Are you for open borders?

[JustinTime]

People can put borders up on their own private property. Or, they can hire someone to defend it. Like anything else, private companies perform services better than the State. Property defense is no different. If we truly want to defend America, public property needs to go. The State doesn’t protect its property as well as it should because it doesn’t have the incentives to do so. If it’s my land and it’s worth anything, I’m absolutely protecting it.

Its not about protecting the property, and the state isnt protecting its property because illegals arent causing it any harm, yet. When the demographics change enough, and we live in a vastly different country, the state still wont care because the state will be what the new majority says it is: handout central.

 

[Met Income]

Its not about protecting the property, and the state isnt protecting its property because illegals arent causing it any harm, yet. When the demographics change enough, and we live in a vastly different country, the state still wont care because the state will be what the new majority says it is: handout central.

End handouts and then it doesn't matter. "Legal" Americans take handouts, too.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Why is the freedom to travel wrong if the welfare state is gone?

You clearly did not read Lord Xar's post.

 

[JustinTime]

End handouts and then it doesn't matter. "Legal" Americans take handouts, too.

How do you plan on keeping the new majority from voting themselves whatever handouts they please?

Look, I dont want this to become a race argument, but there is a reason the US has had relatively less government and taxation than most other nations, freedom and individualism are parts of our founding and culture. Ive talked to Europeans and Canadians about liberty they simply dont give a damn.

We can take immigrants from anywhere, and make them Americans, but only in much smaller numbers than we currently take in, so that we can assimilate them to our culture. Im convinced that right now, the opposite is happening, we are assimilating to theirs.

 

[Met Income]

How do you plan on keeping the new majority from voting themselves whatever handouts they please?

Look, I dont want this to become a race argument, but there is a reason the US has had relatively less government and taxation than most other nations, freedom and individualism are parts of our founding and culture. Ive talked to Europeans and Canadians about liberty they simply dont give a damn.

We can take immigrants from anywhere, and make them Americans, but only in much smaller numbers than we currently take in, so that we can assimilate them to our culture. Im convinced that right now, the opposite is happening, we are assimilating to theirs.

Don't have a system where people can vote for handouts. As we've seen democracies/republics don't work, either. Tyranny of the majority is okay, unless Mexicans become the majority?

AMERICANS are unjustly voting for handouts they don’t deserve, either. This problem is bigger than immigrants, unfortunately. It’s a smoke screen. It’s blaming the effect, not the cause.

 

[Met Income]

You clearly did not read Lord Xar's post.

End the welfare state, then the freedom to travel doesn't matter.

 

[virgil47]

Open borders=one world government. Plain and simple just ask the europeans.

 

[Lord Xar]

End the welfare state, then the freedom to travel doesn't matter.

I think she meant the part about "using logic".

Pretty much this sums up your argument. (as a comparision)
____________________________________________________

We should NOT use condoms because without the consequence of AIDS, VD, or unwanted Pregnancy condoms shouldn't matter.

- though it doesn't occur to you we DO have AIDS, VD and unwanted pregnancies. - and without dealing with THOSE issues, the debate of not using condoms is irrelevant.

____________________________________________________

Also, I knew it was only a matter of time before you used "mexicans". You sorta outted yourself right there and what your intent is here.

 

[Met Income]

I think she meant the part about "using logic".

Pretty much this sums up your argument. (as a comparision)
____________________________________________________

We should NOT use condoms because without the consequence of AIDS, VD, or unwanted Pregnancy condoms shouldn't matter.

- though it doesn't occur to you we DO have AIDS, VD and unwanted pregnancies. - and without dealing with THOSE issues, the debate of not using condoms is irrelevant.

____________________________________________________

Also, I knew it was only a matter of time before you used "mexicans". You sorta outted yourself right there and what your intent is here.

You can use all of the condoms you want. You should not be able to force me to wear condoms and to force me to pay for other people's condoms. Worry about yourself and stop using guys with guns to ram through your goals.

Outted myself as what? My logic is consistent, you're not going to be able to "get" me on any particular issue.

 

[Dunedain]

Illegal immigrants kill more Americans than terrorists and wars overseas.

http://dailyuw.com/2007/1/4/the-bloody-consequences-of-open-borders/

 

[Met Income]

Illegal immigrants kill more Americans than terrorists and wars overseas.

http://dailyuw.com/2007/1/4/the-bloody-consequences-of-open-borders/

So prosecute the people who commit murder. Pre-crimes don't exist. This isn't Minority Report.

 

[Dieseler]

You can use all of the condoms you want. You should not be able to force me to wear condoms and to force me to pay for other people's condoms. Worry about yourself and stop using guys with guns to ram through your goals.

Outted myself as what? My logic is consistent, you're not going to be able to "get" me on any particular issue.

Maybe that's why she didn't call you back.

 

[Met Income]

Maybe that's why she didn't call you back.

Is this what you do when you can't think of a substantive response? Quite transparent.

 

[Dieseler]

Is this what you do when you can't think of a substantive response? Quite transparent.

It's better than this one lol.

Right, because if the plane crashes, that seat belt will save ya!

 

[Met Income]

It's better than this one lol.

Make sense plz. kthxbye!

 

[Dieseler]

Make sense plz. kthxbye!

That's what I'm sayin'.

 

[Dunedain]

Make sense plz. kthxbye!

I actually thought it was quite amusing. You are known for confusing one line responses that make little sense...once you understand that everything falls into place. I would suggest working on the substance of your posts instead of trying to increase your post count.

For example you completely missed the point of my post about illegal aliens killing more Americans that terrorists in the middle east. Your response was "prosecute the criminals". O.K. yeah that misses the point. The point is that illegal immigrants are more dangerous than war in the middle east and are more dangerous than terrorist attacks yet we "prosecute the war on terror" using up billions of dollars per daay.

We need a better response to illegal immigration than simply doing nothing.

 

[Met Income]

I actually thought it was quite amusing. You are known for confusing one line responses that make little sense...once you understand that everything falls into place. I would suggest working on the substance of your posts instead of trying to increase your post count.

For example you completely missed the point of my post about illegal aliens killing more Americans that terrorists in the middle east. Your response was "prosecute the criminals". O.K. yeah that misses the point. The point is that illegal immigrants are more dangerous than war in the middle east and are more dangerous than terrorist attacks yet we "prosecute the war on terror" using up billions of dollars per daay.

We need a better response to illegal immigration than simply doing nothing.

I didn't miss your point. I clearly know what your point was. Did you think it was that complicated? It still doesn't mean we should give one group of people the right to deny others the ability to travel. If you want to deny someone on your property, that's fine. But not on others' property - you clearly do not have that right. You only have that ability through the monopoly of violence, which is in and of itself, immoral.

I don't want to do nothing. I want less of the State. If you cared about defending property, you'd realize that the private sector would do this better than the State.

Lastly, I'm "known for.."? How cute. When do I get my Superlative in the Yearbook? Who are these people that "know"? If you'd like to debate, by all means - go for it, but broad, vague ad-homs don't help you case.

 

[nobody's_hero]

How about we solve the issue through competition?

I propose that states (or rather, the residents/property-owners themselves) should decide whether or not if they should be sanctuaries for immigrants.

On one side, you have what I'll call the "immigration-conservative" states which believe that it is necessary to know who is crossing the border and why they want to live in their state.

On the other, "immigration-liberal" states which take a more hands-off approach to immigration control and allow pretty much anyone to enter onto the private property of owners as the owners themselves see fit, and remain there as long as the property owners allow.

Naturally, the more immigration-conservative states will continue to require substantial background checks in order to enter into their jurisdictions.

The more immigration-liberal states will likely adopt an open-door policy that will cause an influx of immigrants into their jurisdictions.

The only rule: No bail outs.

Immigration-conservative states will not be forced to lend help to the liberal states in the event that they reach a higher population than they can provide for (either through the free market or government services), such as overcrowded ERs, unemployment benefits, the cost of education per child, etc.

Likewise, in the event that the anarcho-capitalist theory that open immigration leads to increased prosperity holds true, the more immigration-liberal states will not see the people residing therein be forced to share their wealth with immigration-conservative states that chose to restrict newcomers and the economic growth they bring (according to theory).

We'll see who comes out on top.

For the purposes of this experiment, the term "conservative" shall be defined by "moderation." "Liberal" shall be defined as "anything goes."

(Of course, this is just a fantasy, as there would never be such an experiment. Though it would be nice to test some theories on both sides of this debate, in the real world).

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I actually thought it was quite amusing. You are known for confusing one line responses that make little sense...once you understand that everything falls into place. I would suggest working on the substance of your posts instead of trying to increase your post count.

For example you completely missed the point of my post about illegal aliens killing more Americans that terrorists in the middle east. Your response was "prosecute the criminals". O.K. yeah that misses the point. The point is that illegal immigrants are more dangerous than war in the middle east and are more dangerous than terrorist attacks yet we "prosecute the war on terror" using up billions of dollars per daay.

We need a better response to illegal immigration than simply doing nothing.

I have a question for you.

How do we secure our borders? (All 10,000+ miles)