Gary Johnson: Calling illegals “illegal” is “very incendiary” (video)

[Natural Citizen]

What has these forums become? SMDH.

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

 

[euphemia]

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

Really? Tell that to Kate Steinle.

 

[phill4paul]

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

My statement wasn't agin' ye.

 

[Natural Citizen]

My statement wasn't agin' ye.

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

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

 

[phill4paul]

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

Damn good thing to crook arms a a dance together.

 

[TommyJeff]

Johnson's offended by term "illegal"

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

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

Does anyone else have a thought or comment?



https://youtu.be/-xlmU9LvtAs

 

[Cleaner44]

Johnson and Weld are NOT libertarians.

Libertarian VP Nominee Bill Weld Outlines Why He’s Vouching For Hillary Clinton
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...r-hillary-clinton_us_58195566e4b07c97c1c55168

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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

 

[PAF]

I agree with Gary, I think, on having a more open border without eligibility of welfare. But i don't share in his offense over a term which, in my view, accurately depicts a situation.

Does anyone else have a thought or comment?

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

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

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

 

[Jesse James]

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

 

[presence]

it is offensive

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

https://books.google.com/books?id=C...what were non citizens called in 1776&f=false

 

[69360]

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

 

[H. E. Panqui]

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

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

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

[hint: turn off the radio, trumptards]

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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

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

Does anyone else have a thought or comment?



https://youtu.be/-xlmU9LvtAs

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

And no, not a fan of the angry Johnson.

 

[timosman]

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

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

 

[TommyJeff]

it is offensive

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

https://books.google.com/books?id=C...what were non citizens called in 1776&f=false

Did they need to be land owners?

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

 

[Superfluous Man]

Did they need to be land owners?

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

But that brings up a good point.

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

 

[presence]

Did they need to be land owners?

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

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

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

http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

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

http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/poor-relief-early-amer/

 

[TommyJeff]

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

But that brings up a good point.

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

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

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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

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

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