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

[Superfluous Man]

I do not know why this topic is still open. Immigration has been discussed to death in this forums. There is not a universal agreement one way or another. Gary Johnson has made himself and the Libertarian Party totally irrelevant.

Maybe because advocating that the federal government cease to enforce its current tyrannical immigration laws is part of the mission of this website, according to its official mission statement.

 

[misterx]

But notice how the thread title just says "illegals."

Notice also how, for some reason, people don't label others "illegal" just because they committed some misdemeanor at some point in the past in any other cases besides immigration laws. And we are seeing in this thread what the misconception is that leads many people to treat immigration laws as special. They have the mistaken belief that people who violated them are perpetually violating them just by being here, which is not the case. There is no federal law that they perpetually break just by being here. In fact, there are federal laws that govern how they can leave the country, so they actually could be violating the law by not staying.

It's not analogous. A better analogy would be a participant in a football game whom enters the field after the snap. That participant then becomes an illegal participant. Similarly, an alien(someone foreign to the nation), becomes an illegal alien when he comes across the border without permission.

And is it just me, or is the forum really slow tonight?

 

[Superfluous Man]

It's not analogous. A better analogy would be a participant in a football game whom enters the field after the snap. That participant then becomes an illegal participant. Similarly, an alien(someone foreign to the nation), becomes an illegal alien when he comes across the border without permission.

And is it just me, or is the forum really slow tonight?

You're incorrect. My analogy was good. That's all the illegal immigration is. It's a misdemeanor that, once having been committed, is done. It's not an ongoing misdemeanor for as long as the person is present in the USA. This is according to current federal law.

The claim that they are breaking the law by just existing in the USA is false.

Notice that in your analogy of the illegal participant in football, there are actual official rules of the game that designate such a person as an illegal participant. There are no laws on the books that designate the people are so often called "illegal immigrants" as illegal. The designation that the law actually applies to them is "unlawful resident," which only means that the law does not positively make them lawful residents. There is an important distinction between "unlawful" and "illegal."

 

[misterx]

You're incorrect. My analogy was good. That's all the illegal immigration is. It's a misdemeanor that, once having been committed, is done. It's not an ongoing misdemeanor for as long as the person is present in the USA. This is according to current federal law.

The claim that they are breaking the law by just existing in the USA is false.

Wow. Just wow. If you can't understand that illegal alien is a valid term, and that my analogy is more similar to the term than yours? I just don't know what to tell you. You're too focused on your utopian Lennon/Lenin vision of the world to see where you're wrong.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Wow. Just wow. If you can't understand that illegal alien is a valid term, and that my analogy is more similar to the term than yours? I just don't know what to tell you. You're too focused on your utopian Lennon/Lenin vision of the world to see where you're wrong.

It's not that I can't understand that. It's that I'm actually right, according to the law.

It's not a Lennon/Lenin view. It's more of a Rothbard/Paul view. Immigration restriction is, and always has been, a hallmark of Marxism and progressivism. Free movement of people and labor is, and always has been, a hallmark of free market economics and libertarianism.

ETA: "Wow. Just wow." is only marginally better than LMAO.

 

[euphemia]

That doesn't mean it is legal according to US law. Hence, the term, "illegal."

 

[Jesse James]

It's not that I can't understand that. It's that I'm actually right, according to the law.

It's not a Lennon/Lenin view. It's more of a Rothbard/Paul view. Immigration restriction is, and always has been, a hallmark of Marxism and progressivism. Free movement of people and labor is, and always has been, a hallmark of free market economics and libertarianism.

ETA: "Wow. Just wow." is only marginally better than LMAO.

PAUL: Yes, we do have a national responsibility for our borders. We need better immigration services, obviously. But if you subsidize something or give people incentives, you get more of it. So if you give easy road to citizenship, you're going to have more illegals. If you have a weak economy, which is understandable and we should have prevented, that's understandable. But mandating to the states that we have to provide free medical care and free education, that's a great burden to all the border states. So I would say eliminate all these benefits and talk about eliminating the welfare state because it's detrimental not only to here but the people that come because that's the incentive to bring their families with them.

Ron does not agree with you.

 

[lilymc]

Eduardo?

Haha. You may be right about that.

Interesting join date for a Ron Paul supporter. :-|

 

[misterx]

It's not that I can't understand that. It's that I'm actually right, according to the law.

It's not a Lennon/Lenin view. It's more of a Rothbard/Paul view. Immigration restriction is, and always has been, a hallmark of Marxism and progressivism. Free movement of people and labor is, and always has been, a hallmark of free market economics and libertarianism.

ETA: "Wow. Just wow." is only marginally better than LMAO.

You can argue that we shouldn't have immigration laws, but as long as we do you can't say that the term "illegal alien" is inaccurate. It's wholly accurate, and the most apt description. This is how Marxists always operate, by changing the language. You can't convince people that we should open the borders, so you change the language to alter perceptions.

ETA: LMAO would be more response than your sophistry was worth.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That's not true. They are in the country they crossed into. And they are not breaking any laws by being there, as you just confirmed.

sooooo....

you just make up your reality as you go eh? If that's the case why should I waste my time here?

But they're not here illegally, as you just confirmed.

sooooo....

you just make up your reality as you go eh? If that's the case why should I waste my time here?

Notice that the whole section of the US Code that you just copied and pasted agrees with me. Take special not of its repeated us of the word "unlawful," not "illegal."

Right. Because doing something unlawfully is so much different from doing something illegally. This reminds me of those people who think we can transfigure the entire government by removing the yellow fringe from the flags throughout government.

Notice also that your own copy and paste includes this provision: " has filed a nonfrivolous application for a change or extension of status."

Because that would mean they are attempting to maintain legal status.

Of course, many people who file these nonfrivolous applications for change or extension of status are in reality unlawful residents (not to be confused with "illegal"). But, inasmuch as the law itself includes this very provision, their continued presence in the USA while they wait for the results of their application, is obviously not violating a law.

And notice how nowhere in your entire copy and paste does it ever include any law that is being broken in a continuous way by the people you call "illegal immigrants" merely by their continued presence in the USA.

An unlawful presence is an illegal presence. What you are doing is a type of sophistry called "equivocation."

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree with Ron Paul pretty much straight down the line on immigration.

No. You clearly do not.

I'm not sure what your position is. But the fact that you're arguing with me suggests you disagree with me and him.

I specifically like these positions of his:
Don't punish employers for hiring unlawful residents.

Blatantly untrue. In 2012, Ron Paul ran on a four point platform on illegal immigration:

1. FOUR POINT PLATFORM: "Simply enforce our existing immigration laws!"
2. Secure Our Borders
3. Crack down on employers that intentionally hire illegals
4. Remove incentives and rewards to illegals such as licenses, welfare, and other taxpayer benefits
5. Enforce our existing laws and deport illegal aliens when convicted of crimes or detected during routine law enforcement activities.

Allow people to enter the country without passports.
Don't require any government paperwork for anyone to prove that they are allowed to be here.
Don't build a wall.
Don't deport people merely for being unlawful residents.

See point #4 from Ron Paul's four point immigration platform from 2012.

From this list - albeit half of your points are pure fiction - what you like are the methods with which he would have enacted his policies, and not the philosophical drivers and fundamental goals of those policies. Ron Paul clearly identifies Illegal Aliens as such and has produced a solid plan to remove them from America. The difference is he is using different kinds of pressure from the shallow-thinking borderwall fundamentalists.

Ron Paul is, and has always been anti-amnesty.

At 0:44 in this video from 2008 he is talking about the practice of giving welfare to "illegal aliens," which is even worse than "illegal immigrant."



At 1:02 in this video from 2012 he is talking about "an illegal" wrt trespassing



At 2:32 in this video Ron says directly if you step over the border then you are illegal, as a jurisdictional argument under the 14th Amendment.



My concern here is how in the last post of your I answered, you just made stuff up and pretended I had said it. Why should I invest the time to educate you, when you just make up your own reality and demand everyone accept it as true?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I never said they were no longer a law breaker. But we're all law breakers. Nobody has ever called me an illegal before though, just because at some point in my past I committed some misdemeanor.

Equivocation. More sophistry. If you steal a candy bar, then eating that candy bar is illegal, just like if you illegally enter the US your presence here is illegal. No matter what you think about immigration, legal or illegal, for against, pro, con, open borders closed borders, what we either of us like and dislike is irrelevant. These are basic facts of law and jurisprudence. You don't get to pretend that reality is not so just because you don't like it, and you damn sure do not get to demand that I accede to your fictional version of reality just make this place a safe space.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No it does not. It authorizes them to legislate naturalization, but not immigration.

And yet they were legislating immigration from day 1 and those fellas what actually wrote the Constitution not only did not object, they themselve sat in Congress and wrote the actual laws legislating immigration. It's funny how the men who actually wrote the Constitution seemed to think it covered immigration, but some guy 240 years later and wants to lecture the Framers that the Constitution did not mean what they thought it meant.

But more importantly, even if the Constitution did authorize Congress to regulate immigration, that would just make the Constitution wrong. It's not like the Constitution is the legitimate law of the land or something.

That's not a choice that you get to make. Elected persons swear an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Therefore to violate that Oath constitutes treason. If you are unwilling to uphold the Constitution, then you should not do anything which requires you to swear an oath to uphold it.

If you are asking them to just ignore their oaths, then you are asking for a nation controlled by traitors. i.e. - roughly our current situation.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I see you like to say "LMAO" a lot in lieu of making points.

That's because almost nothing on this planet pisses me off more than sophistry. Laughing is a defence mechanism to keep me from ripping off your head and shytting down your neck.

Is that picture in your avatar your grandfather? Or are you just very immature?

How about try finding a shred of integrity before engaging your mouth and you will find that I actually treat you with respect.

You're actually wrong. The federal government did regulate naturalization as far back as that. But it placed no limits on mere entering of the country until much later.

I believe the first time it did so was the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Is that your idea of constitutionality?

The colonies were controlling human emigration as early as 1763, and then in US Law the Intrusion Act of 1807 (dealing with un authorized immigrants settling land designated for American settlers) criminalized illegal settlement and authorized fines and imprisonment for lawbreakers.

Soo, basically once again what you are saying is pure fiction.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Therein is the problem. You considered it so obvious that you merely assumed it, or perhaps simply believed others who told you that.

But as you can see, now that you have actually consulted the Law itself. It turns out not to be the case.

Do you just say whatever you wish reality to be around you and then hope that your dreams manifest, or do you actually believe the things that you are saying? Or more likely, are you intentionally twisting the truth in the hopes to get a rise out of me as if an angry reaction would make anybody around here sympathetic to you?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

@lilymc neg repped me for this with a comment saying that they are in the country illegally.

But that's the problem. In fact, there is no federal law that they are breaking just by being in the country.

Lilymc, if you disagree, please cite that law. Gunny just tried, and as you can see if you read what he found, he failed.

You are delusional.

If there were such a law, it would be void, inasmuch as it would be an unjust law, and unjust laws are no laws at all. But, that's a moot point for now, since there isn't such a law.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Eduardo?

If so, then he is progressively getting stupider. Or if we assume the sophistry is intentional, wickeder.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Nope, but does make them illegal aliens versus legal aliens.

Yes, thank you. This person is deploying a kind of sophistry called 'equivocation.'

 

[GunnyFreedom]

But notice how the thread title just says "illegals."

Oh, you mean someone called them the exact same thing Ron Paul calls them? On Ron Paul Forums? Oh the humanity! Oh the scandal!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Maybe because advocating that the federal government cease to enforce its current tyrannical immigration laws is part of the mission of this website, according to its official mission statement.

Ron Paul carried primary platform planks in 2008 and 2012 to enforce the immigration laws on the books.