Alabama Tried A Donald Trump-Style Immigration Law, It Failed In A Big Way

[Sola_Fide]

I am focusing on your own posts and your own words. You are entirely wrong, that part is true.

Should government schools exist? Yes or no?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yet you keep saying that it's a violation of "civil liberties" to bar foreigners from bilking American taxpayers out of welfare programs.

I've never said that once, and when I asked you earlier to prove that I did, you couldn't do it.

Do you have a post or link?

 

[Rad]

Hmm not a communist, claims not to be a Dondero Libertarian. How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[Sola_Fide]

Hmm not a communist, claims not to be a Dondero Libertarian. How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Are you talking about me? I "claimed" that? Haha...Dondero is a complete moron.

I told you in another thread I am a voluntarist. Is Dondero a voluntarist?

 

[Rad]

Are you talking about me? I "claimed" that? Haha...Dondero is a complete moron.

Yeah, are you an anarcho-capitalist?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I could have sworn that was his current primary forum, and that he was simply here proselytizing. There seems to be a lot of stormfronters lately. When does an open forum become an invasion?

You're a clown. Rothbard and Hoppe would be "stormfronters" according to you cuckwads.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yeah, are you an anarcho-capitalist?

I just told you what I was (and actually, I don't even care about political labels because the only label I really want is "Christian".)

Where did I claim that I was a "Dondero Libertarian"? Are you going to post it or not?

 

[Sola_Fide]

You're a clown. Rothbard and Hoppe would be "stormfronters" according to you cuckwads.

I've read as much as I can of Rothbard's "cultural warrior" positions and I really disagree with them. He seemed to really falter with his libertarianism with those kinds of positions.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I've never said that once,

You've now said it three times -- posts #5, #27, and #32

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Should government schools exist?

That is an interesting question. You should start a thread about it. This thread is about the Alabama immigration law, and the topic at hand is about how that law relates to the government schools that actually do exist.

So let's see if you can give a straight answer to the question you keep changing positions on:

Is it a "violation of civil liberties" for a government school to ask its students what nationality they are? Yes or no.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You've now said it three times -- posts #5, #27, and #32

Okay. Let's review what you are saying here. You said:

"Yet you keep saying that it's a violation of "civil liberties" to bar foreigners from bilking American taxpayers out of welfare programs."


Here is #5:

Here's a couple ways:



And there are a few that this article didn't mention I'm sure. How can anyone who loves freedom endorse this?

Here is post 27:

Oh, is this what you meant?



The only reason I bolded that is because of the violation of civil liberties that this kind of authoritarianism creates.

You have the same problem as Trump. You whine about "illegals" getting welfare benefits or government schooling when instead you should be attacking the real problem: the existence of government schools and the welfare state.

That is the difference between the nationalism you are proposing and the freedom and liberty that I am proposing.

Here is post 32:

Why do you keep pushing this view on me that I already told you I reject? I reject ANY tax or ANY program that confiscates wealth and redistributes it to ANYONE.

Here is the quote I bolded where it mentions civil liberties:



If that is the kind of police state you want to live in, then you are an authoritarian, not a supporter of liberty.

Where in any of these 3 quotes did I say "it's a violation of civil liberties to bar foreigners from bilking American taxpayers out of welfare programs."

 

[Sola_Fide]

That is an interesting question. You should start a thread about it. This thread is about the Alabama immigration law, and the topic at hand is about how that law relates to the government schools that actually do exist.

It's an interesting question? You have to mull that one over? You have a soft spot for the propaganda prisons for children called public education? You are a statist.

So let's see if you can give a straight answer to the question you keep changing positions on:

Is it a "violation of civil liberties" for a government school to ask its students what nationality they are? Yes or no.

No its not. I never said that. That is the strange, disassociated, and completely detached from the conversation idea that your mind derived from what I posted.

I don't believe government schools should exist, therefore I don't endorse the confiscatory taxation that funds them or the priests of the state who brainwash the citizens in them.

If you go back to post 5, the issue was that the police state that this immigration authoritarianism produces is anathema to freedom. You apparently are fine with government agents rifling through your business and your personal life to verify your citizenship and give you its approval, but that's because you are a brainwashed slave.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

--- Is it a "violation of civil liberties" for a government school to ask its students what nationality they are? Yes or no. ---

No its not.

Will you stick to that position?

I never said that.

You highlighted this passage from the article -- "School administrators were instructed to do the same [demand proof of citizenship] to children." -- and repeatedly referred to this as a "violation of civil liberties" or even a "police state."

But it is great that you have forsworn that position. Perhaps you just weren't paying any attention to what you were repeatedly quoting.

I think it is great that we both agree that the aspect of the Alabama law which asks public-school students to prove their nationality is neither a "violation of civil liberties" nor a "police state."

 

[Sola_Fide]

Will you stick to that position?



You highlighted this passage from the article -- "School administrators were instructed to do the same [demand proof of citizenship] to children." -- and repeatedly referred to this as a "violation of civil liberties" or even a "police state."

But it is great that you have forsworn that position. Perhaps you just weren't paying any attention to what you were repeatedly quoting.

I think it is great that we both agree that the aspect of the Alabama law which asks public-school students to prove their nationality is neither a "violation of civil liberties" nor a "police state."

Right. Your focus is on erecting a police state apparatus to terrorize free people to make sure that only "citizens" get the "benefits" of other people's confiscated wealth.

My focus is to dismantle the entire confiscatory system and police state apparatus of the state.

You are an authoritarian, I'm a libertarian.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Your focus... my focus

My focus is on the subject of this thread, the Alabama immigration law. You can't seem to focus on much anything. Try to stay on topic.

You are an authoritarian, I'm a libertarian.

You are a rude piece of shit, aren't you? Where have I advocated any authoritarian position on this thread? Can you be specific? Of course you can't. I never have.

All I've done is ask you to clarify your position. And after half-a-dozen tries, you finally did. And we have the exact same position -- That is neither a "violation of civil liberties" nor a "police state" for a public school to ask students what country they're from and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that provision of the Alabama law.

You should retract your lie, find Jesus, and stop lying.

 

[Hoax]

Jesus Christ libertarians are so embarrassing. They contort every which way in order to defend their simplistic, childish philosophy; they purposefully misinterpret arguments and then when finally backed into a corner they start shouting "statist!" "authoritarian!". As ill informed and idealistic as communists when it comes to understanding human nature.

My focus is to dismantle the entire confiscatory system and police state apparatus of the state.

Earlier in this thread you claimed that you didn't object to the idea of the nation state, but you avoided defining what you thought a police state actually was. So, to clear it all up, do you believe that the state is permitted to defend it borders and enforce laws within its jurisdiction. Yes or no.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

A note for everyone. Please refrain from name calling. It is a violation of site Guidelines.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989

In order to best achieve our sites Mission Statement certain site Usage Guidelines must be followed. There are seven key point to the guidelines, as listed below, with clarifying detail and enumerated specifics for each. In some cases there is even more elaborate explanations.

1) Operate with ethically sound principles.
• Be honest and truthful.
• Respect others life, liberty and property.
• Respect others' copyrights, intellectual property and contracts, per legal standards. Limit fair-use posting of copyright material to the lesser of four paragraphs or a quarter of the writing.
• Work to promote a peaceful, freedom loving, compassionate society.
• Posts should not promote negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals. Such forms of collectivism include sexism, racism, antisemitism; they will not be tolerated here.
• Operate within established morally sound laws.


2) Maintain good etiquette by treating other people with respect.
• No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
• No posting of anyone's personal contact information or members personal details.
• Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.
• Be respectful of others' religion or lack there of.
• See the "Being respectful" section below for fine point details.


3) Support our Mission Statement.
• No promoting agendas that counter our Mission Statement.
• Positive energy should be used with content relating towards the achievement of our Mission Statement. Negative content should be approached with the goal of finding constructive solutions to existing problems.
• Non-functional criticism of site supported candidates or politicians is outside the scope of the sites Mission Statement.
• Do not be combative in response to elected officials, candidates, campaign staff or other notable public figures who are site members and advancing our Mission Statement.
• No content that is overly distracting from our Mission Statement, such as topics that focus on gratuitous violence or strong sexual material.


4) Be orderly with the content you share.
• Post topic in the best fit forum when starting new thread topics.
• Topic titles should be descriptive and not use unverified information, vulgar language or otherwise be sensationalist.
• Posts should respect the intent and desires of the Topic Starter.
• Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is "unverified".


5) Be courteous and respectful of readers.
• No rude, disruptive or disorderly behavior, including excessive low value posting.
• The use of vulgarity should be avoided and not be gratuitous.
• No posting of images that are graphically offensive, grotesque, sickly, have distorted human images or the like, including within the use of avatars. If any such material is functionally necessary in pursuant to our Mission Statement only links should be used, with warnings messages next to the link.


6) Dedicated candidates or politician forums are to positively reflect the issues and values of the representing individual / campaign. Messages should focus on serious news, issues and activism.
The following elements are off-topic:
• Material of non-support for the individual / campaign, such as statements of "they can't win". Exposing and correcting political spin is on-topic.
• Issues not associated with the individual / campaign.
• Attacks on the individual, campaign or campaign staff.
• Vulgar language.
• Abrasive and unruly behavior or attitudes not inline with the individual / campaign.
• Attempts to undermine the political party of the individual / campaign.
• Attempts to undermine the value of electoral politics or the legitimacy of the US constitution.

Members who dissent from the underlying principles or goals of any site supported candidate or politician must:
• Not use the candidates or politicians forum.
• Follow the Functional Debate Principles for any dissent.


7) The promotion of businesses, other sites, fundraising efforts and related promotional content are necessary limited to maintain the integrity of the site.
• All promotions must be inline with the sites Mission Statement and support the sites Code of Ethics.
• All users promoting anything they have an interest in must disclose this interest.
• No efforts intended to permanently divert the community to other sites.
• No efforts to mass collect member information by having people sign up for lists or other personal pages.
• Personal websites can only be linked to when the link contains original content.
• No fundraisers from unvetted individuals.
• Any venture that requires a level of trust may be limited if that trust has not been established.
• Acceptable promotions can have limited posting volume as determined compatible by the Site Staff. For more details see our Promotions Policies.

------


Effective Organization with Dissent: Back-story & Objectives

Making advancements in the achievement of our Mission Statement can be a very complex matter where the best paths forward will often only be revealed with an open discussion from many differing ideas, thoughts and opinions. This independent, critical thinking is the lifeblood of our community. At some points however, individuals will come to a crossroads with the opportunity to take action on specific project, idea or campaign, which they must evaluate and decide on a path. In no case will two members ever agree on the same course of action as there will never be a perfect solution with the advantages and flaws of any target path being subjective and based on one’s personal analysis. As a result of these differing target paths, the site staff has recognized and worked to establish a communication format which has a place for all viewpoints from those working toward the achievement of our Mission Statement. The communication protocol has the following objectives:
• Provide a site where all pro-liberty opinions are welcome. There will always be room for criticism, differing thoughts and ideas.
• Provide a means where supporters of a particular project, candidate, or idea can have a place to effectively organize without having to deal with constant disruptions that can make the signal-to-noise ratio low and thus make the ability to organize ineffective.
• Do not foster any sub-environments that leave no room for dissent.
• Maintain a high level of intellectual discourse by not having debates devolve to the lowest common denominator but rather appeal to who can construct the best arguments.
• Help build members' messaging techniques by applying well established human influencing techniques.

Each forum within the site can be classified as either a New / Discussion forum or an Organizational forum. Organizational forums are created when a critical mass of members request a special forum for the purpose of organizing in favor of a specific project, individual / campaign, or idea that will advance the site's Mission Statement. With the creation of the forum, the purpose will be defined within its forum heading, and the scope of what is on-topic for that forum is generally limited to that purpose. It is understood that everyone supporting the underlying goal of any major effort is not going to agree with every tactic and element, so there is always room for debate on issues with genuine support of that effort, however criticism should not be inflammatory, off-topic or lacking in substance.


Functional Debate Principles

The site has established debate principles to help achieve productive discourse, the usage of these principles is always encouraged and required for dissent to site established efforts that are working towards the advancement of our Mission Statement. The principles are:
• Follow the site's Usage Guidelines, taking particular care not to use ad hominem attacks and insults against others. This means don't say "You're [some derogatory term]"
• Debate only in proper context; start a new thread if necessary.
• Present your position in an intellectual manner, provide reasoned supporting details.
• Maintain a respectful disposition.
• Do not claim something to be true/false without presenting proof.
• Work to get along with other participants, ask clarifying questions before casting negative assumptions.
• Use extreme care to not misrepresent what you are arguing against. Ask clarifying questions before casting potentially inflammatory misrepresentation.
• Remember to be respectful and work to achieve the purpose of advancing the site's Mission Statement.


Repeating Contentious Issue Management

Some issues of debate can become very contentious with two strongly opposing views. While it is of great value to have these opposing views hashed out, it is equally problematic for these debates to get carried over to many threads where the same debate points get rehashed over and over.

In such cases members will be asked to limit the debate or present their primary argument on the topic in one thread or a personal blog post. That thread can then be referenced elsewhere as needed, or a link can be put in one's signature for added exposure.


Being respectful

Maintaining a proper decorum is essential for any group, and is critically important for online political forums, being respectful of others is an important part of that and required by the Site Usage Guidelines. Here are some examples of being respectful vs. not:
• "You're an idiot for thinking that." -- not respectful since you statement is based on an insult.
• "Here are the problems with your line of thinking..." -- respectful, you don't have to agree and can present logical counter-arguments.
• "Troll" -- calling other members a troll is not respectful and implies you know the intent of the member.

Religious context:
• "God does not exist" -- not respectful since you are declaring others' religious doctrine wrong without a proof.
• "I disagree with your beliefs" -- respectful, you don't have to agree, but you can still be amicable about it.
• "Your church services are stupid" -- not respectful, you can certainly think they don't have value, or think they are not at all of interest to you, but they may be important to others and there's no point in demonizing them - no public policy will change.
• For complete deals see this special instructional thread.


Dealing with Conflict
If you take issue with another member:

Do:
• Debate them on the issues. By all means, attack bad ideas and questionable information.
• Report the user to the staff if they are breaking guidelines or being overly distracting to our Mission Statement.
• If a user keeps rehashing the same debate, call for a singular debate thread on the issues in accordance with our Repeating Contentious Issue Management policy. Message the staff for details if needed.
• Put the user on your ignore list.


Don't:
• Call other members names such as idiot, troll, liberal (unless self-labeled) or other names.
• Antagonize other members by calling them out in thread titles.
• Hunt down random posts by a user to apply negative reputation points.
• Use PM's or rep messages as a backhanded way to break the guidelines.
• Attempt to rally a negative campaign against the member.



Policies on Multiple Accounts

Individuals are nominally allowed one account. In certain exceptions individuals may have a legitimate value in having a second account that is mutually beneficial to our Mission Statement. Cases include:
• A site member obtains employment within a political campaign, political office or political group and it would be problematic for the advancement of our Mission Statement for them to have their current account mixed with their new employment. (Note: this is effectively a substitute to a disclaimer of 'my views do not represent my employer.')
• You can legally represent a business or political campaign and wish to have an account for the sole purpose of providing such representation. Note: Promotions Policies still apply.
• Other cases reviewed and approved by the site staff on an individual basis.

If you are interested in a second account please contact the site staff and explain the situation.

Having your previous account banned is not a valid reason for an additional account.

In no cases should anyone who is controlling two or more accounts:
• Violate any of the Usage Guidelines.
• Use both accounts to cross support each other.
• Have both accounts post in the same thread.

If you suspect another member of having a second account please privately contact the site staff and explain the situation.

 

[Jan2017]

The United States has a limit - a policy - that immigration from no one nation should exceed 7% . . .

Why would Mexico or Mexicans think it is cool idea to come to the United States above that amount . . .? Answer : because they can get away with it, for now anyway.

 

[Wilf]

Jesus Christ libertarians are so embarrassing. They contort every which way in order to defend their simplistic, childish philosophy;

Do you think that the police state is the best way in solving the immigration issuse?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Do you think that the police state is the best way in solving the immigration issuse?

Do they think we should be free market capitalists but be against a free market in labor? I don't understand the inconsistency.