------


## AGRP

> That's a good point. But given Canada is comparable to America in many aspects – standard of living, urban safety, rule of law, etc. – Canadians are not going to be as compelled to move to America illegally as Central Americans might. And I would say that this individual was simply one isolated Canadian who hated America. A coworker of mine is Canadian, married to an American, and she’s not like this at all.


Ive run into many people from mexico.  I wouldnt describe them along the lines of wild and uncivilized.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am personally opposed to an amnesty for a few reasons.
> 
> 1. It will encourage “bad behavior.” Foreigners who want to come here and are considering skirting US laws will think that there will be no consequence. As a naturalized American, I can say for a fact that however imperfect US laws and courts, that the US is still seen as a “serious country” by foreigners. The impunity Wall Street banks have gotten away with is despicable, but the impunity the common man has to see others enjoy in certain countries would make even the most hard-nosed, jaded American wince.
> 
> 2. It will be unfair against legal immigrants who have paid hundreds if not thousands of dollars to USCIS and waited a few to many years for their applications to be processed through the bureaucracy. Why is it all right for a college-educated professional from Taiwan or India who is contributing at Microsoft and paying taxes like any US-born white-collar employee to wait years while he petitions for permanent residency (or, once naturalized, petitions to bring his foreign spouse here) WHILE illegal aliens from other countries get a path to residency and citizenship while they’ve fulfilled none of the USCIS requirements as specified by US law?
> 
> 3. It will be a burden on existing resources. Many undocumented aliens are hard-working; this, I am not afraid to acknowledge. But many others are not able to work, and will depend on state subsidies (food stamps, medical assistance). The poor in America, whether we like it or not, exact a toll on taxpayer money because they cannot provide for themselves. Why enlarge this burden when fiscal health across towns, cities, counties, states, and the country is already so precarious?


#3 is another reason we need to phase out our socialist programs.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Repealing the 14th amendment would be a good start, though.


I agree with this proposal.

----------


## The Freethinker

> Ive run into many people from mexico.  I wouldnt describe them along the lines of wild and uncivilized.


So have I. And your point is?

----------


## Antischism

I see a ton of anecdotal evidence in regards to how immigrants view America. I'll add some of my own.

I've known foreigners and immigrants who thought of Americans as nothing but gun-toting, yee-hawing, Yosemite Sam-like, idiotic brutes who try to force Christianity upon everyone else, bomb and occupy other countries, and eat nothing but fast-food thus creating a nation of obese, self-righteous, flag worshipping dolts.

There you have it. I think citing these people you've known to back up an argument is completely backwards and lazy. However, I do believe that this country's foreign policy helps shape the world's view of us more than anything else.

----------


## The Freethinker

> #3 is another reason we need to phase out our socialist programs.


A few years ago, I had a minor accident. I needed to go to a hospital. It was more painful than serious.

I had insurance, but I still had to pay $100 out of pocket. As I was being treated, I asked the nurse what happens when undocumented aliens who cannot pay and/or lack insurance come to hospitals. She said no one is turned away, but she also said that I should not be surprised if one day the hospital is shut down.

A friend of mine is a nurse in California. She said some hospitals have had to close for precisely this same reason.

I'm not "cruel" enough to tell somebody to their face, "Go. We will not treat you. No money or insurance? No treatment." But... where do we draw then line, then? This can't go on indefinitely.

----------


## The Freethinker

> I see a ton of anecdotal evidence in regards to how immigrants view America. I'll add some of my own.
> 
> I've known foreigners and immigrants who thought of Americans as nothing but gun-toting, yee-hawing, Yosemite Sam-like, idiotic brutes who try to force Christianity upon everyone else, bomb and occupy other countries, and eat nothing but fast-food thus creating a nation of obese, self-righteous, flag worshipping dolts.
> 
> There you have it. I think citing these people you've known to back up an argument is completely backwards and lazy. However, I do believe that this country's foreign policy helps shape the world's view of us more than anything else.


That stereotype exists as well.

----------


## AGRP

> So have I. And your point is?


Im sure you have, but you generalized mexicans as wild and uncivilized. This topic really isnt about resources as much as it is about racism.  I really dont need to say more.  This thread speaks for itself.

----------


## Deborah K

> A few years ago, I had a minor accident. I needed to go to a hospital. It was more painful than serious.
> 
> I had insurance, but I still had to pay $100 out of pocket. As I was being treated, I asked the nurse what happens when undocumented aliens who cannot pay and/or lack insurance come to hospitals. She said no one is turned away, but she also said that I should not be surprised if one day the hospital is shut down.
> 
> A friend of mine is a nurse in California. She said some hospitals have had to close for precisely this same reason.
> 
> I'm not "cruel" enough to tell somebody to their face, "Go. We will not treat you. No money or insurance? No treatment." But... where do we draw then line, then? This can't go on indefinitely.


Many hospitals have closed down because of it.  Texas has had the most, I believe.   Hence, we now have Obamacare.  Stay healthy.

----------


## The Freethinker

> Im sure you have, but you generalized mexicans as wild and uncivilized. This topic really isnt about resources as much as it is about racism.  I really dont need to say more.


Yes, you do need to say more, because I'd like you to please show me where I "generalized Mexicans as wild and uncivilized."

----------


## fisharmor

> yeah, because then you look like a hateful person and they can dismiss your real concerns.


Ok, so let's go over this yet another time.
Is your concern grounded in the US Constitution?
If so, can you explain for us how the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to control who comes into and leaves this country?
Can you please explain what section of the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to deport people currently in this country?
Can you please explain what section of the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to define people not currently holding US Citizenship papers as a group having less rights than people who do hold papers?

Can you please explain why the 10th Amendment (and an average English dictionary) don't utterly destroy all your arguments?

----------


## Deborah K

> Ok, so let's go over this yet another time.
> Is your concern grounded in the US Constitution?
> If so, can you explain for us how the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to control who comes into and leaves this country?
> Can you please explain what section of the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to deport people currently in this country?
> Can you please explain what section of the US Constitution grants the federal government the power to define people not currently holding US Citizenship papers as a group having less rights than people who do hold papers?
> 
> Can you please explain why the 10th Amendment (and an average English dictionary) don't utterly destroy all your arguments?


Would you be okay with each state having its own immigration laws?

----------


## erowe1

> A few years ago, I had a minor accident. I needed to go to a hospital. It was more painful than serious.
> 
> I had insurance, but I still had to pay $100 out of pocket. As I was being treated, I asked the nurse what happens when undocumented aliens who cannot pay and/or lack insurance come to hospitals. She said no one is turned away, but she also said that I should not be surprised if one day the hospital is shut down.
> 
> A friend of mine is a nurse in California. She said some hospitals have had to close for precisely this same reason.
> 
> I'm not "cruel" enough to tell somebody to their face, "Go. We will not treat you. No money or insurance? No treatment." But... where do we draw then line, then? This can't go on indefinitely.


How is the point about being undocumented aliens even relevant here? That policy about not turning anyone away applies across the board. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone has some special papers from the government. If you didn't have money or insurance, they wouldn't turn you away either.

----------


## erowe1

> I am personally opposed to an amnesty for a few reasons.
> 
> 1. It will encourage bad behavior. Foreigners who want to come here and are considering skirting US laws will think that there will be no consequence.


If I skirt an unjust law, isn't that actually "good behavior"?

----------


## erowe1

> Haha.
> 
> I find it rather amusing that the same people who are all for open borders, bashed Obama for going into Pakistan to get OBL without respect for Pakistan's sovereignty. 
> 
> Interesting....


Who are you talking about? Ron Paul?

And what does that comment have to do with the quote you were supposedly replying to?

----------


## erowe1

> Not according to Rothbard:


I don't understand what uninvited people Rothbard (or whoever it is here who speaks for Rothbard) means. Obviously every supposedly illegal immigrant is going somewhere with someone's invitation. And whose place did Rothbard supposedly think it was to prevent that?

----------


## erowe1

> I think there is an American culture that most Americans can identify with.


Maybe. But whether there is or isn't such a culture, what this culture should be if there is one, and whether such a thing should be preserved or changed, are none of the government's business.

----------


## fisharmor

> Would you be okay with each state having its own immigration laws?


What I'd be OK with isn't the question.  If we're shooting for what I'd be OK with, there wouldn't be states.
And the reason I think that way is because there is no provision in the US Constitution for disallowing people into the country and there is no provision for creating groups of people with less rights than others.

I've given up on the idea of constitutionalism because the most faithful defenders of that document still violate it.

----------


## dinosaur

> Maybe. But whether there is or isn't such a culture, what this culture should be if there is one, and whether such a thing should be preserved or changed, are none of the government's business.


The constitution is an expression of our culture because it is based on our values.  I want people to have limited governement, others don't.  Who gets to decide which side is right?  You can not have any form of government without a prevailing culture.

----------


## erowe1

> You can not have any form of government without a prevailing culture.


Sure you can. What's the alternative?

----------


## dinosaur

> Sure you can. What's the alternative?


We are in a culture war, whichever side wins will have a government that expresses their culture, and the other side won't like it.  The best alternative I see is secession so that people can go join other like minded people and have the form of government that they prefer.  

What do you mean by having governement without prevailing culture?  What does that look like?  Is there an example in history, or is it utopian?  Is it anarchy?

----------


## erowe1

> We are in a culture war, whichever side wins will have a government that expresses their culture, and the other side won't like it.  The best alternative I see is secession so that people can go join other like minded people and have the form of government that they prefer.


And you want the government to tell you what kind of culture you're to have? You think there's any way that happens that turns out good? If you're worried about too many Americans not being Christians, or whatever, then you just have to try to persuade them to become Christians. Getting the government to tell them they have to be won't help you in any culture war.




> What do you mean by you can have governement without prevailing culture?  What does that look like?  Is there an example in history, or is it utopian?  Is it anarchy?


I don't understand this whole line of argument. If there were no prevailing culture, there would still be some kind of government, whatever it would be, whether anarchy, utopia, or anything else. It can't be the case that the multiplicities of cultures will make the government just disappear. There are lots of cultures in India, but India still has a government. It's not like you can divide up the world into governments and then divide it up into cultures and say the two ways of dividing it end up with all the same groups.

----------


## dinosaur

> And you want the government to tell you what kind of culture you're to have? You think there's any way that happens that turns out good? If you're worried about too many Americans not being Christians, or whatever, then you just have to try to persuade them to become Christians. Getting the government to tell them they have to be won't help you in any culture war.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this whole line of argument. If there were no prevailing culture, there would still be some kind of government, whatever it would be, whether anarchy, utopia, or anything else. It can't be the case that the multiplicities of cultures will make the government just disappear. There are lots of cultures in India, but India still has a government. It's not like you can divide up the world into governments and then divide it up into cultures and say the two ways of dividing it end up with all the same groups.


My point is that government will always be an expression of the prevailing culture, like it or not.  That is just a fact of life.  You are reading things into it, and not reading my words.  I want our constitution back, period.  That would be my preference.  

Our govenement is becoming socialist/corporatist/fascist (pick the best label) because our culture is changing and one side is prevailing.

I was challenging your assertion that governement and culture could somehow be unrelated.

----------


## erowe1

> My point is that government will always be an expression of the prevailing culture, like it or not.  That is just a fact of life.


But that's clearly not true. You're saying that if there were no prevailing culture there would be no government? How do you conceive of that?




> I was challenging your assertion that governement and culture could somehow be unrelated.


I didn't say they're unrelated. I just said that dictating our culture to us is none of the government's business. If you really do want a constitutional government, then you would have to agree with that, since the first amendment prohibits Congress from making any laws having anything to do with culture (i.e. religion).

ETA: Here are my words:



> whether there is or isn't such a culture, what this culture should be if there is one, and whether such a thing should be preserved or changed, are none of the government's business.


If somebody disagrees with that, and they think we're in some culture war, then I'm pretty sure I'm one of the people they consider their enemy in that war.

----------


## dinosaur

> But that's clearly not true. You're saying that if there were no prevailing culture there would be no government? How do you conceive of that?


There is always a culture.  




> I didn't say they're unrelated. I just said that dictating our culture to us is none of the government's business. If you really do want a constitutional government, then you would have to agree with that, since the first amendment prohibits Congress from making any laws having anything to do with culture (i.e. religion).


Imposing a constitution is dictating.  Even a really great one like ours.  Some people still won't like it, and (if there are enough of them) will change it and dictate another form of government.

----------


## erowe1

> There is always a culture.


There are always many cultures. There are always many governments. The divisions of humanity into cultures and the divisions of humanity into rule of governments are not the same divisions.




> Imposing a constitution is dictating.  Even a really great one like ours.  Some people still won't like it, and (if there are enough of them) will change it and dictate another form of government.


For the sake of argument, let's say our Constitution were really great, and let's say that it were valid for that great Constitution to dictate to a bunch of people what kind of government were to rule them, it's still not the case that the Constitution gives that government any say over those people's cultures. The Constitution enumerates the powers that government is supposed to have, and regulation of culture is not included. Moreover, the first amendment expressly prohibits it.

----------


## dinosaur

> There are always many cultures. There are always many governments. The divisions of humanity into cultures and the divisions of humanity into rule of governments are not the same divisions.


Yes there are sub-cultures within a larger culture.




> For the sake of argument, let's say our Constitution were really great, and let's say that it were valid for that great Constitution to dictate to a bunch of people what kind of government were to rule them, it's still not the case that the Constitution gives that government any say over those people's cultures. The Constitution enumerates the powers that government is supposed to have, and regulation of culture is not included. Moreover, the first amendment expressly prohibits it.


Yes, our constitution can trample on someone's culture.  The constitution reflects our values, not everyone shares those values.  Values really define a culture. Some people think that people should be told how many babies to have because they place a higher value on not putting a big footprint on the earth, than they do on self-ownership, freedom of religion, and individual rights.  Who are we to dictate to them that they are wrong?  

The constitution does regulate culture by enumerating powers.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes there are sub-cultures within a larger culture.


And cultures side-by-side, and cultures surrounded by other cultures, and one culture split up into different places on opposite sides of the globe, some ruled by one regime some by another, and so on, sometimes multiple cultures ruled by one regime, sometimes multiple regimes ruling over one culture. Sometimes these regimes try to dictate to those they rule what their culture is to be. When they do that, they do wrong.




> Yes, the canstitution can trample on someone's culture.  The constitution reflects our values, not everyone shares those values.  Values really define a culture. Some people think that people should be told how many babies to have because they place a higher value on not putting a big footprint on the earth, than they do on self-ownership, freedom of religion, and individual rights.  Who are we to dictate to them that they are wrong?


Who is this "us" whose values you think the Constitution reflects? And what's your basis for saying it does that?

----------


## dinosaur

> Who is this "us" whose values you think the Constitution reflects? And what's your basis for saying it does that?


"Us" are people whose values lead them to only want government to have those specific, enumerated powers.

----------


## erowe1

> "Us" are people whose values lead them to only want government to have those specific, enumerated powers.


So the "us" whose culture the Constitution supposedly reflects is not the same group of people as the people who are ruled over by the federal government? If that's true, then doesn't that make it irrelevant?

And I still don't get how you can say that the Constitution enumerates the power of regulating culture. Where is that in the Constitution?

----------


## dinosaur

> And I still don't get how you can say that the Constitution enumerates the power of regulating culture. Where is that in the Constitution?


Seriously?  You really think that I said that?  Let me clarify:  The constitution does reflect a certain value set. Whether or not it says that it does is irrelevant.

----------


## otherone

> And I still don't get how you can say that the Constitution enumerates the power of regulating culture. Where is that in the Constitution?



That's not what he's saying.  What he is saying is that government is a reflection of the values of the culture governed (I think).  As an example, if the population of the US were to become, say, 60 percent Islamic, then that majority would then opt for, or have the ability to change our system to Sharia Law.
Apologies if misinterpreted.

----------


## dinosaur

> That's not what he's saying.  What he is saying is that government is a reflection of the values of the culture governed (I think).  As an example, if the population of the US were to become, say, 60 percent Islamic, then that majority would then opt for, or have the ability to change our system to Sharia Law.
> Apologies if misinterpreted.


Thank you.  Values are a part of culture.

----------


## torchbearer

> What stops them from getting green cards? Are you not in favor of a country having immigration laws? Would you be happy if our population swelled to that of India or China? Resources are not limitless.



they do have "permits", but didn't always have permits.
Why should I ask you for permission to hire someone with my money to work on my land?
This is the tyranny i see all over this thread.
Stop aggressing against your neighbors.

----------


## torchbearer

> Why would anyone choose to hire an undocumented alien over a native?



they wouldn't unless none of the natives would take the job.
of course, without welfare, more natives would be willing to take the jobs.

----------


## BAllen

> they do have "permits", but didn't always have permits.
> Why should I ask you for permission to hire someone with my money to work on my land?
> This is the tyranny i see all over this thread.
> Stop aggressing against your neighbors.


 Because other things are not free in the marketplace. Like the rigging of housing and food prices. That has to be fixed first, before any discussion on free immigration and hiring.

----------


## Madison320

I think this is a tricky question. Could you be trespassing in some way? What if a bunch of libertarians set up a small libertarian country on an island. Do they have to allow anyone to land on their island? What if it's a known marxist terrorist? I'll have to think about this one. Obviously you have the right to LEAVE but do you have the right to ENTER? Hmmm...

----------


## RickyJ

> I think this is a tricky question. Could you be trespassing in some way? What if a bunch of libertarians set up a small libertarian country on an island. Do they have to allow anyone to land on their island? What if it's a known marxist terrorist? I'll have to think about this one. Obviously you have the right to LEAVE but do you have the right to ENTER? Hmmm...


There is really nothing tricky about it, the citizens of a nation have the right to say who they want to allow in and who they do not want to allow in. If people don't like it, tough, go start your own nation!

----------


## cajuncocoa

Serious question for those who disagree with the Judge:

Should travel be restricted between the U.S. and other countries (both ways)?
If someone from another country travels here, how long is too long to stay?
Would you feel differently if we didn't have a "welfare state"?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Would you be okay with each state having its own immigration laws?


The issue reduces down further than that.  First we have to reduce to our Founders.  Most people don't understand what I'm talking about.  As we like fast food, we also like fast discussions with little nutritive value.  Therefore, when super American intellects like William F. Buckley and Noam Chomsky got together, for the sake of entertainment, they both started off from opposing platforms of conservative and liberal.  Yet, this is a long standing sophist trick.  Rather than solve endless problems by discussing issues this way, we need to instead dissolve most of the issues by reducing to what is American.  
I do this by the use of a better American political spectrum.  As the old political spectrum of Aristotle's golden-mean expands out in two extreme directions endlessly, I put an enthroned king on one end and a homeless prostitute on the other.  The reason for this updated spectrum is to do away with any compromise, something the king and his lawyers always managed to achieve, by including "all men" into the discussion.  In other words, as the king and the prostitute exist as inverses or perverses an eternity away from each other on opposite ends of the spectrum, the rest of us exist in the middle either represented by the king as part of a necessary tyranny or represented by the prostitute as part of a disadvantaged majority.
This true dichotomy, a conflict, is the true one exposing all others as false.  Such false dichotomies are black versus white, old versus young, male versus female, **** versus heterosexuality, and so on.  The contempt I am trying to expose here is how the false dichotomies distract the disadvantaged majority from focusing on the one true dichotomy, with this being a conflict which has been happening for all of eternity.  
Okay. so in using this political spectrum as the American model regarding the discussion of immigration laws, how would allowing in workers from outside our borders effect both the king and the prostitute?  I haven't started off this discussion from an established political platform.  I am really working here.  I am trying first to reduce to common ground which is what Socrates always attempted to do when he was establishing a whole new order for Western Civilization.  According to Plato, as Socrates spent most of his time reducing to a greater quality truth by the use of his dialectical truth engine, his questioning teaching method, it was only during casual conversation with Socrates that he was able to get the great Sage to elaborate on any of his theories.  
By Sage, I mean that Socrates wasn't an elite.  He wasn't an official training type of teacher as he often referred to himself as a midwife philosopher to the poor (he believed the mind of a slave child could learn to improve, an extremely dangerous notion, if it was served by someone such as himself).  Out of Socrates came not just an order, but a new order for Western Civilization.  As he pondered a perplexing question: if every soul did indeed originate from a perfect Soul, then why would every individual's soul be born different?  His best answer to this oddity was his theory called "recollection."  Being as his mother served as a midwife to the poor, Socrates knew of he birthing process; so, he concluded that people are born different into the world because of the trauma they receive during that time.  As each soul is born losing varying amounts of knowledge, it spends its life "recollecting" pieces of what was lost.  
So, this is why one soul would develop to be an enthroned king on one end of the spectrum while the other would develop to be a homeless prostitute on the other end of it.  
No more compromising.  A better American way is reducing to what is American and knowing that that truth alone will dissolve most of the issues.

----------


## torchbearer

> Because other things are not free in the marketplace. Like the rigging of housing and food prices. That has to be fixed first, before any discussion on free immigration and hiring.


My right to property doesn't take backseat to $#@!.
Respect property rights, and the rest takes care of itself.

----------


## torchbearer

> I think this is a tricky question. Could you be trespassing in some way? What if a bunch of libertarians set up a small libertarian country on an island. Do they have to allow anyone to land on their island? What if it's a known marxist terrorist? I'll have to think about this one. Obviously you have the right to LEAVE but do you have the right to ENTER? Hmmm...


You have a right to enter if a property owner invites you.
That is why these immigrants are here in louisiana. they are needed.

----------


## RickyJ

Anyone agreeing with the Judge on this issue might as well get out of politics because it will never get you anywhere if you truly agree with what Napolitano said. You want a world without borders and the end of nations? Good luck with that, that is exactly what the NWO elite wants too. We will fight you to the bitter end, and you better hope we win or the whole world will be slaves of the elite.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> You have a right to enter if a property owner invites you.
> That is why these immigrants are here in louisiana. they are needed.


These people just seem peaceful, but they are trojan horses carrying in a virus called tyranny.  While the United States was sending our men to die in both World Wars, Mexicans were spending time celebrating tyranny as a neutral nation by doing a lot of dancing, drinking, and eating.  The fallacy is in why they come.  Mexicans don't come to the United States because they are poor.  They come to the United States because they are disillusioned.  As many in the United States were raised by a culture that refuses hand outs and tries its best not be a burden on their families, Mexicans (that is who we are mostly talking about here) already know about the free government giveaways and will jump on and hump that stuff to death.

----------


## BAllen

> My right to property doesn't take backseat to $#@!.
> Respect property rights, and the rest takes care of itself.


 *sigh*
 Judging by your belligerant response, I can tell you don't understand economics........cause and effect. I'll explain it to you.
Regulations, taxes, and zoning adds to the expense of housing for the landlord. These expenses are passed on to the tenants to cover those costs, which raises housing prices. With me so far? So, if 'free labor' is permitted, employers will hire the cheaper imported workers, right? This will drop the wage scale. How will they pay their housing which was rigged at the higher rates? Do you think government will drop regulations and taxes, change zoning to allow trailers in brick neighborhoods so housing will drop to affordable levels? I wouldn't bet on it, skippy! Were it not for the regulations and taxes, I could probably find a place for a hundred bucks a month.

----------


## torchbearer

> *sigh*
> Judging by your belligerant response, I can tell you don't understand economics........cause and effect. I'll explain it to you.
> Regulations, taxes, and zoning adds to the expense of housing for the landlord. These expenses are passed on to the tenants to cover those costs, which raises housing prices. With me so far? So, if 'free labor' is permitted, employers will hire the cheaper imported workers, right? This will drop the wage scale. How will they pay their housing which was rigged at the higher rates? Do you think government will drop regulations and taxes, change zoning to allow trailers in brick neighborhoods so housing will drop to affordable levels? I wouldn't bet on it, skippy! Were it not for the regulations and taxes, I could probably find a place for a hundred bucks a month.


what does that have to with my rights?
You can argue my rights hurt economics all you want... they are unalienable and you still intend to tread on them.

YOu are telling me you have the soverienty over me and my property in order to tell me who i can hire because you think it makes economic sense?
Tort Law is where you can argue damages. 
Of course, with this population- you'd win and the local government would claim my land for someone else who would generate more taxes... but rights are only for when it convenient for others.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Anyone agreeing with the Judge on this issue might as well get out of politics because it will never get you anywhere if you truly agree with what Napolitano said. You want a world without borders and the end of nations? Good luck with that, that is exactly what the NWO elite wants too. We will fight you to the bitter end, and you better hope we win or the whole world will be slaves of the elite.


I believe a good criterion to use is World War Two.  The people living in any nation that didn't participate in that war shouldn't be considered for immigration.  We are here to fight against tyranny, not to celebrate it.

----------


## torchbearer

> These people just seem peaceful, but they are trojan horses carrying in a virus called tyranny. While the United States was sending our men to die in both World Wars, Mexicans were spending time celebrating tyranny as a neutral nation by doing a lot of dancing, drinking, and eating. The fallacy is in why they come. Mexicans don't come to the United States because they are poor. They come to the United States because they are disillusioned. As many in the United States were raised by a culture that refuses hand outs and tries its best not be a burden on their families, Mexicans (that is who we are mostly talking about here) already know about the free government giveaways and will jump on and hump that stuff to death.



FEAR!!!!  FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Mexicans!!!11! FEAR!!!!!!!

----------


## AGRP

> Anyone agreeing with the Judge on this issue might as well get out of politics because it will never get you anywhere if you truly agree with what Napolitano said. You want a world without borders and the end of nations? Good luck with that, that is exactly what the NWO elite wants too. We will fight you to the bitter end, and you better hope we win or the whole world will be slaves of the elite.


You have it backwards.  Theres a big difference between individual property rights and ownership vs. a "one world" government.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There is no right to become a citizen?  Says who?  Why are we free to move where we want, worship as we want, speak as we want, and defend ourselves.... but not free to live where we want without some arbitrary documentation issued by an arbitrary group of people?
> 
> The Judge is exactly right.  His stance is the principled and consistent one.


National sovereignty isn't arbitrary.  However, the globalists who have been working so hard to bring down our country are big supporters of what you advocate.  Congrats.

I have no issue with people coming here to work.  But, I do have a problem with them wholesale becoming citizens and sucking off of the welfare state.  For those who want to become Americans and assimilate into our culture, they are of course, welcome.  But, they need to follow our country's laws.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Anyone agreeing with the Judge on this issue might as well get out of politics because it will never get you anywhere if you truly agree with what Napolitano said. You want a world without borders and the end of nations? Good luck with that, that is exactly what the NWO elite wants too. We will fight you to the bitter end, and you better hope we win or the whole world will be slaves of the elite.


I think the Judge just meant that we have a natural right to live where we want.  I didn't take it to mean the end of nations or borders.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> *sigh*
>  Judging by your belligerant response, I can tell you don't understand economics........cause and effect. I'll explain it to you.
> Regulations, taxes, and zoning adds to the expense of housing for the landlord. These expenses are passed on to the tenants to cover those costs, which raises housing prices. With me so far? So, if 'free labor' is permitted, employers will hire the cheaper imported workers, right? This will drop the wage scale. How will they pay their housing which was rigged at the higher rates? Do you think government will drop regulations and taxes, change zoning to allow trailers in brick neighborhoods so housing will drop to affordable levels? I wouldn't bet on it, skippy! Were it not for the regulations and taxes, I could probably find a place for a hundred bucks a month.


Yes.  The people's need to work is more important than the people's need to find a place to live.  They can't do both.  That is the problem.  If you disagree with this, consider yourself a part of the problem.  We already went through this during the Great Depression so we don't have to go through it again.  I mean, isn't that what the historians mean when they say those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it?  Open up the parks so people can live in tents and go to work.  To hell with your property values.  Something has to give here and, the sooner we accept this truth, the less people will suffer and the better the economy will be because of it.

----------


## torchbearer

FYI- the "mexicans" get paid on average $10 an hour as a field hand. foremans make more.
they live in louisiana just fine.
most people here are knee deep in propoganda that doesn't fit reality.

----------


## Ender

> I believe a good criterion to use is World War Two.  The people living in any nation that didn't participate in that war shouldn't be considered for immigration.  We are here to fight against tyranny, not to celebrate it.


BS.

WWII was a war that was caused by the US entering WWI. If we had stayed out of that phony war, which was basically a land dispute, it would have turned into a hiccup. Sadly we entered to further our global interests and then punished Germany for the whole affair- of which they were NOT the big blame- and sent them into poverty with the Versailles Treaty. This gave Hitler the ammo he needed.

AND- if we had stayed out of WWII, it would probably have also been a small time affair, but FDR forced the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor with his sanctions, and then conned Americans into the war because of Pearl Harbor.

People who did not participate in that war were probably the sanest on the planet, at that time.

----------


## Ender

> Yes.  The people's need to work is more important than the people's need to find a place to live.  They can't do both.  That is the problem.  If you disagree with this, consider yourself a part of the problem.  We already went through this during the Great Depression so we don't have to go through it again.  I mean, isn't that what the historians mean when they say those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it?  Open up the parks so people can live in tents and go to work.  To hell with your property values.  Something has to give here and, the sooner we accept this truth, the less people will suffer and the better the economy will be because of it.


The Great Depression was caused and extended by FDR and his policies- the same kinds of policies that have been pushed upon this people since at least 1913. Harding had basically pulled America out of a depression with sound fiscal princlples but "died" in office and then was connected by TPTB to the Teapot Dome scandal, of which he had no part. 

I know, I know, Harding who.....?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> FEAR!!!!  FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Mexicans!!!11! FEAR!!!!!!!


First off, I know Mexicans.  I live in Texas.  My sons are half Mexican.  I speak pretty good Spanish.  Mexicans aren't any different than any other person when they are blended up to their most basic of elements.  Here we agree.  What I'm concerned about is the disillusionment of those living within the interior of the United States.  Mexican culture breeds gangs.  To understand why, look at Mexico.  There, the big families pick on little families.  As blood is thicker than water, the blood is like concrete in Mexico.  While there might seem like a lot of love in the family of a Mexican, remember, no greater love exists than giving ones life for a friend.  Meaning that, in the United States, water should be thicker than blood.  I understand this danger from personal experience.  We are allowing tyranny to give away the lightning we have in a bottle.

----------


## Deborah K

> they do have "permits", but didn't always have permits.
> Why should I ask you for permission to hire someone with my money to work on my land?
> This is the tyranny i see all over this thread.
> Stop aggressing against your neighbors.


Tell it to the state, Torch.

----------


## AGRP

Has this turned into another anarchist vs. minarchist debate?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> BS.
> 
> WWII was a war that was caused by the US entering WWI. If we had stayed out of that phony war, which was basically a land dispute, it would have turned into a hiccup. Sadly we entered to further our global interests and then punished Germany for the whole affair- of which they were NOT the big blame- and sent them into poverty with the Versailles Treaty. This gave Hitler the ammo he needed.
> 
> AND- if we had stayed out of WWII, it would probably have also been a small time affair, but FDR forced the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor with his sanctions, and then conned Americans into the war because of Pearl Harbor.
> 
> People who did not participate in that war were probably the sanest on the planet, at that time.


This is why I don't like bickering about the petty issues.  First off, where do you live?  Do you live along a border state?  Are the gangs filtering into your state?  Are the people right across the border getting their heads cut off?  Is the president giving assault rifles to these gangs?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> The Great Depression was caused and extended by FDR and his policies- the same kinds of policies that have been pushed upon this people since at least 1913. Harding had basically pulled America out of a depression with sound fiscal princlples but "died" in office and then was connected by TPTB to the Teapot Dome scandal, of which he had no part. 
> 
> I know, I know, Harding who.....?


First off, there is no such thing as a Federal economy.  In fact, the Great recession going on right now in most of our Democratic Republic hasn't been felt that much in Texas.  You people are just too dramatic.  When we lose our high paying jobs down here, we just go get a lousy one.  You guys want to fall off a cliff and pull everyone down with you because you are the center of the universe.  I say, go ahead and crater.  Have fun.  Just don't pull us down with you.  As authority at the level of an empire is supposed to be dissolved within a Democratic Republic, as in we are supposed to have a very limited Federal government, the state of Texas isn't part of your global economy nonsense.
And thank goodness for that, for as that cuts out a whole lot of nonsense that doesn't even need discussing, that leaves a whole lot of time to go fishing.

----------


## Ender

> This is why I don't like bickering about the petty issues.  First off, where do you live?  Do you live along a border state?  Are the gangs filtering into your state?  Are the people right across the border getting their heads cut off?  Is the president giving assault rifles to these gangs?


There are gangs in every state and the cause of most gang and border problems is the WoD.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> There are gangs in every state and the cause of most gang and border problems is the WoD.


Where do you live?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There are gangs in every state and the cause of most gang and border problems is the WoD.


You know, that's really easy to say when you aren't one of the ranchers who have been driven off of their ranches by the scum-sucking Mexican gangs that cross the border, trespass and trash their ranches and have murdered Americans.

----------


## erowe1

> There is really nothing tricky about it, the citizens of a nation have the right to say who they want to allow in and who they do not want to allow in. If people don't like it, tough, go start your own nation!


Which citizens have that right? Your last sentence implies that apparently some of us don't.

----------


## erowe1

> Seriously?  You really think that I said that?


There are two possibilities. One possibility is that you agree with what I said that "whether there is or isn't such a culture, what this culture should be if there is one, and whether such a thing should be preserved or changed, are none of the government's business." The other possibility is that you do think those things are the government's business.

I'll be the first to admit that you've been utterly unclear about which of those positions is yours. But those are your only two choices.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Which citizens have that right? Your last sentence implies that apparently some of us don't.


It's funny how the destabilizing antagonists like to pester Americans with how ineffectual the Constitution has become.  They point how we've lost a little over here, then, to avoid getting people too pissed, they run over there to point how the second amendment needs amending, then, to again avoid getting the people too pissed, they run way over yonder to question property rights.

----------


## Ender

> First off, there is no such thing as a Federal economy.  In fact, the Great recession going on right now in most of our Democratic Republic hasn't been felt that much in Texas.  You people are just too dramatic.  When we lose our high paying jobs down here, we just go get a lousy one.  You guys want to fall off a cliff and pull everyone down with you because you are the center of the universe.  I say, go ahead and crater.  Have fun.  Just don't pull us down with you.  As authority at the level of an empire is supposed to be dissolved within a Democratic Republic, as in we are supposed to have a very limited Federal government, the state of Texas isn't part of your global economy nonsense.
> And thank goodness for that, for as that cuts out a whole lot of nonsense that doesn't even need discussing, that leaves a whole lot of time to go fishing.


So.....never heard of the Federal Reserve? The fiat dollar? The gold standard? Free enterprise? Real capitalism and not mercantilism?

BTW- we are NOT a democratic republic; we are supposed to be a constitutional republic.

----------


## Ender

> You know, that's really easy to say when you aren't one of the ranchers who have been driven off of their ranches by the scum-sucking Mexican gangs that cross the border, trespass and trash their ranches and have murdered Americans.


There is a solution to that- called the 2nd Amendment.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> So.....never heard of the Federal Reserve? The fiat dollar? The gold standard? Free enterprise? Real capitalism and not mercantilism?
> 
> BTW- we are NOT a democratic republic; we are supposed to be a constitutional republic.


We aren't a Constitutional Republic because of the new order our Founders established within The Declaration of Independence.  Mexico is a Constitutional Republic.  This is their second time around because Santa Anna threw out its first one while also abolishing the Mexican congress. 
The reason the United States isn't a Constitution Republic is because our Founders established a new order altogether.  They didn't do this by way of junta, as Mexico did, but by way of scrapping the prior traditional way, one established by the authority of the Church, of establishing a new nation entirely.  Indeed, instead of using legal precedence, our Founders, pay close attention because this is the tricky part, utilized the scientific method of *Natural Law.  
The conclusion in this natural law redefined a civilization to be one that advanced.  They then ended with an analysis of their conclusion justifying the king to be unfit to rule.  In deeming him a tyrant, they found justification for divorcing us out from tyranny.  
This act established a new order!
Our Founders then remarried us to a more perfect Union, a necessary tyranny, by creating the U.S. Constitution.  As the new order redefined a civilization as one that advances, by the inclusion of "all men" having been born equally endowed with the same exact business agenda for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the U.S. Constitution was created later on to advance the order.  The natural law relegates the laws of The U.S. Constitution to be in service to the new order within The Declaration of Independence.     
Order first and then the law.  Not law and order.  This is also a very subtle point.  While we should be submissive to authority, we should disobey any law which infringes upon the new order.

(Example:  A natural law says that mothers care for their children.  The government passes laws infringing on this natural law.  While mothers are submissive to authority, or else, they, by nature, have to disobey the law.  In this case, the law is causing suffering and persecution.  A region itching to rule as an empire will implement laws to the detriment of the established order with the purpose of relegating states back to the lessor status of mere territories and colonies.)

*The scientific method of Natural Law wasn't a process that came about in and of itself.  To the contrary, as the established legal precedence involved in establishing a new nation came about by the authority of the Catholic Church, so was the same true concerning the process of Natural Law.  Concerning God's judgement and the book of Romans, this is how our Founders managed to scheme us out from under the rule of tyranny.  Unfortunately for those who hold law to exist for the sake of the law, their act established a new order as taking precedence over the law.

----------


## dinosaur

> There are two possibilities. One possibility is that you agree with what I said that "whether there is or isn't such a culture, what this culture should be if there is one, and whether such a thing should be preserved or changed, are none of the government's business." The other possibility is that you do think those things are the government's business.
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that you've been utterly unclear about which of those positions is yours. *But those are your only two choices*.


I was keeping the argument centered around the idea that it is impossible to set up a government that did not reflect a set of values.  Therefore, the point of whether or not culture _should_ be embedded in government was a moot point...it is impossible for it not to be.   You seem to want to make the argument about what I personally want, when reality cares nothing for what I want it to be.  *There aren't two choices*, there is only reality.  Culture is embedded in government, and no opinion of how I think the world should operate will ever change that fact.

----------


## Ender

> We aren't a Constitutional Republic because of The Declaration of Independence.  Mexico is a Constitutional Republic.  This is their second time around because Santa Anna threw out its first one while abolishing the Mexican congress. 
> The reason the United States isn't a Constitution Republic is because our Founders established a new order altogether.  They didn't do this by way of junta, as Mexico did, but by way of scrapping the prior traditional way of establishing a new nation altogether.  Indeed, instead of using legal precedence, our Founders, pay close attention because this is the tricky part, utilized the scientific method of *Natural Law.  
> The conclusion in this natural law redefined a civilization to be one that advanced.  They then ended with an analysis of their conclusion justifying the king to be unfit to rule.  In deeming him a tyrant, they found justification for divorcing us out from tyranny.  
> This act established a new order!
> Our Founders then remarried us to a more perfect Union, a necessary tyranny, by creating the U.S. Constitution.  As the new order redefined a civilization as one that advances, by the inclusion of "all men" having been born equally endowed with the same exact business agenda for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the U.S. Constitution was created later on to advance the order.  The natural law relegates the laws of The U.S. Constitution to be in service to the new order within The Declaration of Independence.     
> Order first and then the law.  Not law and order.  This is also a very subtle point.  While we should be submissive to authority, we should disobey any law which infringes upon the new order.
> 
> (Example:  A natural law says that mothers care for their children.  The government passes laws infringing on this natural law.  While mothers are submissive to authority, or else, they, by nature, have to disobey the law.  In this case, the law is causing suffering and persecution.  A region itching to rule as an empire will implement laws to the detriment of the established order with the purpose of relegating states back to the lessor status of mere territories and colonies.)
> 
> *The scientific method of Natural Law wasn't a process that came about in and of itself.  To the contrary, as the established legal precedence involved in establishing a new nation came about by the authority of the Catholic Church, so was the same true concerning the process of Natural Law.  Concerning God's judgement and the book of Romans, this is how our Founders managed to scheme us out from under the rule of tyranny.  Unfortunately for those who hold law to exist for the sake of the law, their act established a new order as taking precedence over the law.


I believe that the Declaration is America's most important document. The Constitution is a Hamiltonian document that was meant to usher in a stronger central government- thus the need for the Bill of Rights.

The order that was established for the united States of America was not new; it was inspired by the Iroquois nation and their incredible Confederacy of Peace.




> The Europeans and Iroquois of the mid-18th century were on more friendly terms. Many English nobles adopted the lifestyle of Indians and joined their nations. The Treaty Councils brought cultural exchanges in which leaders and statesmen met as equals to diplomatically solve problems and alleviate strained relations. The trade of Great Britain and the peace and prosperity of the colonies was dependent upon this alliance.
> 
> During the era, Benjamin Franklin published twenty-six treaty accounts and represented the state of Pennsylvania as an Indian commissioner. In the pre-Revolutionary period, when he and his friends were advocating a federal union of the colonies, no European model was found to be suitable. Franklin 's contact with the Iroquois influenced many key ideas for a new form of government = federalism, equality, natural rights, freedom of religion, property rights, etc. At the 1744 treaty council, by Franklin's account, Canassatego, speaker for the great council at Onondaga, recommended that the colonies form a union in common defense under a federal government: "We are a powerful Confederacy, and by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken, you will acquire much strength and power; therefore, whatever befalls you, do not fall out with one another."
> 
> In arguing for such a plan, Franklin stressed the fact that the individual nations of the confederacy managed their own internal affairs without interference from the Grand Council.
> 
> Twenty years after Franklin's plan was defeated at the Albany congress, it reappeared in the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington were all familiar with the Iroquois polity. There is also strong scholarly evidence that European philosophers such as Locke, Roussea, More, and Hobbes were familiar with the societies of the American Indians. The integration of this knowledge into their theories of utopias and natural societies further inspired the U.S. founding fathers.

----------


## erowe1

> I was keeping the argument centered around the idea that it is impossible to set up a government that did not reflect a set of values.  Therefore, the point of whether or not culture _should_ be embedded in government was a moot point...it is impossible for it not to be.   You seem to want to make the argument about what I personally want, when reality cares nothing for what I want it to be.  *There aren't two choices*, there is only reality.  Culture is embedded in government, and no opinion of how I think the world should operate will ever change that fact.


You are as unclear here as you have ever been. Set aside the mushy and meaningless language about culture being embedded in government.

Either the government's proper role includes dictating our culture to us, or it does not.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> I was keeping the argument centered around the idea that it is impossible to set up a government that did not reflect a set of values.  Therefore, the point of whether or not culture _should_ be embedded in government was a moot point...it is impossible for it not to be.   You seem to want to make the argument about what I personally want, when reality cares nothing for what I want it to be.  *There aren't two choices*, there is only reality.  Culture is embedded in government, and no opinion of how I think the world should operate will ever change that fact.


In establishing a new order by the use of Natural Law, our Founders set our former cultures as submissive to just one formal culture.  What people have a difficult time understanding is how this includes the old pagan culture that existed prior within the colonies.  This prior Puritan order has become a hideous problem endangering what is still left of the Union.   
For example, if my daddy was a great king who became famous for writing a natural law setting everyone free while making them equal, then as the prince it would be natural for me to become corrupt by making all the people in the kingdom believe and do what my daddy did and believed.  But the formal culture isn't what my daddy did or believed, but the little he wrote down concerning the truths as the new order.  For those who live closest to the act, especially the relatives, this is a very bitter pill to swallow.  Concerning the truth, as following after the truth will surely lead us to the richest of economies, so, is water, in the end, thicker than blood.

----------


## dinosaur

> You are as unclear here as you have ever been. Set aside the mushy and meaningless language about culture being embedded in government.
> 
> Either the government's proper role includes dictating our culture to us, or it does not.


You are off the wall.  *ALL governments dictate a certain amount of culture because it is impossible for them not to.*  Even our constitution does.  I happen to think that our constitution is right and that people who want to take away free choice and responisibilty are wrong.  My vote is for the form of govenment that our constitution dictates.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> I believe that the Declaration is America's most important document. The Constitution is a Hamiltonian document that was meant to usher in a stronger central government- thus the need for the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The order that was established for the united States of America was not new; it was inspired by the Iroquois nation and their incredible Confederacy of Peace.


It is almost like you didn't read what I wrote.  When one established a government in the past utilizing legal precedence, something which was sanctioned by the authority of God through the church, then law existed for the sake of law.  As our Founders utilized the scientific method of natural law, something which was also ordained by the authority of God through the church, then the prior legal precedence involved with establishing a new nation, something which existed forever, was over turned.  The natural law then redefined a civilization as one that advanced, in that a civilization that only maintained itself was one in a state of futility as was the case with the long established dynasties in Egypt and China.  
This established a new order.  
So, when the Constitution was created, it, by the definition of the natural law, had to be submissive to the new order.
Therefore, we should be submissive to authority while disobeying any law legislated that would violate the new order.

----------


## erowe1

> ALL governments dictate a certain amount of culture because it is impossible for them not to. Even our constitution does.


Where in the Constitution is that?

If your vote is for the form of government that our constitution dictates, then your vote has to be for a government that doesn't dictate our culture to us.

----------


## torchbearer

> Tell it to the state, Torch.



the state reflects the morality of the people.
i'll tell it to the people.

----------


## erowe1

> the state reflects the morality of the people.


I don't buy that.

Granted, telling it to the people is still good.

----------


## torchbearer

> I don't buy that.
> 
> Granted, telling it to the people is still good.



If no one complied, the psychopathic authoritarians would be nothing more but raving lunatics with no power.
Most people get off on the power they execute on others.
The gun control debate is one group of monkeys wanting the lunatics to use violence against another group of monkeys.
The lunatics will only reflects the power given to them.

Now- you could argue that taking it to the people is useless.
That may be so, but i'd rather try every avenue prior to arms.

----------


## AGRP

> I don't buy that.
> 
> Granted, telling it to the people is still good.


Hes right, although the mirror is broken. The reality on the ground doesnt match what is shown on tv. Ron had the numbers to win the election and the independent voter is surging.  Theres a lot more Ron Paul/liberty people than you are led to believe.

----------


## Okie RP fan

There is a process. Abide by it. 

Illegal immigrants are the first ones to completely trash a section of a city. Don't believe me? Not PC enough for any of you? Too bad.

----------


## torchbearer

> There is a process. Abide by it. 
> 
> Illegal immigrants are the first ones to completely trash a section of a city. Don't believe me? Not PC enough for any of you? Too bad.



speak for your own town.
the mexicans in our area are very respectful of other's property.
their children are well behaved and none of them cause problems.
they feel luck to be here and working for a good wage. they don't want to do anything to jeopardize that.
most of them are roman catholic, which works well with louisiana. so they integrate into the church and school communities.
The first generation folks don't speak good english, but their children do.

----------


## dinosaur

> Where in the Constitution is that?
> 
> If your vote is for the form of government that our constitution dictates, then your vote has to be for a government that doesn't dictate our culture to us.


That is exactly the fallacy that I was trying to correct.  The constitution is not a document free of cultural bias.  I like the bias that is in it, and happen to think that it is the correct one to have.  But there are plenty of people in the world who would like to choose a different value system than the one EMBEDDED in the constitution.  Sorry about the word EMBEDDED, but it is the most accurate one that I can think of.

----------


## AGRP

> speak for your own town.
> the mexicans in our area are very respectful of other's property.
> their children are well behaved and none of them cause problems.
> they feel luck to be here and working for a good wage. they don't want to do anything to jeopardize that.
> most of them are roman catholic, which works well with louisiana. so they integrate into the church and school communities.
> The first generation folks don't speak good english, but their children do.


Theres a few trolls here whos job it is to stir up racial hatred.

----------


## fr33

> There is a process. Abide by it.


That goes for gun control and everything. The fact that it exists does not mean I should abide by it.




> Illegal immigrants are the first ones to completely trash a section of a city. Don't believe me? Not PC enough for any of you? Too bad.


Well maybe that's what you get for living in cities.

----------


## Philhelm

Is emmigration a right?

----------


## erowe1

> That is exactly the fallacy that I was trying to correct.  The constitution is not a document free of cultural bias.  I like the bias that is in it, and happen to think that it is the correct one to have.  But there are plenty of people in the world who would like to choose a different value system than the one EMBEDDED in the constitution.  Sorry about the word EMBEDDED, but it is the most accurate one that I can think of.


Great. So then can you tell me where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to dictate our culture to us?

----------


## erowe1

> There is a process. Abide by it.


We have a word for people who don't abide by the processes their government tells them to.

Patriots.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> We have a word for people who don't abide by the processes their government tells them to.
> 
> Patriots.


I just explained why what you are stating here isn't true.  Our Founders bent over backwards to make sure everything was legit according to the highest authority.  Gee, why do you think it caused so much commotion?  Like I said, both the legal precedence during that time in establishing a new nation, and the scientific method of natural law our Founders utilized to overturn that legal precedence, were ordained by the church.  Natural Law was based on Aristotle's works which the Catholic church adopted as God's natural laws.  Every natural philosopher had to be a member of the clergy.  So, our Founders were justified in throwing out the old order and replacing it with a new one.  Problem is, the new order changed everything.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Is emmigration a right?


Depends on your origination, destination and wealth.

----------


## dinosaur

> Great. So then can you tell me where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to dictate our culture to us?


It dictates the idea of respect for individual rights over collective rights.  You will find this in the Bill of Rights.  If you think that this is present in all cultures, think again.

----------


## fr33

"We call the scar tissue from abuse 'culture' so that we don't have to think it's true but can still revere it."— Stefan Molyneux

I'm not his biggest fan but I like that quote.

----------


## fisharmor

> But, they need to follow our country's laws.


Still waiting for someone to explain the constitutionality of the immigration laws.....

----------


## The Gold Standard

I don't think anyone is advocating opening the borders while the government maintains the massive welfare state. Still, the judge is right. 

Every person has the right to travel on any unowned property.

Only individuals can own property. Governments can not. Therefore all government land is free to be traveled upon by anyone.

Every person is born with the right to their property and the means to defend it. All rights come from this. No one is born with the right to vote. No one is born with the right to be a citizen. Just because anyone is free to travel on unowned land doesn't mean those people have the right to come in and take the country over.

Of course, if you get rid of the welfare state many of the immigrants will go home anyway.

----------


## Ender

> It is almost like you didn't read what I wrote.  When one established a government in the past utilizing legal precedence, something which was sanctioned by the authority of God through the church, then law existed for the sake of law.  As our Founders utilized the scientific method of natural law, something which was also ordained by the authority of God through the church, then the prior legal precedence involved with establishing a new nation, something which existed forever, was over turned.  The natural law then redefined a civilization as one that advanced, in that a civilization that only maintained itself was one in a state of futility as was the case with the long established dynasties in Egypt and China.  
> This established a new order.  
> So, when the Constitution was created, it, by the definition of the natural law, had to be submissive to the new order.
> Therefore, we should be submissive to authority while disobeying any law legislated that would violate the new order.


TALK ABOUT NOT READING......

One more time- the Declaration and the united States of America was patterned after the Iroquois Confederacy of Peace. This came from 6 tribes of American Indians who were ALREADY LIVING  in a united peace. They did not live under a dynasty. The Constitution was actually a HAMILTONIAN takeover of the original confederacy- thus the Bill of Rights, which somewhat neutralized the takeover, but obviously not enough.

----------


## Anti Federalist

As long as they cannot vote, OK.

----------


## otherone

> It dictates the idea of respect for individual rights over collective rights.  You will find this in the Bill of Rights.  If you think that this is present in all cultures, think again.


You understand that the "culture" that has been undermining our individual Rights is our _own_ culture?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There is a solution to that- called the 2nd Amendment.


Uh huh.  One rancher against a gang that has been supplied by Fast and Furious.  Yeah, that's realistic.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You understand that the "culture" that has been undermining our individual Rights is our _own_ culture?


You two are talking about different cultures.  He, I believe, was talking about the culture that used to be the norm in our country; you are talking about what our culture has been perverted into by the globalists trying to destroy us.

----------


## fisharmor

> I don't think anyone is advocating opening the borders while the government maintains the massive welfare state.
> ....
> Of course, if you get rid of the welfare state many of the immigrants will go home anyway.


Where are the studies on this?  What are your numbers?

Every illegal I know works his ass off, pays taxes, and isn't expecting $#@! out of the welfare system.
They're not coming here for medicare.  They're coming here to shove their hands into buckets full of drywall screws for 20 years.  Or listen to small engines and have pebbles shot at high speed into their faces for 20 years.

The first point to make here is NO, they are NOT coming here for welfare: they're coming here for work.
The second point is the one I've made already in this thread: even if they are coming here for welfare, that doesn't make closed borders constitutional, it doesn't make closed borders support the rule of law, and two wrongs do not make a right.

If we would just cut the crap and talk to these people, I think you'd find that they're pretty receptive to the idea of liberty.  But you have to stop trying to take away everything they've worked for.

----------


## BAllen

> You two are talking about different cultures.  He, I believe, was talking about the culture that used to be the norm in our country; you are talking about what our culture has been perverted into by the globalists trying to destroy us.


 Right. The marxists' culture war. Bad culture= conservative Good culture= socialist.

----------


## otherone

> You two are talking about different cultures.  He, I believe, was talking about the culture that used to be the norm in our country; you are talking about what our culture has been perverted into by the globalists trying to destroy us.


No, you and he are talking about a myth; I'm talking about reality.  Lincoln was not a globalist.  Our Rights have been eroded from day one by good old-fashioned, apple-pie eatin' whiskey-belchin' god-fearin' white folk.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Who are you talking about? Ron Paul?
> 
> And what does that comment have to do with the quote you were supposedly replying to?


Ron Paul isn't in favor of open borders.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, you and he are talking about a myth; I'm talking about reality.  Lincoln was not a globalist.  Our Rights have been eroded from day one by good old-fashioned, apple-pie eatin' whiskey-belchin' god-fearin' white folk.


"white folk"?  That is how you define people; by the color of their skin?  Really?

I am talking about people who used to know the real reason for the 2nd amendment.  People who didn't like to be told what to do, how to do it and when to do it; especially by government.  People who knew what capitalism was and believed the most they should have to do to open a business was to hang a proverbial shingle out.  People who knew that this country offered them an equal opportunity; not equal outcome.  People who stood on their own two feet and knew they could make it on their own, rather than now when so many believe they must suck from government's teat.  People who knew that government served at their whim; not the other way around.  People who understood the dangers of allowing government to spy on you and when many more fought tooth and nail when the government overstepped its boundaries.

You call it a myth.  I saw it with my own two eyes.  This country was founded on rugged individualism.  People have lost faith in themselves and no longer understand the principles upon which this country was founded.

----------


## UMULAS

> "white folk"?  That is how you define people; by the color of their skin?  Really?



RPF's really need to create a Lincoln Douglas debate since this is getting a bit out of hand and we can't comprehend that much of what people want to say.


Therefore, I challenge anyone to an online lincoln douglas debate on the issue of immigration.

It can also be a public forums.

Just an idea.

----------


## otherone

> "white folk"?  That is how you define people; by the color of their skin?  Really?


You've missed the point, and have attacked me as a prog would.  Congrats.  Ya know, back in the 19th century Globalists were known as "Papists",  and the threat of them was used as justification for immigration control.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Right. The marxists' culture war. Bad culture= conservative Good culture= socialist.


I think that instead of conservative, maybe something like individualist.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> TALK ABOUT NOT READING......
> 
> One more time- the Declaration and the united States of America was patterned after the Iroquois Confederacy of Peace. This came from 6 tribes of American Indians who were ALREADY LIVING  in a united peace. They did not live under a dynasty. The Constitution was actually a HAMILTONIAN takeover of the original confederacy- thus the Bill of Rights, which somewhat neutralized the takeover, but obviously not enough.


Oh.  I didn't realize there was a great Chief Socrates.  LOL  This sounds similar to our new cradle of civilization which is the Mayan calender.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You've missed the point, and have attacked me as a prog would.  Congrats.  Ya know, back in the 19th century Globalists were known as "Papists",  and the threat of them was used as justification for immigration control.


Dude, what are you even talking about?  You are the one who threw out "white folk".  I didn't mention race at all.

By globalists, I mean those who have been steering this country towards world government.  I wasn't inferring that you were one of them.

----------


## otherone

> Dude, what are you even talking about?  You are the one who threw out "white folk".  I didn't mention race at all.


You seem to believe that "our" culture (whatever that means) is a culture of constitutionality and individual Rights, and that "their" culture (whoever "they" are) are not.
I simply point out that "our" culture is the one responsible for eroding our Rights, not "their" culture.

----------


## Ender

> Oh.  I didn't realize there was a great Chief Socrates.  LOL  This sounds similar to our new cradle of civilization which is the Mayan calender.


Probably should get past Public Education History 101.

The Iroquois Confederation is documented and was used and praised by some unimportant guys like Benjamin Franklin- but hey- history is written by the winners, so why question?

----------


## fisharmor

> This country was founded on rugged individualism.  People have lost faith in themselves and no longer understand the principles upon which this country was founded.


So, because the people who have lived here a while gave up on rugged individualism, we need to kick out people who leave families, properties, and an entire life behind them to come to a country where they can't even communicate effectively and work to better themselves and those who depend on them, because they're not rugged individuals......?

----------


## Ender

> Uh huh.  One rancher against a gang that has been supplied by Fast and Furious.  Yeah, that's realistic.


Ahh... then you _do_ see that .gov is responsible for 99.9% of border problems.

----------


## otherone

> because they're not rugged individuals......?


Before government safety nets, everyone was a "rugged individual".

----------


## erowe1

> It dictates the idea of respect for individual rights over collective rights.  You will find this in the Bill of Rights.  If you think that this is present in all cultures, think again.


Could you cite the place where it empowers the federal government to dictate to us that we must respect individual rights over collective rights?

For that matter, back to my previous question, can you cite any place at all anywhere in the Constitution where it empowers the federal government to dictate our culture to us?

----------


## erowe1

> Ron Paul isn't in favor of open borders.


So then who are you talking about?

Also, "open borders" is a meaningless term. Ron Paul is not for deporting illegal immigrants, nor is he for laws regulating whether they can live or work here, nor is he for any kind of national id, including Social Security numbers, nor is he for building a wall on the border. As far as I can tell his position is the same as mine, because I'm not for any of those things either. How about you?

IIRC though, Ron Paul did talk about respecting Pakistan's sovereignty, and I never did.

----------


## mport1

Good for the judge. Anything except open borders is not liberty.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> No, you and he are talking about a myth; I'm talking about reality.  Lincoln was not a globalist.  Our Rights have been eroded from day one by good old-fashioned, apple-pie eatin' whiskey-belchin' god-fearin' white folk.


It wouldn't be cool if you'd made a similar slur against any other race of people...why is it allowed toward "white folk"?

----------


## loveableteddybear

> It wouldn't be cool if you'd made a similar slur against any other race of people...why is it allowed toward "white folk"?


Personally, I think we should just let the slurs fly for everyone, like George Carlin.

----------


## otherone

> It wouldn't be cool if you'd made a similar slur against any other race of people...why is it allowed toward "white folk"?


Was there a slur?  White people are no better, worse or different than anyone else.  What I object to is claiming that a foreign "culture" is in any way less inclined to Liberty than our "culture", when it is our "rugged individual" "courier and Ives" "thanksgiving turkey" "culture" that has sold us all out.   Fear and Greed are tools of the state used to dupe sheep into it's fold.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Was there a slur?


Really?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Probably should get past Public Education History 101.
> 
> The Iroquois Confederation is documented and was used and praised by some unimportant guys like Benjamin Franklin- but hey- history is written by the winners, so why question?


It is interesting the influence that you speak regarding the Iroquois Confederation.  But the order of Western Civilization came out of Socrates.  Without him, there would not have been a Plato or an Aristotle.  Our Founders were plugged into the Greek Philosophers just as those founders of the French Revolution was also plugged into them.  The Truth moves along and develops slowly.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Personally, I think we should just let the slurs fly for everyone, like George Carlin.


Personally, I think we should lead the way by showing mutual respect for everyone.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Is emmigration a right?





> Depends on your origination, destination and wealth.


Well, looked into Europe. It looks like Americans don't have the right to emigrate there. From a job listing today:




> ...foreigner work permits and Visas are very difficult to obtain. If you don’t have the right to work here or in the EU, we regret that we will not be able to consider you.

----------


## dinosaur

> Could you cite the place where it empowers the federal government to dictate to us that we must respect individual rights over collective rights?
> 
> For that matter, back to my previous question, can you cite any place at all anywhere in the Constitution where it empowers the federal government to dictate our culture to us?


I've tried to explain to you about three times now that the consitution does not *state* that it "empowers the federal government to dictate our culture to us".  It *does* dictate culture to us.  It *does* it, but does not *state* that it does it.  I don't know of more ways to explain this, and I have no idea why you continue to miss the entire point.

----------


## erowe1

> I've tried to explain to you about three times now that the consitution does not *state* that it "empowers the federal government to dictate our culture to us".  It *does* dictate culture to us.  It *does* it, but does not *state* that it does it.  I don't know of more ways to explain this, and I have no idea why you continue to miss the entire point.


I get the point. I just want to know if you can back it up. So far it's just you making a claim without any evidence.

You said you want the government to follow the Constitution. That means it should only exercise the powers enumerated in the Constitution. That means that, unless the Constitution explicitly empowers the federal government to dictate our culture to us, then following their oath of office would entail not doing that. If you think that dictating culture to us is constitutional, then the ball's still in your court. The Constitution is available for free all over the internet. Just find the part where it says the federal government can dictate our culture to us and cite it.

When you keep refusing to cite where in the Constitution it does that, it comes across as an admission that it doesn't.

----------


## dinosaur

[QUOTE=erowe1;4848584]I get the point. I just want to know if you can back it up. So far it's just you making a claim without any evidence.

/QUOTE]

I already did back it up by providing an example.  You really are not getting the point.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I get the point. I just want to know if you can back it up. So far it's just you making a claim without any evidence.
> 
> You said you want the government to follow the Constitution. That means it should only exercise the powers enumerated in the Constitution. That means that, unless the Constitution explicitly empowers the federal government to dictate our culture to us, then following their oath of office would entail not doing that. If you think that dictating culture to us is constitutional, then the ball's still in your court. The Constitution is available for free all over the internet. Just find the part where it says the federal government can dictate our culture to us and cite it.
> 
> When you keep refusing to cite where in the Constitution it does that, it comes across as an admission that it doesn't.


Piers Morgan and many others, including Supreme Court justices, would say that America's "gun culture" is dictated by the Constitution. Some cultures would say that Free Speech is a cultural tradition. Suffrage Amendment? Other cultures might say that's a cultural issue. Is female circumcision banned at the Federal level? No doubt most cultural norms are regulated at the State/Local level instead of Federal.

----------


## erowe1

> Piers Morgan and many others, including Supreme Court justices, would say that America's "gun culture" is dictated by the Constitution. Some cultures would say that Free Speech is a cultural tradition. Suffrage Amendment? Other cultures might say that's a cultural issue. Is female circumcision banned at the Federal level? No doubt most cultural norms are regulated at the State/Local level instead of Federal.


Do you agree with Piers Morgan about that?

It doesn't make sense to me. Lots of Americans hate guns, and the federal government hasn't punished them for that.

----------


## erowe1

> I already did back it up by providing an example.  You really are not getting the point.


Oh sorry. I missed it. What post is this in?

ETA: I went back through your posts, and no, there isn't one where you back up your claim with any evidence. If you do have any evidence, I would still like to see it. If you feel that you have a point that I am not getting, I assure you the problem is in the delivery and not the reception of it.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Do you agree with Piers Morgan about that?
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me. Lots of Americans hate guns, and the federal government hasn't punished them for that.


You asked for examples. I gave many. The Constitution has taken a side in the issue of guns.

When government takes a side on a cultural issue, it's usually a ban, which happens more at the State/Local level.

----------


## erowe1

> You asked for examples. I gave many. The Constitution has taken a side in the issue of guns.
> 
> When government takes a side on a cultural issue, it's usually a ban, which happens more at the State/Local level.



I asked for evidence that dictating our culture to us is any of the federal government's business. You didn't give any. Your other examples are no better than the Piers Morgan one. Do you really think the Constitution empowers the federal government to dictate to me that I must fit into some kind of gun culture?

----------


## dinosaur

> Oh sorry. I missed it. What post is this in?


You read and quoted the post already.  The Bill of Rights contains cultural values.  As I already stated, it dictates to us that individual rights are to take precedence over communal interests.  It enumerates many of these instances.  Therefore culture is dictated in the constitution. If it is impossible to set up a culturally neutral form of goverment, then the choice become what type of cultural values do we want our government to reflect.  Our constituiton makes a value choice and dictates that individual rights are more important than communal rights.  Other cultures make different value choices that reflect their cultural values. Many, if not most, of the people in our country are also choosing to make different value choices, and enshrining those in law.  The battle to restore our constituion is a cultural war, and there will always be a losing side.  

If you want to keep insisting that I'm saying that the constitution states that government has the right to dictate culture, then you are missing the point.  




> ETA: I went back through your posts, and no, there isn't one where you back up your claim with any evidence. If you do have any evidence, I would still like to see it. If you feel that you have a point that I am not getting, I assure you the problem is in the delivery and not the reception of it.


If you want an example of what you think I'm saying, instead of what I'm actually saying your search wouldn't be fruitful, would it?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I asked for evidence that dictating our culture to us is any of the federal government's business. You didn't give any. Your other examples are no better than the Piers Morgan one. Do you really think the Constitution empowers the federal government to dictate to me that I must fit into some kind of gun culture?


Yes, I did. You are living in a gun culture, like it or not. The entire gun debate revolves around the efforts of those who want to ban guns, versus the Second Amendment. Go try to circumcise your daughter. The government will have something to say about that. What to use some unapproved drug in your religious ceremony? Santa Obama will send the DEA for you.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, I did. You are living in a gun culture, like it or not.


No I'm not. Where did you get that idea?

ETA: Then again, maybe some would think I am. But if I am, it's by my own choice. If I and my neighbors chose not to have guns, the federal government would not have any right to dictate that we get some or that we do anything else to conform to whatever a gun culture is supposed to look like.




> YGo try to circumcise your daughter. The [federal?] government will have something to say about that. What to use some unapproved drug in your religious ceremony? Santa Obama will send the DEA for you.


If the federal government did those things, would it be acting within its constitutionally enumerated powers?

----------


## erowe1

> You read and quoted the post already.  The Bill of Rights contains cultural values.  As I already stated, it dictates to us that individual rights are to take precidence over communal interests.


Could you quote where it does this? And when you do, could you explain how that entails empowering the federal government to dictate our culture to us?





> It enumerates many of these instances.


Such as?




> Therefore culture is dictated in the constitution.


Just to be clear, the debate is not about some vague abstraction about the Constitution dictating something cultural to someone, it's about whether or not the Constitution empowers the federal government to dictate our culture to us.




> If it is impossible to set up a culturally neutral form of goverment,


I'm not sure what you mean by a "culturally neutral form of government" (there's that lack of clarity again). But if you mean that it's impossible for us not to have our culture dictated to us by the government, then I would like to see the evidence you base that on.





> then the choice become what type of cultural values do we want our government to reflect


I don't see what government "reflecting" cultural values has to do with it. Does a government's reflection of cultural values have to entail its dictating to people what their culture is to be?




> Our constituiton makes a value choice and dictates that individual rights are more important than communal rights.


You're making things worse by taking the word I'm using and applying it differently. The Constitution doesn't dictate anything at all to the American people. It only dictates things to the federal government. And even then, it doesn't dictate to the federal government what it must be like, only what it must not be like, by prohibiting it from exercising powers beyond those the Constitution enumerates.  In order for the federal government to have the power to dictate culture to the American people, that would have to be enumerated in the Constitution.




> Other cultures make different value choices that reflect their cultural values.


Correct. And the federal government has no business telling us we can't fit into those other cultures.




> If you want to keep insisting that I'm saying that the constitution states that government has the right to dictate culture, then you are missing the point.


But that is the point at issue. If you mean to admit that the federal government does not have any business dictating our culture to us (as I said in the post that began this discussion), then please do. If you don't admit that, then I assume you disagree with it.




> If you want an example of what you think I'm saying, instead of what I'm actually saying your search wouldn't be fruitful, would it?


I didn't ask for an example of what you're saying. I've already seen you repeat what you're saying multiple times. You just haven't supported it with any evidence. If you do have any evidence to support your claims, I'd still be interested in seeing it.

----------


## dinosaur

> I didn't ask for an example of what you're saying. I've already seen you repeat what you're saying multiple times. You just haven't supported it with any evidence. If you do have any evidence to support your claims, I'd still be interested in seeing it.


If you don't think that the example I cited is evidence, then please actually argue why.




> Just to be clear, the debate is not about some vague abstraction about the Constitution dictating something cultural to someone, it's about whether or not the Constitution empowers the federal government to dictate our culture to us.


I chose specific words for a specific reason; it was to convey a specific meaning.  Why do you want to argue about a statement that was never made?




> But that is the point at issue.


It is the point that you are fixated on, but it has nothing to do with whether or not it is possible to set up a culturally neutral government.




> Correct. And the federal government has no business telling us we can't fit into those other cultures.


 But our constitution does do this.  And Brian has already provided an example of that.

----------


## erowe1

> If you don't think that the example I cited is evidence, then please actually argue why.


I still don't see any example that you gave. Exactly what string of words quoted from the Constitution were included in your example?




> I chose specific words for a specific reason; it was to convey a specific meaning.  Why do you want to argue about a statement that was never made?


The statement we're arguing about is the following:



> Maybe [there is an American culture]. But whether there is or isn't such a culture, what this culture should be if there is one, and whether such a thing should be preserved or changed, are none of the government's business.


As far as I can tell, you disagree with it. Although, admittedly, you never come right out and say you do. It's possible that you actually agree with it and are too entrenched to say so.




> It is the point that you are fixated on, but it has nothing to do with whether or not it is possible to set up a culturally neutral government.


There you go again. What does "culturally neutral government" even mean?

If it means a government whose business does not include dictating our culture to us, then sure such a thing is possible.




> But our laws do do this.  And Brian has already provided an example of that


Our federal laws? Which ones? And are those laws constitutional?

----------


## dinosaur

> I'm not sure what you mean by a "culturally neutral form of government" (there's that lack of clarity again). But if you mean that it's impossible for us not to have our culture dictated to us by the government, then I would like to see the evidence you base that on.


It is not possible to prove a negative, so you would have to provide an example of a goverment that has accomplished cultural neutrality.  I offered the reason why the constitution fails to deliver that.

----------


## dinosaur

> You're making things worse by taking the word I'm using and applying it differently. The Constitution doesn't dictate anything at all to the American people. It only dictates things to the federal government. And even then, it doesn't dictate to the federal government what it must be like, only what it must not be like, by prohibiting it from exercising powers beyond those the Constitution enumerates. In order for the federal government to have the power to dictate culture to the American people, that would have to be enumerated in the Constitution.


It dictates value choices.

----------


## erowe1

> It is not possible to prove a negative, so you would have to provide an example of a goverment that has accomplished cultural neutrality.  I offered the reason why the constitution fails to deliver that.


You have not offered such a reason, not once in this whole thread. I have asked and you just keep falling back on a claim with no evidence.

I still don't know what you mean by a "culturally neutral form of government." But you did claim that such a government is impossible. That is not a negative claim, it's a positive one. Can you support it or not? Do you base it on anything at all? You're the one who made the claim.

----------


## erowe1

> It dictates value choices.


Please be more clear.

What is the antecedent of the pronoun "it"? The federal government? Or the Constitution?

If "it" is the federal government, then I would simply return to my original claim that the federal government has no business dictating value choices to us. In fact, the Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing that.

If "it" is the Constitution, then it doesn't dictate anything at all to the American people. It only dictates things to the federal government.

----------


## Deborah K

> Good for the judge. Anything except open borders is not liberty.


I bet the native Americans from the founding era would disagree.

----------


## dinosaur

> Please be more clear.


People use "it" after they have already once specified a meaning for "it" and do not want to keep repeating themselves.  I'm getting tired of repeating myself.




> What is the antecedent of the pronoun "it"? The federal government? Or the Constitution?
> 
> If "it" is the federal government, then I would simply return to my original claim that the federal government has no business dictating value choices to us. In fact, the Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing that.


You might think that the constitution has no business dictating anything cultural, but it (the bill of rights) does anyway.




> If "it" is the Constitution, then it doesn't dictate anything at all to the American people. It only dictates things to the federal government.


Repeat myself again, really?  No thanks, no amount of repeating myself is going to cause you to actually comment on the example I already gave.

----------


## erowe1

> You might think that the constitution has no business dictating anything cultural, but it (the bill of rights) does anyway.


To whom does it dictate this?




> no amount of repeating myself is going to cause you to actually comment on the example I already gave.


But you haven't given any examples.

Nor, after claiming to have given one, have you even referred me to the post where you think it is. Your assertion to have given examples of places the Constitution empowers the federal government to dictate culture to us, much like your claim that the Constitution does that, is a mere assertion without any evidence.

----------


## erowe1

Can anybody find the example Dinosaur keeps mentioning?

----------


## dinosaur

> Can anybody find the example Dinosaur keeps mentioning?


Here:




> Originally Posted by dinosaur  
> It dictates the idea of respect for individual rights over collective rights. You will find this in the Bill of Rights. If you think that this is present in all cultures, think again



The example is the Bill of Rights.  And the reason it is an example is that it champions one value system over other value systems.  Specifically, it mandates respect for individual rights over collective rights, at least for the rights enumerated.  I already mentioned people who believe that the rights of plants and animals trump human reproductive rights in an even earlier post...and this would be an example of a cultural value choice that is at odds with the system we have (or had) that places individual liberty and self-ownership above these types of values.





> To whom does it dictate this?


To any subset of the population and their representative in congress.




> There you go again. What does "culturally neutral government" even mean?


There is no secret definition, it means exactly what the words mean.

----------


## torchbearer

> Good for the judge. Anything except open borders is not liberty.



I love the judge.
It seemed like, to me, that Ron Paul enabled the judge to "come out of the closet" completely on his libertarianism.
prior to Ron, his Fox New appearances were strickly legal, and his radio show was kind of neoconish.

----------


## torchbearer

> I bet the native Americans from the founding era would disagree.


they were conquered by inadequate immune systems, inferior technology, and lack of industrialization.
even if they were bigots and wanted to close their borders, they couldn't enforce it.

----------


## Deborah K

> they were conquered by inadequate immune systems, inferior technology, and lack of industrialization.
> even if they were bigots and wanted to close their borders, they couldn't enforce it.


None of which addresses the principle of open borders.  Regardless of whether or not they could protect their lands from being invaded, the point is, they would have, if they could have.  

And, btw, wanting to protect your property from being invaded isn't bigotry.

----------


## torchbearer

> None of which addresses the principle of open borders. Regardless of whether or not they could protect their lands from being invaded, the point is, they would have, if they could have. 
> 
> And, btw, wanting to protect your property from being invaded isn't bigotry.



It is when it only concern brown people who speak a different language.
People's biggest "fears"(that control them) are "they" won't assimilate. xenophobia.

----------


## RickyJ

> It is when it only concern brown people who speak a different language.
> People's biggest "fears"(that control them) are "they" won't assimilate. xenophobia.


Try to go to Mexico illegally and see how they treat you. Heck, go there legally and try to buy some land, they won't let you, you have to be a Mexican citizen to buy land in Mexico. Every nation on Earth protects their border, that won't change unless there is a one world government and concentrated power like that is not a good idea at all. And no, it is not just about Mexican immigrants. As far as I am concerned they are not even the main immigration problem. The main immigration problem is those coming here legally from places like India, China, Russia, South America and Africa. The reason they are a problem is because they are not needed, we have high unemployment here and we don't need them, but corporations like to exploit them because they know that they must have a job to stay in America on work visas so they know they can treat them like crap and not worry about them quiting. They can't do the same with an American citizen because they would quit and find work elsewhere. Patriotism is not a dirty word. It is OK to stand up for your nation and even fight for it, it is even a noble thing to do. The same holds true for American corporations, they too should have some loyalty to America and not be afraid to be patriotic as well.

----------


## erowe1

> Here:


That's not an example. It's just a repetition of the claim you keep making without giving any reasons.

I could claim that the Bill of Rights gives Congress the power to write laws having to do with the establishment of Religion, and leave my claim out there as though it's self-evident. But that wouldn't count as giving evidence for anything.




> To any subset of the population and their representative in congress.


If you think that, then you completely misunderstand the Constitution. It dictates nothing at all to any subset of the American people about what their culture is to be or anything else, apart from that subset that makes up the federal government itself. And what the Constitution does dictate to that government precludes that government from dictating our culture to us. If you support having a federal government that dictates our culture to us, then you do not support a federal government that follows the Constitution.




> There is no secret definition, it means exactly what the words mean.


But the words on their own don't mean anything relevant to this discussion. And I think you're trying to squeeze some relevance out of them.

A dictionary definition of "culturally neutral government" would not necessarily mean a government that abstains from dictating people's culture to them. It could mean something as empty as a government that doesn't reflect anything cultural, to borrow another of your terms.

----------


## torchbearer

> Try to go to Mexico illegally and see how they treat you. Heck, go there legally and try to buy some land, they won't let you, you have to be a Mexican citizen to buy land in Mexico. Every nation on Earth protects their border, that won't change unless there is a one world government and concentrated power like that is not a good idea at all. And no, it is not just about Mexican immigrants. As far as I am concerned they are not even the main immigration problem. The main immigration problem is those coming here legally from places like India, China, Russia, South America and Africa. The reason they are a problem is because they are not needed, we have high unemployment here and we don't need them, but corporations like to exploit them because they know that they must have a job to stay in America on work visas so they know they can treat them like crap and not worry about them quiting. They can't do the same with an American citizen because they would quit and find work elsewhere. Patriotism is not a dirty word. It is OK to stand up for your nation and even fight for it, it is even a noble thing to do. The same holds true for American corporations, they too should have some loyalty to America and not be afraid to be patriotic as well.


I lived in Jamaica for most of a year without "permission".
They treated me great. They respected me, honored my property purchase and everything. Maybe we should try that out. Respecting other people's property. I decide who I allow on mine, you decide who you allow on yours.
Great People, by the way.

----------


## erowe1

> Try to go to Mexico illegally and see how they treat you. Heck, go there legally and try to buy some land, they won't let you, you have to be a Mexican citizen to buy land in Mexico.


Is that what you aspire to?




> Every nation on Earth protects their border, that won't change unless there is a one world government and concentrated power like that is not a good idea at all.


I haven't seen a single person in this thread, or for that matter ever on this website say that we shouldn't protect our border.

That's one of the problems with the way your side always discusses this issue. They sweep aside the specifics of the actual violations of rights that are involved in what they know would need to be done to control the makeup of our nation's population the way they want to control it, and fall back on platitudes like "border protection" and "sovereignty" that could mean all sorts of things, both good and bad, and then pull a switcheroo on you, where if you advocate for the good sense, they demand that you accept the bad one.




> The main immigration problem is those coming here legally from places like India, China, Russia, South America and Africa. The reason they are a problem is because they are not needed,


Not needed by whom? By you? Fine, then don't invite anyone over here from those countries. Just don't act like those of us who feel differently have no right to invite them.




> Patriotism is not a dirty word. It is OK to stand up for your nation and even fight for it, it is even a noble thing to do. The same holds true for American corporations, they too should have some loyalty to America and not be afraid to be patriotic as well.


Standing up for your nation means standing up against the regime that subjugates it. Refusing to comply with their tyranny by running businesses without their approval and paying employees under the table is the essence of patriotism.

----------


## dinosaur

> That's not an example.


  Not an example of what?  Because it _is_ an example of cultural values in the constitution.  And it does support my claim that the constitution has a cultural bias, one that not all other cultures embrace.





> It's just a repetition of the claim you keep making without giving any reasons.
> 
> I could claim that the Bill of Rights gives Congress the power to write laws having to do with the establishment of Religion, and leave my claim out there as though it's self-evident. But that wouldn't count as giving evidence for anything.


I made a claim and gave an example, see above.




> If you think that, then you completely misunderstand the Constitution. It dictates nothing at all to any subset of the American people about what their culture is to be or anything else, apart from that subset that makes up the federal government itself. And what the Constitution does dictate to that government precludes that government from dictating our culture to us. If you support having a federal government that dictates our culture to us, then you do not support a federal government that follows the Constitution.



The constitution does dictate that the right to bear arms will be valued so highly that no other right can trump it.  This is a cultural value





> But the words on their own don't mean anything relevant to this discussion. And I think you're trying to squeeze some relevance out of them.


And I have no idea if you are being deliberately obtuse or if your belief that the constitution in no way imposes upon people is blinding you.  Try asking someone from India if they would feel dictated to if our constitution became the law of their land.  




> A dictionary definition of "culturally neutral government" would not necessarily mean a government that abstains from dictating people's culture to them. It could mean something as empty as a government that *doesn't reflect anything cultural*, to borrow another of your terms.


If the law of the land didn't reflect cultural values, then it obviously wouldn't dictate any cultual values to anyone.

----------


## UMULAS

> It is interesting the influence that you speak regarding the Iroquois Confederation.  But the order of Western Civilization came out of Socrates.  Without him, there would not have been a Plato or an Aristotle.  Our Founders were plugged into the Greek Philosophers just as those founders of the French Revolution was also plugged into them.  The Truth moves along and develops slowly.



Because Tao was an idiot amiritguyz?

----------


## erowe1

> Not an example of what?  Because it _is_ an example of cultural values in the constitution.


No it isn't. It's just an assertion that they're there. Show me the quote you're talking about if you really have one. And again, vague notions of "cultural values in the Constitution" are not what this discussion is about. It's about the powers of the federal government over culture, or lack thereof.




> And it does support my claim that the constitution has a cultural bias, one that not all other cultures embrace.


More vaguaries. This has nothing to do with giving the federal government power over culture. It may even be the exact opposite. If you're talking about other cultures where people expect the government to regulate their culture, then the cultural bias of the Constitution is one that goes against that, not one that supports it. If constitutional government resulted in cultures in our country being different than those in others, then that result would come from the cultures of the people developing without the government's manipulation, not because of the federal government injecting itself into the process.




> I made a claim and gave an example, see above.


Dinosaur keeps saying this. Does anybody see the example he's talking about?




> The constitution does dictate that the right to bear arms will be valued so highly that no other right can trump it.  This is a cultural value


Show me the quote you're talking about. I highly doubt that it will be something that grants any power to the federal government to dictate anything to us, cultural or otherwise.




> And I have no idea if you are being deliberately obtuse or if your belief that the constitution in no way imposes upon people is blinding you.  Try asking someone from India if they would feel dictated to if our constitution became the law of their land.


How much do people in India know about our Constitution. If they think it dictates things to the American people, then they're mistaken. It doesn't. Do you think it does? If so, then quote where.




> If the law of the land didn't reflect cultural values, then it obviously wouldn't dictate any cultual values to anyone.


But that would be meaningless. How could a constitution not "reflect cultural values"?

The point is, even if it does reflect cultural values, it still shouldn't empower the government to dictate any cultural values to anyone.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Try to go to Mexico illegally and see how they treat you. *Heck, go there legally and try to buy some land, they won't let you, you have to be a Mexican citizen to buy land in Mexico.* Every nation on Earth protects their border, that won't change unless there is a one world government and concentrated power like that is not a good idea at all. And no, it is not just about Mexican immigrants. As far as I am concerned they are not even the main immigration problem. The main immigration problem is those coming here legally from places like India, China, Russia, South America and Africa. The reason they are a problem is because they are not needed, we have high unemployment here and we don't need them, but corporations like to exploit them because they know that they must have a job to stay in America on work visas so they know they can treat them like crap and not worry about them quiting. They can't do the same with an American citizen because they would quit and find work elsewhere. Patriotism is not a dirty word. It is OK to stand up for your nation and even fight for it, it is even a noble thing to do. The same holds true for American corporations, they too should have some loyalty to America and not be afraid to be patriotic as well.


 I would like some proof of this.  Fred Reed lives in Mexico without Mexican citizenship (last I heard).  I've also heard about well-to-do gringos who have summer homes in Mexico.

----------


## No Free Beer

> So then who are you talking about?
> 
> Also, "open borders" is a meaningless term. Ron Paul is not for deporting illegal immigrants, nor is he for laws regulating whether they can live or work here, nor is he for any kind of national id, including Social Security numbers, nor is he for building a wall on the border. As far as I can tell his position is the same as mine, because I'm not for any of those things either. How about you?
> 
> IIRC though, Ron Paul did talk about respecting Pakistan's sovereignty, and I never did.


My point is, that you cannot be an Open Border Agent and be against Obama's foreign policy decision to go into Pakistan (presumbly without Pakistan's approval) and shoot OBL. 

Now, I wasn't directing this exact hypocrisy towards you, but you chimed in and I defended my position.

Otherone stated his hypocrisy.

----------


## dinosaur

believe what you want erowe

But stop making the assumption that dictating some aspects of culture means " giving the federal government power over culture".

----------


## fr33

> I would like some proof of this.  Fred Reed lives in Mexico without Mexican citizenship (last I heard).  I've also heard about well-to-do gringos who have summer homes in Mexico.


Without Mexican citizenship, they don't outright own the property. They probably have some other type of lease contract. I knew a guy who was running some feedlots and farmland down there but he couldn't own it.

----------


## fr33

> Without Mexican citizenship, they don't outright own the property. They probably have some other type of lease contract. I knew a guy who was running some feedlots and farmland down there but he couldn't own it.


Derp. Then I go googling for proof and I'm finding sites that say things have recently changed.

http://www.baja123.com/FOREIGNERS_BU...e_1242993.html

http://www.blueroadrunner.com/ownprop.htm

----------


## UMULAS

> None of which addresses the principle of open borders.  Regardless of whether or not they could protect their lands from being invaded, the point is, they would have, if they could have.  
> 
> And, btw, wanting to protect your property from being invaded isn't bigotry.



INVASION is different than making land settlement agreements.


EX:

Roger Williams making peaceful terms in Rhode Island = Good
Amish in Penn. for a while = Good
Europeans destroying land and invading=Bad

NO ONE here going pro-immigrant is supporting invasion, we are supporting the right to move freely and to have land term agreements, as well as following the social contract theory in the state/country/district/private land.

Now if anyone (immigrant or not) is invading land and breaking the law, THEN that's a different story.

----------


## Confederate

> Without Mexican citizenship, they don't outright own the property. They probably have some other type of lease contract. I knew a guy who was running some feedlots and farmland down there but he couldn't own it.


Yup, foreigners are not allowed to own land 50km from the ocean or 100km from international borders. The US should have the same policy.

----------


## UMULAS

> My point is, that you cannot be an Open Border Agent and be against Obama's foreign policy decision to go into Pakistan* (presumbly without Pakistan's approval) and shoot OBL.* 
> 
> Now, I wasn't directing this exact hypocrisy towards you, but you chimed in and I defended my position.
> 
> Otherone stated his hypocrisy.


Can you repeat that again please?

----------


## Confederate

> Derp. Then I go googling for proof and I'm finding sites that say things have recently changed.
> 
> http://www.baja123.com/FOREIGNERS_BU...e_1242993.html
> 
> http://www.blueroadrunner.com/ownprop.htm


The property must be owned by a Mexican trust, not by the foreigner himself.

----------


## Confederate

> *when a national like ours*


Aren't you an illegal alien?

----------


## UMULAS

> Yup, foreigners are not allowed to own land 50km from the ocean or 100km from international borders. The US should have the same policy.


Then tell me the difference between land leases and property tax. If you believe what you are stating, then barely anyone in the U.S. have official land.

----------


## UMULAS

.....

----------


## Confederate

> I got my documentations after 13 years of staying here breaking the law thanks to the DREAM ACT Obama's unconstitutional amnesty.


Fixed that for you.

----------


## Confederate

> Then tell me the difference between land leases and property tax. If you believe what you are stating, then barely anyone in the U.S. have official land.


What does that have anything to do with what I said?

----------


## RickyJ

> I got my documentations after 13 years of staying here thanks to the DREAM ACT.


Is there a DREAM act to live in Switzerland too?  If I go there illegally and stay 13 years do they make me a citizen too? You broke our laws for 13 years and a man that is mere figurehead of the elite trying to destroy this nation illegally let you become a citizen. and you are "proud" of that? You shouldn't be.

----------


## Aldanga

> Yup, foreigners are not allowed to own land 50km from the ocean or 100km from international borders. The US should have the same policy.


In other words, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

----------


## fr33

> Is there a DREAM act to live in Switzerland too?  If I go there illegally and stay 13 years do they make me a citizen too? You broke our laws for 13 years and a man that is mere figurehead of the elite trying to destroy this nation illegally let you become a citizen. and you are "proud" of that? You shouldn't be.


I break laws all the time and I am proud of it.

----------


## torchbearer

> In other words, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.


that is exactly what is being said.
and what isn't mentioned is the violence they'd want to bring down on you if you were to hire and house someone who wasn't born on this part of the planet.
they think they have that right. they might as well join the statist in D.C>

----------


## fisharmor

> Try to go to Mexico illegally and see how they treat you. Heck, go there legally and try to buy some land, they won't let you, you have to be a Mexican citizen to buy land in Mexico.


Translation: I want us to be like Mexico.  For you see, Mexico is so great that everyone in Mexico tries to stay there!




> Every nation on Earth protects their border, that won't change unless there is a one world government and concentrated power like that is not a good idea at all.


Translation: Everyone else is doing it, so we have to do it too, regardless of whether it's a good idea.  Also, the roughly 6000 years of recorded history when governments didn't control immigration don't count.  Only the last 100 years count.




> And no, it is not just about Mexican immigrants. As far as I am concerned they are not even the main immigration problem. The main immigration problem is those coming here legally from places like India, China, Russia, South America and Africa. The reason they are a problem is because they are not needed, we have high unemployment here and we don't need them, but corporations like to exploit them because they know that they must have a job to stay in America on work visas so they know they can treat them like crap and not worry about them quiting.  They can't do the same with an American citizen because they would quit and find work elsewhere.


[/quote]
Translation: I have no idea what I'm talking about, unless all those six-digit salary Master's degree Indians working in IT don't count.




> Patriotism is not a dirty word. It is OK to stand up for your nation and even fight for it, it is even a noble thing to do. The same holds true for American corporations, they too should have some loyalty to America and not be afraid to be patriotic as well.


So... translation.... you think corporations should fight... who exactly?


Oh, and still waiting to hear about the constitutionality of all this.....

----------


## Deborah K

> I would like some proof of this.  Fred Reed lives in Mexico without Mexican citizenship (last I heard).  I've also heard about well-to-do gringos who have summer homes in Mexico.


It's true HB.  You can 'own' a house there, but you have to lease the land.  But you can get 99 yr leases from what I've heard.

----------


## fisharmor

> It's true HB.  You can 'own' a house there, but you have to lease the land.  But you can get 99 yr leases from what I've heard.


I "own" my house here in Virginia, yet if I EVER stop paying the yearly lease on it, the state takes it from me.
Tomato, tomato.

----------


## UMULAS

.............

----------


## Deborah K

> I "own" my house here in Virginia, yet if I EVER stop paying the yearly lease on it, the state takes it from me.
> Tomato, tomato.


hehe, true dat.  same boat here.

----------


## UMULAS

.....

----------


## UMULAS

..........

----------


## Confederate

> Ok $#@!, since if you want to play this way and we must in order to break some syllogism on you.
> 
> #1: You posted before if I was an illegal before, there fore you knew that I was (hell I believe anyone here knew I was one). Therefore, you are just playing label tags


I don't get what you're trying to say here...you're an illegal alien, it's not a label, it's just the truth. 




> #2: You configure that as a contention on my criteria on pro-immigration, I broke the law; smearing of that you have "evidence" infering to this argument.


My 'evidence' is your own admission that you're in the US illegally. 




> #2 A: I did not do anything illegal. My parents placed me here (not that I have any problems with that) since I was 3. Meaning #2 =/= #2A.


Doesn't change that you're here illegally, as I assume your parent are as well, regardless of the constitutional gymnastics Obama plays to give you 'legal' status. The fact that you seem proud of violating the law is pathetic. 




> I can stop here, but I'm not so I can show you how pathetic you are.
> 
> #3: (Deriving #2)
> 
> Your little image, (not holding it just against you, but of everything of what you stand) Real Americans Defend Israel is the most contradicting thing I've ever seen in the entire thread.
> 
> You oppose of "Soverign" whateverthehellyouwanttoname it while supporting U.S. to defend Israel, bit contraditory eh?
> 
> Yes it is, so Confederate = #2A, meaning you support Obama = you support his stance on soverign nationality


You're obviously not an American because you don't support Israel. It's every true American's duty to stand with God's Chosen People. Also, I believe your sarcasm meter is broken.

----------


## erowe1

> Is there a DREAM act to live in Switzerland too?  If I go there illegally and stay 13 years do they make me a citizen too? You broke our laws for 13 years and a man that is mere figurehead of the elite trying to destroy this nation illegally let you become a citizen. and you are "proud" of that? You shouldn't be.


How do you figure that he broke the law for 13 years? If I run a red light, does that mean that I'm continually breaking the law from that moment on for however many years until I go back and stop at the light?

----------


## Confederate

> How do you figure that he broke the law for 13 years? If I run a red light, does that mean that I'm continually breaking the law from that moment on for however many years until I go back and stop at the light?


Overstaying your visa is a continual act. He and his parents could have left at any time and ceased violating the law.

----------


## Carson

> Yup, foreigners are not allowed to own land 50km from the ocean or 100km from international borders. The US should have the same policy.



People from other countries could and did own a lot of the land along the ocean and the borders. I think they decided on some new laws back in the fifties and ripped everyone off.

----------


## erowe1

> Overstaying your visa is a continual act. He and his parents could have left at any time and ceased violating the law.


Does the law say that you can't be present within the borders of the USA without a visa? If not, then what exactly is the continual act you think is involved?

----------


## Danke

> Yup, foreigners are not allowed to own land 50km from the ocean or 100km from international borders. The US should have the same policy.


I'd agree with the judge if it did not apply to Mexicans.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Because Tao was an idiot amiritguyz?


Yes.

----------


## UMULAS

........

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> It's true HB.  You can 'own' a house there, but you have to lease the land.  But you can get 99 yr leases from what I've heard.


That is why Mexico should be considered a part of the old world.  As emperors and kings did in the past, Santa Anna parceled up the land taking it away from the people to build up an Aristocracy of nobility around himself for protection.  This is why we need to build a border.  I'd recommend a border that extends about fifty miles into Mexico as a buffer zone.  Shoot anyone on sight trying to enter like they did in the old days.  If they want to live in a free Democratic Republic, then let them fight and die for it like our ancestors had to.

----------


## UMULAS

......

----------


## UMULAS

..........

----------


## fr33

> Overstaying your visa is a continual act. He and his parents could have left at any time and ceased violating the law.


In other words, existence is a crime. Go join the pro-abortion crowd then. Or you claim to own the property he/she dwells on. Do you?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> It can be argued that he could have been the first libertarian in history and you call him an idiot?
> 
> Of course, the man socrates who believed in technocracy and slavery was by far superiot to Tao Te Ching.


Before he created a new order as a Sage, Socrates had his life spared by the Spartans because, as a fighting hoplite, his courage so impressed them as someone who had no fear of losing his life.  By Sage, I mean Western Civilization ushered out of him.  He wasn't a master professor like Plato.  He wasn't a scientist like Aristotle.  He was the reason there was a Plato and an Aristotle.  Why are you trying to make a comparison?
The importance of the first aspect about his courage is important as Socrates lived as a man among boys.  His ideas were dangerous to his livelihood.  Again, why are you trying to make a comparison?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> So the U.S. is part of the old world since if you don't pay property taxes, they reclaim it immedietly unlike Mexico.
> 
> =============
> 
> Borders can also be used to keep us in than out, so you support militant occupation in borders?
> 
> Anyway, who cares really; any idiot would think that our military can stop illegal immigration, you're just making the supply decrasing causing a higher pricing from Q1 to Q2, also known as CRONYISM.


In the United States, the people own a large part of the land.  In Mexico, most of the land is owned by about 35,000 families.

----------


## BAllen

> That is why Mexico should be considered a part of the old world.  As emperors and kings did in the past, Santa Anna parceled up the land taking it away from the people to build up an Aristocracy of nobility around himself for protection.  This is why we need to build a border.  I'd recommend a border that extends about fifty miles into Mexico as a buffer zone.  Shoot anyone on sight trying to enter like they did in the old days.  If they want to live in a free Democratic Republic, then let them fight and die for it like our ancestors had to.


 I talked with a WWII vet, and that's what he said we needed to do. Have signs in English and Spanish reading that if you cross the border illegally, you will be shot. Then post troops on the border to enforce it.

----------


## otherone

> I talked with a WWII vet, and that's what he said we needed to do. Have signs in English and Spanish reading that if you cross the border illegally, you will be shot. Then post troops on the border to enforce it.


What's to stop someone from Mexico getting on a plane in Mexico city and flying to I, dunno, Denver?  Anti-aircraft artillery?

----------


## No Free Beer

> Can you repeat that again please?



Or you can just read it again...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> /
> Also, the Constitution is SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE


Nope.  Sorry, you are incorrect.

----------


## BAllen

> What's to stop someone from Mexico getting on a plane in Mexico city and flying to I, dunno, Denver?  Anti-aircraft artillery?


 What percentage of mexicans can afford air travel?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> I talked with a WWII vet, and that's what he said we needed to do. Have signs in English and Spanish reading that if you cross the border illegally, you will be shot. Then post troops on the border to enforce it.


Normal nations of normal people protect themselves in this fashion.  Try jumping over the fence and running into the White House sometime.  We are such a weak minded people.  I don't think anyone is in charge.  Maybe the African Americans.  Hell, I don't know.  Hopefully no one will notice that our government has our feet positioned behind our heads.  They have our legs spread wide apart as the biggest whore on earth.  Truth be known, the reason Mexican Americans support having Mexican Nationals come into our Democratic Republic illegally is so they can pimp them.  Then the gangs prey on these illegals because they know that they can't call the police.  They can't get a drivers license or insurance.  When they run into you, they jump out of their cars and flee.  When they get drunk, they drive over destroying all the city infrastructure.  
I think I need a nap.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> In the United States, the people own a large part of the land.  In Mexico, most of the land is owned by about 35,000 families.


No one who has to pay property taxes owns their land. So that leaves how many landowners in the United States?

----------


## Ender

> Nope.  Sorry, you are incorrect.


Yep. Separation of church and state was a Jefferson statement and is not in the Constitution.


The Constitution says that congress shall make NO LAW regarding religion.

----------


## Ender

> No one who has to pay property taxes owns their land. So that leaves how many landowners in the United States?


Very true; stop paying taxes and the real owners show up.

----------


## UMULAS

...........

----------


## UMULAS

.......

----------


## UMULAS

..............

----------


## UMULAS

...........

----------


## UMULAS

............

----------


## LibertyEagle

Immigrant <> illegal alien

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This may be a shocker to you, but there are more Americans on welfare than immigrants.


Are you talking about illegal aliens, here, when you say "immigrant"?  Because immigrants are Americans, because they entered our country legally and became citizens.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Ok, even though I'm an "anarchist" I recognize that this "fiction" government supposedly is based upon "LAW" (whatever that is...).  In Yick Wo v. Hopkins somewhere back in 1886, the supreme court addressed the "rights" of an immigrant (who was still a "subject" of the emperor of China and had no intention of ever becoming a "Citizen").  The court ruled (correctly in my humble opinion) that ALL "People" have the same rights.  The rights PROTECTED by the constitution belong to everyone irregardless of where they were born or where their allegiance lies.  The decision in Yick Wo has never been revised or revisited since but it is often cited.

Now for a personal experience I had with someone from one of those "Constitutional Law" organizations who was to speak here in Memphis.  I was available to drive this speaker from Little Rock airport to Memphis so we had 2 hours to speak.  I really appreciated the knowledge this man had of the constitution and I had a different view of immigration than he did (since I don't think the feds have any legal power to restrict the movement of people).  He felt the "gov" should have some say in "immigration".  Since he was more versed in the constitution than I could hope to be I put the question to him about whether there is a clause granting power to control immigration and he had to admit that there is only provision for Naturalization in the constitution but not "immigration"...  

Seems to me that if you are FOR the feds controlling immigration, (if you believe the constitution has "power") you need to look into amending it to get that "power" in there in the first place.  

If not, show me the "delegation" of power to control immigration from the people to the "servant government"...

----------


## UMULAS

.............

----------


## Confederate

> This may be a shocker to you, but there are more Americans on welfare than immigrants.


Really!?!?! There are 300 million Americans and 10-20 million illegal aliens, obviously there would be more Americans receiving benefits.

That still does not change the fact that illegal aliens are here in violation of the law. They have no respect for American sovereignty or the rule of law and should (for the most part) be deported and have to wait at the back of the line behind all those who wait years to come here legally. Yes, that includes you.

----------


## mczerone

> Really!?!?! There are 300 million Americans and 10-20 million illegal aliens, obviously there would be more Americans receiving benefits.
> 
> That still does not change the fact that illegal aliens are here in violation of the law. They have no respect for American sovereignty or the rule of law and should (for the most part) be deported and have to wait at the back of the line behind all those who wait years to come here legally. Yes, that includes you.


So if it's "against the law" it's bad? I expect you to be the first in line to turn in your guns when they become "against the law". I never want to see a post about you speeding on the highways.

/I'm glad I stopped frequenting RPFs if this is the type of active poster that remains

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [Illegal aliens] have no respect for American sovereignty or the rule of law and should (for the most part) be deported [...]


Hmmmm. By those standards, American citizens should (for the most part) be deported, too ...

Let's throw out *all* the moochers and parasites (whether they got here via the Mayflower or the coyote van).

Likewise, let's keep anyone who's peaceful & productive (and who just wants to leave alone and be let alone).

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes ... (which means, of course, that it will never happen) ...

----------


## UMULAS

........

----------


## UMULAS

........

----------


## Ender

Good article on immigration attitudes throughout US history:

More at the link.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/per...tivism-america




> The Unwanted: Immigration and Nativism in America
> 
> By Peter Schrag
> 
> It’s hardly news that the complaints of our latter-day nativists and immigration restrictionists—from Sam Huntington to Rush Limbaugh, from FAIR to V-DARE—resonate with the nativist arguments of some three centuries of American history.  Often, as most of us should know, the immigrants who were demeaned by one generation were the parents and grandparents of the successes of the next generation.  Perhaps, not paradoxically, many of them, or their children and grandchildren, later joined those who attacked and disparaged the next arrivals, or would-be arrivals, with the same vehemence that had been leveled against them or their forebears.
> 
> Similarly, the sweeps and detentions of immigrants during the early decades of the last century were not terribly different from the heavy-handed federal, state, and local raids of recent years to round up, deport, and occasionally imprison illegal immigrants, and sometimes legal residents and U.S. citizens along with them.  But it’s also well to remember that nativism, xenophobia, and racism are hardly uniquely American phenomena.  What makes them significant in America is that they run counter to the nation’s founding ideals.  At least since the enshrinement of Enlightenment ideas of equality and inclusiveness in the founding documents of the new nation, to be a nativist in this country was to be in conflict with its fundamental tenets.
> 
> And from the start, we’ve fought about the same questions.  Who belongs here?  What does the economy need?  What, indeed, is an American or who is fit to be one?  In 1751 Benjamin Franklin warned that Pennsylvania was becoming “a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them and will never adopt our Language or Customs any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”  Later Jefferson worried about immigrants from foreign monarchies who “will infuse into American legislation their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”  Sound familiar?
> ...

----------


## PeaceRequiresAnarchy

> I think the Judge just meant that we have a natural right to live where we want.  I didn't take it to mean the end of nations or borders.


Judge Napolitano doesn't deny that he is an anarchist:
*Time 2:15 in video*:

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Okay....... So no one even wants to ADDRESS the FACT there is nothing in the constitution granting the fed AUTHORITY to control "immigration"???

----------


## PeaceRequiresAnarchy

> I have no issue with people coming here to work.  But, I do have a problem with them wholesale becoming citizens and sucking off of the welfare state.


Please correct me if I am wrong, but do you believe that (a) the government has the right to coercively extract money from people (taxation), but (b) people (e.g. from the geographic region of Mexico) do not have the right to voluntarily accept benefits (without using any force at all) from the government? How do you figure that?

----------


## erowe1

> That still does not change the fact that illegal aliens are here in violation of the law.


Could you cite the law that says this please?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Okay....... So no one even wants to ADDRESS the FACT there is nothing in the constitution granting the fed AUTHORITY to control "immigration"???


Original intent: Feds control citizenship, States control immigration.

Through a long series of Federal laws, the Federal government has taken on the task of regulating borders and immigration.

Basic history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...on_legislation

----------


## fisharmor

> Ok, even though I'm an "anarchist" I recognize that this "fiction" government supposedly is based upon "LAW" (whatever that is...).  In Yick Wo v. Hopkins somewhere back in 1886, the supreme court addressed the "rights" of an immigrant (who was still a "subject" of the emperor of China and had no intention of ever becoming a "Citizen").  The court ruled (correctly in my humble opinion) that ALL "People" have the same rights.  The rights PROTECTED by the constitution belong to everyone irregardless of where they were born or where their allegiance lies.  The decision in Yick Wo has never been revised or revisited since but it is often cited.
> 
> Now for a personal experience I had with someone from one of those "Constitutional Law" organizations who was to speak here in Memphis.  I was available to drive this speaker from Little Rock airport to Memphis so we had 2 hours to speak.  I really appreciated the knowledge this man had of the constitution and I had a different view of immigration than he did (since I don't think the feds have any legal power to restrict the movement of people).  He felt the "gov" should have some say in "immigration".  Since he was more versed in the constitution than I could hope to be I put the question to him about whether there is a clause granting power to control immigration and he had to admit that there is only provision for Naturalization in the constitution but not "immigration"...  
> 
> Seems to me that if you are FOR the feds controlling immigration, (if you believe the constitution has "power") you need to look into amending it to get that "power" in there in the first place.  
> 
> If not, show me the "delegation" of power to control immigration from the people to the "servant government"...


Great Caesar's Ghost's three ring flea circus on a pogo stick!
_Someone else wants to discuss the constitutionality of the issue!!!!!_

Hey CA, lemme stab in the dark here... did you become an anarchist when it became apparent that strict constitutionalists also don't give a running jump through a rolling donut what the document actually says?

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Great Caesar's Ghost's three ring flea circus on a pogo stick!
> _Someone else wants to discuss the constitutionality of the issue!!!!!_
> 
> Hey CA, lemme stab in the dark here... did you become an anarchist when it became apparent that strict constitutionalists also don't give a running jump through a rolling donut what the document actually says?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Original intent: Feds control citizenship, States control immigration.
> 
> Through a long series of Federal laws, the Federal government has taken on the task of regulating borders and immigration.
> 
> Basic history:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...on_legislation


 Yes, like so many other areas, the Fedgov goons have gradually usurped power which was never given to them.  According to the Constitution, they have power to determine citizenship, but not to control, regulate, restrict, nor have anything to do whatsoever with immigration nor emigration.  They can't do it.  They just can't.  "Congress shall *make no law* respecting immigration" -- that is the Constitution's position on the matter.  But I don't read that, you say?  It doesn't have that in there?  It doesn't need to.  I'll put it this way: there is, at the end of the Constitution, a very long list of provisions.  It goes something like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting mining
Congress shall make no law respecting housing
Congress shall make no law respecting fishing
Congress shall make no law respecting logging
Congress shall make no law respecting plastics
Congress shall make no law respecting schools
Congress shall make no law respecting construction
Congress shall make no law respecting computers
Congress shall make no law respecting wages
Congress shall make no law respecting prices
Congress shall make no law respecting gay marriage
Congress shall make no law respecting wealth redistribution
Congress shall make no law respecting bread production
Congress shall make no law respecting milk pasteurization
Congress shall make no law respecting marijuana consumption
Congress shall make no law respecting old-age pension schemes
etc.

It goes on into infinity.  *Congress can make no laws in any areas whatsoever* other than about 17 specific powers granted to it, in Article 1, Section 8.  That's the key belief to being a strict contructionist Constitutionalist.  Otherwise, how are you going to say that Social Security, Obamacare, drones, or _anything_ are unconstitutional?  You aren't.  You can't.

Either the Constitution means what it says, or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, then sure make up whatever stupid junk you want and say the gov't can do that.  Whee!  I, though, think that if the Constitution is to have any meaning at all, if we're going to show any respect to it at all, then the words that are actually written in it have to obeyed, as opposed to whatever words might pop into your head which you think should have been there.

*Also, I happen to think simply following the Constitution would be a pretty acceptable compromise position to most here.*  Maybe -- feel free to set me straight if not.  But AntiFederalist mentioned that he's fine with immigration, just as long as they can't vote.  Many others have mentioned them getting various gov't handouts.  Others have expressed the sentiment that the law should be followed.  Well this addresses all of that.  Immigration and citizenship are two separate issues.  Separate them out properly, and a lot of these controversies go away.  Obviously only citizens should be permitted to vote -- no question.  And also, very clearly no non-citizen should be permitted to receive any gov't handouts.  Settled.  And if we care about following the law, the Constitution is the biggest law of them all.  No "law" which violates the Constitution is even any law at all -- it's illegal, it's null and void.  Laws about "illegal immigration" are themselves illegal.  _Let's follow the Constitution._

----------


## FreeHampshire

Conversations concerning open borders on here usually fall back on the usual libertarian talking points. The idea that libertarian policies will create a free society is untried and ahistorical. Rather, when we see nations with unchecked immigration, tyranny increases. It is estimated that 1 billion people from around the world would move to America if we had totally open borders, this is 1 billion people from the world around us which overwhelmingly supports barack obama. In most nations he is actually seen as a right-winger or a moderate at best, rather than an extremist left-winger. Until the anti-borders types explain how a society with no walls makes us all safer, more productive, and increasingly prosperous as a nation, they cannot advocate such a position. Doing so would actually make them statists, as the vast majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, prefer the Democratic Party. The few that would go GOP would be be pure RINOs that were won over by Mccain or Rubio's antics. 

Then there is the argument, that, if we magically accepted immigrants from all over and had no borders then the populace would be inclined to eliminate social benefits such as welfare. But that is pure fantasy, the immigrants and roughly 50% of Americans have a massive incentive to keep these government programs, there will be no elimination. The people, politics, and media alike will opt for a statist solution. The country will be swung to the extreme Left, which is probably a-OK with the bulk of people on this forum. 


The original intent of the Constitution would actually imply controlled immigration. For enemies, both foreign and domestic, need to be taken care of, and this has always included immigrant groups. Historically speaking, invasions are often synonymous with migrations. See the Anglo-Saxon migration into Britain as an example. And legally speaking, not a single founding father or author of the Constitution, AoC, Declaration of Independence advocated for mass immigration, unchecked immigration, or open borders.

----------


## FreeHampshire

> 


Actually, according to you and the other libertardians on here, the Native Americans should be the happiest people in the world.

----------


## presence

> *Immigration and freedom
> 
> By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
> 
> Published January 31, 2013
> 
> FoxNews.com*
> 
> Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2JkLfz1RS
> ...



Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2JkLaIElx

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> No one who has to pay property taxes owns their land. So that leaves how many landowners in the United States?


The Federal and State governments, the people of the United States, own public land.  Your property is the sidewalk.  In Mexico, in order to protect himself as the emperor of the Western World, Santa Anna granted most of the land over to 35,000 families.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Actually, according to you and the other libertardians on here, the Native Americans should be the happiest people in the world.


It was the prior Puritan culture of the old pagan order that put the Native Americans on reservations and not the new order our Founders declared as a natural right within the Declaration of Independence.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Yes, like so many other areas, the Fedgov goons have gradually usurped power which was never given to them.  According to the Constitution, they have power to determine citizenship, but not to control, regulate, restrict, nor have anything to do whatsoever with immigration nor emigration.  They can't do it.  They just can't.  "Congress shall *make no law* respecting immigration" -- that is the Constitution's position on the matter.  But I don't read that, you say?  It doesn't have that in there?  It doesn't need to.  I'll put it this way: there is, at the end of the Constitution, a very long list of provisions.  It goes something like this:
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting mining
> Congress shall make no law respecting housing
> Congress shall make no law respecting fishing
> Congress shall make no law respecting logging
> Congress shall make no law respecting plastics
> Congress shall make no law respecting schools
> Congress shall make no law respecting construction
> ...


Exactly.  That is true on many levels.  On the secular, consider how Christ didn't even deal with the emperor?  Instead, he dealt with a governor of a state in Pilate and a king of a city state in Herod.  Empires are supposed to be dissolved.  We shouldn't recognize such tyrannies.  The people in charge no longer speak our language.  They are so out of touch that they should be considered foreigners.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Conversations concerning open borders on here usually fall back on the usual libertarian talking points. The idea that libertarian policies will create a free society is untried and ahistorical. Rather, when we see nations with unchecked immigration, tyranny increases. It is estimated that 1 billion people from around the world would move to America if we had totally open borders, this is 1 billion people from the world around us which overwhelmingly supports barack obama. In most nations he is actually seen as a right-winger or a moderate at best, rather than an extremist left-winger. Until the anti-borders types explain how a society with no walls makes us all safer, more productive, and increasingly prosperous as a nation, they cannot advocate such a position. Doing so would actually make them statists, as the vast majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, prefer the Democratic Party. The few that would go GOP would be be pure RINOs that were won over by Mccain or Rubio's antics. 
> 
> Then there is the argument, that, if we magically accepted immigrants from all over and had no borders then the populace would be inclined to eliminate social benefits such as welfare. But that is pure fantasy, the immigrants and roughly 50% of Americans have a massive incentive to keep these government programs, there will be no elimination. The people, politics, and media alike will opt for a statist solution. The country will be swung to the extreme Left, which is probably a-OK with the bulk of people on this forum. 
> 
> 
> The original intent of the Constitution would actually imply controlled immigration. For enemies, both foreign and domestic, need to be taken care of, and this has always included immigrant groups. Historically speaking, invasions are often synonymous with migrations. See the Anglo-Saxon migration into Britain as an example. And legally speaking, not a single founding father or author of the Constitution, AoC, Declaration of Independence advocated for mass immigration, unchecked immigration, or open borders.


In the end, despite president Obama's efforts, it won't be the social communist who bury our old dead asses.  It will be Mexicans!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The original intent of the Constitution would actually imply controlled immigration.


 Why would that imply that?  In what way was it "implied"?  What does that even mean?

I know for me, if I was writing a document to delegate specific powers to a federal government, a document designed to create a limited government, only permitted to do certain things, and if I wanted this federal government to have a certain power X, I would make sure that power X was on the list of things that they could do!  If I forgot to put it on the list, that is a major oversight!  It's the difference between the federal government being permitted to do it, and forbidden to do it.  Immigration is not on the list.  Go read the list.  It's not there.  Where is your leg to stand on?  You have none.  

Are you interested in the least in following the Constitution? I am an advocate, a very strong advocate, of following, very strictly, the rule of law: the Constitution of the United States.  The Constitution was written very precisely to restrain the power and force of government, and to protect the liberties of each and every one of us.  *Let's follow the Constitution.*




> For enemies, both foreign and domestic, need to be taken care of, and this has always included immigrant groups. Historically speaking, invasions are often synonymous with migrations. See the Anglo-Saxon migration into Britain as an example.


 One can make the same kind of lame consequentialist arguments for any unconstitutional action.  Let me demonstrate:

The general welfare of the people has always been a paramount responsibility of the government.  This very clearly includes not allowing hundreds of millions of the old and infirm to starve in the gutters of our streets.  That is, one would think, a bare minimum standard, not to be a society of good people even, but if we are to be able to consider ourselves to be even just barely _human!_  The founders did not intend for our elderly to all die gruesome deaths.  Social Security cannot and must not be ended.  The original intent of the Constitution implies that Social Security is Constitutional.



> And legally speaking, not a single founding father or author of the Constitution, AoC, Declaration of Independence advocated for mass immigration, unchecked immigration, or open borders.


And legally speaking, not a single founding father advocated for killing all old people in the gutters.  Furthermore, not a single one ever made a single argument against having a nationalized old-age pension plan run by the federal government.  They didn't.
See how that works?  And in point of fact, it's true: they didn't.  Not a one spoke a word against Social Security.

Now it looks like a parallel, but actually the case against the Constitutionality of immigration restrictions is perhaps stronger than that against the Constitutionality of Social Security if your standard is looking at what the founders said and wrote.  For though no founder wrote a word against a national pyramid scheme, there were some who wrote and spoke in favor of free immigration.  Some more energetic researcher could find you some quotes proving it.

It's also important to note that *the actual policy of the United States up until 1875 was one of completely unrestricted immigration.*  Not even any health test and required shots, no check-in, no signing the guest book, no Ellis Island, nothing.  Zip.  Scratch.  If the men who wrote the Constitution felt so strongly about restricting immigration, perhaps they would have written a law doing so, don't you think?  Why did it take until 100 years later, in the Progressive Era, for this enlightened reform to finally take shape?  And even then, the 1875 law was not restrictive at all. It didn't limit numbers, it just made some rules and procedures for immigrants to follow: sign the guestbook, don't bring a plague, etc.  The first real restriction on the amount of immigration came in the 1920s.

I am very skeptical of things that the federal government never, never did until the Progressive Era.  As a rule, they tend to be grossly outrageous and completely illegal under the Constitution.  The Progressives simply ignored the Constitution when it didn't suit them.  This issue of immigration is no exception.

----------


## erowe1

> Rather, when we see nations with unchecked immigration, tyranny increases.


Tyranny increases everywhere and always has, regardless of immigration policies.




> Until the anti-borders types explain how a society with no walls makes us all safer, more productive, and increasingly prosperous as a nation, they cannot advocate such a position.


Do you apply this test to all policy positions? A person has to prove the policy will make us better off before they can support it? To me it always comes down to black-and-white ethical issues. If I demand that you only hire people with my permission lest I punish you somehow, then I do wrong. I have no choice but to be against that.

----------


## otherone

> It's also important to note that *the actual policy of the United States up until 1875 was one of completely unrestricted immigration.*


Actually, no one was even a citizen of the US until 1868.

----------


## FreeHampshire

> Why would that imply that?  In what way was it "implied"?  What does that even mean?
> 
> I know for me, if I was writing a document to delegate specific powers to a federal government, a document designed to create a limited government, only permitted to do certain things, and if I wanted this federal government to have a certain power X, I would make sure that power X was on the list of things that they could do!  If I forgot to put it on the list, that is a major oversight!  It's the difference between the federal government being permitted to do it, and forbidden to do it.  Immigration is not on the list.  Go read the list.  It's not there.  Where is your leg to stand on?  You have none.  
> 
> Are you interested in the least in following the Constitution? I am an advocate, a very strong advocate, of following, very strictly, the rule of law: the Constitution of the United States.  The Constitution was written very precisely to restrain the power and force of government, and to protect the liberties of each and every one of us.  *Let's follow the Constitution.*
> 
>   One can make the same kind of lame consequentialist arguments for any unconstitutional action.  Let me demonstrate:
> 
> The general welfare of the people has always been a paramount responsibility of the government.  This very clearly includes not allowing hundreds of millions of the old and infirm to starve in the gutters of our streets.  That is, one would think, a bare minimum standard, not to be a society of good people even, but if we are to be able to consider ourselves to be even just barely _human!_  The founders did not intend for our elderly to all die gruesome deaths.  Social Security cannot and must not be ended.  The original intent of the Constitution implies that Social Security is Constitutional.
> ...





The problem is that you're throwing the words "unconstituional" around as if the Constitution existed in a vacuum. This is the very same Constitution that didn't recognize blacks or indigenous americans as fully Human, and thus they didn't have the same rights as White civilians. Going off of a pure constitutional viewpoint, as you are, you would be forced to slaughter and enslave as many blacks as possible right now. You have to look at the context in which the Constitution was written and what the founding fathers thought about immigration in general. Benjamin Franklin was a staunch opponent of German immigration, see here:


_Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties...In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious."_

_Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration._

- Thomas Woods


There is simply no american tradition for mass migration, illegal immigration, or unchecked immigrant of any sort. There is nothing in it in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles, or the Constitution. The only people in the real world who advocate such nonsense are excited about a permanent Democratic majority, which I suspect atleast half of the people on this forum secretly wish for as well. 





> Tyranny increases everywhere and always has, regardless of immigration policies.


No, just the opposite. Compare Arizona's policies with California. Making America, a first world nation & sole superpower which is proven successful, into a nation like Mexico, which is a borderline failed state, is pure madness. You're simply going to get a third world culture and people with a significantly lower IQ that will vote for crooked Democratic politicians.

----------


## erowe1

> people with a significantly lower IQ that will vote for crooked Democratic politicians.


Is that supposed to be worse than people with high IQ that vote for crooked Republicans?

The answer to California's problems isn't more government, it's less.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The problem is that you're throwing the words "unconstituional" around as if the Constitution existed in a vacuum.


I am merely proposing that the government *follow* the Constitution.  Are you proposing that they disobey it?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

"Those who live by the immigrant, die by the immigrant."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, like so many other areas, the Fedgov goons have gradually usurped power which was never given to them.  According to the Constitution, they have power to determine citizenship, but not to control, regulate, restrict, nor have anything to do whatsoever with immigration nor emigration.  They can't do it.  They just can't.  "Congress shall *make no law* respecting immigration" -- that is the Constitution's position on the matter.  But I don't read that, you say?  It doesn't have that in there?  It doesn't need to.  I'll put it this way: there is, at the end of the Constitution, a very long list of provisions.  It goes something like this:
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting mining
> Congress shall make no law respecting housing
> Congress shall make no law respecting fishing
> Congress shall make no law respecting logging
> Congress shall make no law respecting plastics
> Congress shall make no law respecting schools
> Congress shall make no law respecting construction
> ...


It's a nice thought, but nobody's actually come up with an enforcement mechanism.  Want to exercise your rights of nullification or secession?  You'd better be able to outgun the Feds (which is highly unlikely unless you can get a foreign military to cover your ass).  As far as I can see, this is mostly an academic exercise/thought experiment until you can force the Feds to back down in the event of a standoff.  If you have compelling evidence otherwise, I'd gladly consider it.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It's a nice thought, but nobody's actually come up with an enforcement mechanism.  Want to exercise your rights of nullification or secession?  You'd better be able to outgun the Feds (which is highly unlikely unless you can get a foreign military to cover your ass).  As far as I can see, this is mostly an academic exercise/thought experiment until you can force the Feds to back down in the event of a standoff.  If you have compelling evidence otherwise, I'd gladly consider it.


Actually, it doesn't have to go as far as being able to fend off the Feds in an outright standoff.

In order to successfully exercise nullification (or even secession), for example, you don't actually have to be able to "outgun the Feds", as you put it (although being able to do so certainly wouldn't hurt). You only have to reach a point at which it would be imprudent for the Feds to take action against you. In order to force the Feds to back down, you don't have to confront them physically - you just have to be in a position from which it would cost more to the Feds to impose their dominance than they would stand to gain (or retain) by doing so. If this were not the case, then there could be no real hopes for non-violent revolution.

A specific (and very important) example of what I am talking about here is manifested in one aspect of the gun control issue. Defenders of the right to keep and bear arms argue (or should argue) that gun rights are a bulwark against tyranny. Critics of this argument say that it is rendered moot by "jets and tanks". They claim that the argument is outdated and invalidated by the (alleged) fact that it would be easy for the the federal government to militarily "outgun" any armed citizens who stood up against it. Setting aside entirely the issue of whether this assertion is actually true (examples such as Vietnam and Afghanistan seem to militate against it), the claim fails to account for the fact that the matter is not nearly as simple as "jets and tanks beat assault rifles - game over, end of story!" The domestic application of "jets and tanks" against American citizenry is *extremely* problematic in its political ramifications *[1]* - so much so that the military aspect of the matter almost becomes irrelevant. This is *especially* true when it comes to any significant degree of general popular discontent - in that case, the Feds may very well make matter even worse (for themselves) by employing a "jets and tanks" approach.

*[1]* Would were it only so when it comes to the application of such against foreign citizenries abroad!

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Looking back through the posts, I see NO ONE is able to show constitutional "authority" for the feds controlling immigration.  Since it seems we are all in agreement that it's NOT IN THERE, does this mean that those of you who are for immigration control do not "believe" in the constitution???

----------


## No Free Beer

> This is the very same Constitution that didn't recognize blacks or indigenous americans as fully Human, and thus they didn't have the same rights as White civilians.


Prove

----------


## No Free Beer

> Looking back through the posts, I see NO ONE is able to show constitutional "authority" for the feds controlling immigration.  Since it seems we are all in agreement that it's NOT IN THERE


Define "immigration" in the context of your statement, please.

I don't want to refute your claim without understanding your position/opinion first.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Define "immigration" in the context of your statement, please.
> 
> I don't want to refute your claim without understanding your position/opinion first.


I would define "immigration" as the movement of people from one geographical location to another...

----------


## No Free Beer

> I would define "immigration" as the movement of people from one geographical location to another...


Well, based on that, I would say that the Feds *DO* have authority to prevent people from illegally entering our country.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Well, based on that, I would say that the Feds *DO* have authority to prevent people from illegally entering our country.


Please list the specific section of the Constitution that grants such "authority"...

----------


## No Free Beer

> Please list the specific section of the Constitution that grants such "authority"...


ill be glad to.

when i get back from running.

----------


## No Free Beer

Preamble:

We *the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to *ourselves* and* our* Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 8.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

http://usconstitution.com/constitution#articleiv

in·va·sion
[in-vey-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
2.
the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3.
entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.
*infringement by intrusion.*

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion

Now, whether you agree with policy or not is another discussion  My point is that the authority _is_ there.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Preamble:
> 
> We *the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to *ourselves* and* our* Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
> 
> http://usconstitution.com/constitution#articleiv
> ...


Very good, you got exactly what I was thinking of, except for your quoting of the Preamble was entirely irrelevant.  The Preamble delegates no authority.  None whatsoever.  There are no powers vested in the U.S. Federal Government by virtue of the Preamble.  All powers delegated are listed in Article 1, Section 8 (with modifications via amendment, notably the Income Tax and Prohibition).

But yes, you're right, that under such an expansive definition of immigration as ChristianAnarchist's, the federal government can regulate it, prevent it, "repel" it, etc.

I would define immigration much more traditionally: A normal private citizen peacefully changing his place of residence from one country to another.  "Immigration" referring to the coming-in-to-the-new-country part of it, while "emigration" refers to the leaving of the old country.  Using this normal, standard definition we stipulate that immigration is non-invasive, non-violent, non-treasonous, not interfering with the Post Office nor commerce with the various Indian Tribes, etc.  It also is separate from citizenship, which is another issue and one which the US gov't _does_ have authority over according to the Constitution.  And with that, I see no authority to make laws abridging immigration.

----------


## No Free Beer

> Very good, you got exactly what I was thinking of, except for your quoting of the Preamble was entirely irrelevant.  The Preamble delegates no authority.  None whatsoever.  There are no powers vested in the U.S. Federal Government by virtue of the Preamble.  All powers delegated are listed in Article 1, Section 8 (with modifications via amendment, notably the Income Tax and Prohibition).
> 
> But yes, you're right, that under such an expansive definition of immigration as ChristianAnarchist's, the federal government can regulate it, prevent it, "repel" it, etc.
> 
> I would define immigration much more traditionally: A normal private citizen peacefully changing his place of residence from one country to another.  "Immigration" referring to the coming-in-to-the-new-country part of it, while "emigration" refers to the leaving of the old country.  Using this normal, standard definition we stipulate that immigration is non-invasive, non-violent, non-treasonous, not interfering with the Post Office nor commerce with the various Indian Tribes, etc.  It also is separate from citizenship, which is another issue and one which the US gov't _does_ have authority over according to the Constitution.  And with that, I see no authority to make laws abridging immigration.


The only reason I included the Preamble was because some people go beyond the legalities of immigration and insert citizenship into the argument.

I was trying to prevent that from the get-go.

----------

