Are we paying to bring all these people from south of the border ?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Seriously does a case of Ebola have to come through before some of you get a clue that what is currently going on right now is extraordinary in comparison to what has been happening for years? There are no interdiction efforts. The administration orchestrated this exodus from Central America. Some of you need to learn to read. Border patrol has been told all but to stand down. The current efforts to move these children is only happening because of the publicity. I'm not repeating the points I have made throughout this thread but as long as a welfare state for illegals exists, open borders as a tenet of liberty is a fallacy. You can't have it both ways. Maybe when bodies start hanging from bridges in this country you will get it. The police state doesn't exist to stop illegal immigration..it exists to stop you and no increase in border security is going to change that. Better start looking at the invisible fence you exist inside every day.

1. When did the DHS, Border Patrol and Customs, etc become something other than a part of the police state?

2. What you're proposing is the same argument people use for banning guns, drugs, etc. More government! It'll stop the criminals! You rightfully reject those insipid, false arguments when made in those fields, but for some reason, you accept them and advocate for them when it comes to immigration. More border patrol and immigration controls will only filter out those who wish to come here for good reasons, while those who wish to cause mayhem will not be hindered at nearly the same rates. In fact, they may even be emboldened.

 

[Carson]

It didn't used to take more police. All it took in the old days was allowing the police we had to do their jobs.

The Border Patrol worked a swath of about fifty miles wide along the nations borders. The Police inland of that had their backs on those that got through.



Maybe if you were to simplify this in your mind. Imagine a refrigerator with YOUR food in it. Shouldn't you have a say in who is allowed in?


Or what if your wife was killing your children to make room for other people to move into YOUR home? That is exactly what the government did when they came in to the grade schools. They started in on twelve years old's with the propaganda that there wasn't going to be enough room and water and stuff for us to have children like our parents did back to the beginning of time. At the same time they were opening the floodgates to about a million illegal aliens and about a million others a year to come here. Allowing other countries to import their population problem does solve ours, if there ever was one.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Seriously does a case of Ebola have to come through before some of you get a clue that what is currently going on right now is extraordinary in comparison to what has been happening for years? There are no interdiction efforts. The administration orchestrated this exodus from Central America. Some of you need to learn to read. Border patrol has been told all but to stand down. The current efforts to move these children is only happening because of the publicity. I'm not repeating the points I have made throughout this thread but as long as a welfare state for illegals exists, open borders as a tenet of liberty is a fallacy. You can't have it both ways. Maybe when bodies start hanging from bridges in this country you will get it. The police state doesn't exist to stop illegal immigration..it exists to stop you and no increase in border security is going to change that. Better start looking at the invisible fence you exist inside every day.

My invisible fence, yes, granted to me by the Almighty God; government. I should learn to be more respectful. Here I am, robbed weekly to pay for these brave men and women to piss on the Constitution and disregard people's rights, and I'm not even grateful how good I have it. They're not pissing on my rights, well, aside from the labor extracted from me and the occasional jackboot but for the Homeland, the Ebola free excellency, I ought to realize all is for my own good. People came together, I often forget. They voted.

"Exodus.." that's good.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

OK what is your solution? Open borders at current welfare policies is bad no matter what your position is on borders. What is your idea of a logical way to resolve while maintaining our way of life and liberty?

The logical, moral, reasonable, efficient way to resolve this would be freedom.

We can't have open borders because of welfare.

We can't allow a market of wages because of undue inflation.

We can't End the Fed because our monetary system is tied to it.

We can't stop bombing the world because the people need jobs.

This is what the argument reduces to.

It is an annoying, half-assed, fallacious argument.

What is the solution? Criminals ought not walk among free men. People should provide their own security, and if acting within the confines of the law establish a security force (that is, a force that works to protect individual rights... not extortioneers). I have written about this at great lengths. In short, freedom is the solution. Because we lack freedom in one area, does not mean that we are required to lack freedom in another area. How would we ever come to achieve freedom if that were the case? Logically, if that were the case, we would be on a consistent spiral of less and less freedom as collectivists and government bureaucrats enact laws to 'solve' the problems they created, thus creating more problems to 'solve.' The mentality perhaps explains a thing or two.

I recognize that nationalistic impulses and protectionist fallacies are rampant among Men. If I could opt out from it, that would be just great. But the freedom ensuring majority will never let that happen. And they'll use many of the same types of sophist arguments found in this thread to justify what they want. Be it welfare, their schools loans forgiven, war with a country they were taught to despise.

Just as a disclaimer, I am not directing these things towards you. It is the argument that annoys me so. I actually rather enjoy many of your posts (as I do Carly's).

 

[alucard13mm]

the idea of borders are a creation of the state and they go against the core principles of liberty. All individuals should be able to move any where they please. You have no right to tell an individual where they can and cannot live. There is no such thing as a nation. That's an authoritarian statist invention.

/leftist liberatarian

So we should just usher in the North American Union and get rid of our constitution. Hell, let's get rid of states so states cant come up with their own laws since there would be no more constitution. Most likely, you will see a much more central government where small group of people yield even more power over more land and people. You'd have the elites in mexico, canada and USA making up laws for YOU. Why bother having a country if we dont care about the borders that much. I guess we can draft a new constitution under this new conglomeration and union of multiple countries.

Only thing keeping this happening is you have states that resist this and people with guns.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

The government has created a mess. Therefore, we need more government. To protect us from the government.

Nice logic, guys. Surely, nothing could go wrong with that idea.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

this entire situation is a giant political straw man, keep biting , the bait was set and will continue to distract people away from the causes of migration

 

[kcchiefs6465]

this entire situation is a giant political straw man, keep biting , the bait was set and will continue to distract people away from the causes of migration

At least with regards to South America, CIA death squads, the violence created by the prohibition of drugs, and the general pillaging of practically every country there over the last century would have quite a bit to do with migration.

All should be ended.

 

[Dianne]

The government has created a mess. Therefore, we need more government. To protect us from the government.

Nice logic, guys. Surely, nothing could go wrong with that idea.

This proves beyond belief, we need no Federal Government.. No one can f'k anything up, and cost taxpayers more than the Federal Government... Disband it, and go back to States Rights ... I don't even know how many billions in wasted salaries will be saved every year, once no Federal Government ... Starting with Obozo, Holder (of drugs, not law), Boehner, McConnell, McCain ... MY GOD !!!!! FIRE THESE F'KERS !!!!

 

[Carlybee]

1. When did the DHS, Border Patrol and Customs, etc become something other than a part of the police state?

2. What you're proposing is the same argument people use for banning guns, drugs, etc. More government! It'll stop the criminals! You rightfully reject those insipid, false arguments when made in those fields, but for some reason, you accept them and advocate for them when it comes to immigration. More border patrol and immigration controls will only filter out those who wish to come here for good reasons, while those who wish to cause mayhem will not be hindered at nearly the same rates. In fact, they may even be emboldened.

I've not advocated for border patrol or for immigration police. They've proved they're worthless. I've advocated for the state militias and for the border patrol who are down there to do the job they were hired for....otherwise fire them! I've never advocated for more government. I've advocated for the dissolution of DHS, but obviously you've selectively chosen snippets from my posts to attack. Beyond that, it's my fucking business when it's happening mostly in my state and paid for with my tax dollars. Of course 12 billion dollars a year may mean nothing to you so feel free to have your state send them an engraved invitation and see how you like it. When your city becomes inundated with cartel crime, see how you like that too. I'm not getting into anymore debates with anarchos...y'all can all kiss my ass. You aren't here and you can only come from a standpoint of ignorance. You don't get to tell me how I should feel about it. Capiche? My viewpoint is the same as Ron Paul's...how many times do I have to repeat it?

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I've not advocated for border patrol or for immigration police. They've proved they're worthless. I've advocated for the state militias and for the border patrol who are down there to do the job they were hired for....otherwise fire them! I've never advocated for more government. I've advocated for the dissolution of DHS, but obviously you've selectively chosen snippets from my posts to attack. Beyond that, it's my fucking business when it's happening mostly in my state and paid for with my tax dollars. Of course 12 billion dollars a year may mean nothing to you so feel free to have your state send them an engraved invitation and see how you like it. When your city becomes inundated with cartel crime, see how you like that too. I'm not getting into anymore debates with anarchos...y'all can all kiss my ass. You aren't here and you can only come from a standpoint of ignorance. You don't get to tell me how I should feel about it. Capiche? My viewpoint is the same as Ron Paul's...how many times do I have to repeat it?

You keep repeating your anecdotes as if that is going to win the argument for you.

How do you like it when people who are on welfare present the "you don't know how hard it is to be poor so therefore don't tell me that I'm a parasite" reasoning when they argue for the government to enlarge tax-funded safety nets? That is essentially what you've been doing all throughout this thread.

According to your "we don't live in a real free market so we can't just have complete freedom" logic, the war on drugs should continue to exist since you don't want to pay for unproductive burnouts on welfare.

 

[Carlybee]

You keep repeating your anecdotes as if that is going to win the argument for you.

How do you like it when people who are on welfare present the "you don't know how hard it is to be poor so therefore don't tell me that I'm a parasite" reasoning when they argue for the government to enlarge tax-funded safety nets? That is essentially what you've been doing all throughout this thread.

According to your "we don't live in a real free market so we can't just have complete freedom" logic, the war on drugs should continue to exist since you don't want to pay for unproductive burnouts on welfare.

I never said the war on drugs should continue not do I give a damn about your interpretation of what you think I've been saying. Are you saying Ron Paul is wrong about illegal immigration?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I never said the war on drugs should continue not do I give a damn about your interpretation of what you think I've been saying.

No, but many people saying the war on drugs should continue to exist could, and do, use much of the same logical reasoning behind many of your arguments.

 

[Carlybee]

No, but many people saying the war on drugs should continue to exist could, and do, use much of the same logical reasoning behind many of your arguments.

And many bleeding heart liberals share your desire for open borders.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

And many bleeding heart liberals share your desire for open borders.

And many fascists share your desire for closed borders.

Do you see how that works?

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I never said the war on drugs should continue not do I give a damn about your interpretation of what you think I've been saying. Are you saying Ron Paul is wrong about illegal immigration?

But if you're so concerned about welfare, why would you want to end the war on drugs? Like you said, we don't live in a free market and that's why we can't have open borders.

And yes, I am saying that Ron Paul is on the wrong side of the immigration debate.

 

[Carlybee]

But if you're so concerned about welfare, why would you want to end the war on drugs? Like you said, we don't live in a free market and that's why we can't have open borders.

And yes, I am saying that Ron Paul is on the wrong side of the immigration debate.

And I disagree. Sue me.

 

[Carlybee]

And many fascists share your desire for closed borders.

Do you see how that works?

I don't know...you may be too clever and original for me to see how that works.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't know...you may be too clever and original for me to see how that works.

What I am arguing for, that being, freedom, has hardly a thing to do with what modern day liberals think.

Sure, they get a thing right, here or there, relying on faulty principle, and various media cues for how they should think (the same as conservatives, really).

What I was referring to, in saying

No, but many people saying the war on drugs should continue to exist could, and do, use much of the same logical reasoning behind many of your arguments.

is that your line of argument is used by anyone who wants to use government force to accomplish something.

What you were inferring, fallaciously, was that my brand of logical debate is akin to the illogical, immoral, position of "liberals"; to wit progressives or more descriptively, collectivists.

But please, inundate me with sarcastic neverminds... after all, you could never point by point debate me on anything. Speaking of which, what phase of argumentation are you at? We jump from reason to reason on why immigration is the worst thing since Hitler, your points are destroyed, you barely respond to any of my reasoning, and you move on to something else. It's Ebola now, is it not? Not protectionism, not fear of the uncertain, criminals or welfare but Ebola. Now, that is... after your previous arguments were drowned in reason.

 

[Carlybee]

What I am arguing for, that being, freedom, has hardly a thing to do with what modern day liberals think.

Sure, they get a thing right, here or there, relying on faulty principle, and various media cues for how they should think (the same as conservatives, really).

What I was referring to, in saying is that your line of argument is used by anyone who wants to use government force to accomplish something.

What you were inferring, fallaciously, was that my brand of logical debate is akin to the illogical, immoral, position of "liberals"; to wit progressives or more descriptively, collectivists.

But please, inundate me with sarcastic neverminds... after all, you could never point by point debate me on anything. Speaking of which, what phase of argumentation are you at? We jump from reason to reason on why immigration is the worst thing since Hitler, your points are destroyed, you barely respond to any of my reasoning, and you move on to something else. It's Ebola now, is it not? Not protectionism, not fear of the uncertain, criminals or welfare but Ebola. Now, that is... after your previous arguments were drowned in reason.

I was using the ebola as an example of just how nuts it is to let anybody and everybody over the border especially given that the public is not being informed about the number of diseases coming over here unchecked. There IS a mini-epidemic going on right now in Western Africa. Do you think it's ONLY Latin Americans coming through the border? Granted they make up the majority but there are migrants from other countries coming through there as well but that is a minor issue compared to the larger issue that we cannot afford to support every illegal immigrant and their grandma coming over. They are bringing in diseases that have mostly been eradicated here to which most of us have no immunity, like TB and Typhus. If you are too dense to understand that, not my problem. Do I have problems with checkpoints on citizens in THIS country? Hell yes. I have no problem with expecting existing border agents to at least attempt to DO THE JOB THEY ARE BEING PAID TO DO when the amount of people pouring over the border is reaching crisis levels, WHICH IT HAS. If I have an employee, I expect them to do the job they are hired for. If you think the border should just be wide open, then you obviously have no regard or respect for this country's sovereignty whatsoever. When the drug war is ended and there are no more cartel members coming over, no more parents in Honduras paying coyotes to bring unaccompanied 4 year old children over, and no more ICE agents having to be babysitters....let me know...mmmkay? Seriously if you can't see that the more people streaming over the border, the more criminal element streaming over the border actually helps create more of a police state, helps states and local authorities justify militarizing police forces, helps create the need for more prisons, I don't know what to tell you. As more and more people come over, it takes a lot more government to deal with them than to stop them from coming in the first place or at least to manage the amount coming over. How much more can our resources be strained before the government feels justified turning to complete totalitarianism? And no, that is no more paranoid than it is for some to feel that closed borders creates a police state. Well...newsflash...we ALREADY live in a police state. We have drones capable of targeting us on our patios, we have the NSA recording our phone calls, we have local police stations with army tanks for SWAT vehicles. Keep increasing the populous with illegals and see how much that keeps them justified in having and increasing the police state. Not one person has made the argument that open borders decreases it. It obviously hasn't because up until this latest flare up of publicity and protest, for all intents and purposes the southern border has been pretty much wide open....police state still getting stronger because they will use any and every reason to do so.