"Illegals!!"

[TheTexan]

That dude that was taken from his wife and 3 kids and his home after living here for 22 years while working a good job paid his local and state taxes the same as everybody else. He wasn't bothering anybody, he didn't trespass, nor did he rob a bank or murder anybody. He was picked up randomly. After contributing to the community via work and local/state taxes he was forced to leave his home that he paid for [his private property] because of attitudes like yours. You don't respect his sovereignty.

He did trespass though. And it seems your basis for saying it's not trespass is because it's public property... so I'll address that below.

I completely disagree. Otherwise, because I "paid taxes" and now own the land/property, I should be able to do whatever I want if it's not in use without paying for permits, obtain permission from some authority or even bring my gun into those areas/buildings.

I would definitely say you have some fractional ownership of the land certainly. Presumably your family has been stolen from just as mine was and has earned some amount of equity in the property that is often mislabeled as "public".

Just because you have some earned equity in the public land doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on the "public land". But it does entitle you to take some fair portion of the land or assets with you in your secession.

For what it sounds like though, you have consistently forfeited any of these claims outside of your immediate "fee simple" land ownings, as you have consistently said your private property starts and stops at your property's fence line. So... while I do think you're entitled some portion of the "public assets", you have consistently forfeited such claims. But if you want to forfeit your claims, that's your choice to make, certainly.

As far as the government [as in state] is concerned, the politicians/state own it - not you. Furthermore, there is so much unused land in this country that 50 times the current population wouldn't make a dent in filling it up.

They control it certainly but they don't own it. They think they own it, but I will dispute their claims to my dying breath. And if you actually hold the principles that you claim to, so should you.

And besides Alaska, there is virtually nowhere in the US that is "unused land". Even the public parks and such, Yellowstone etc, are owned, used, and maintained.

Could that land be used more efficiently? Yea certainly. There's tons of open land for immigrants to settle in. But just because there's open land doesn't mean the land is free for the taking, or that it should be free for the taking.

If you have a few dozen acres on your property, would you be cool if I just pulled up a few trailer homes for me and my buddies onto your property because, from my perspective, the property wasn't being used?

And immigrants aren't really taking up "unused land" to begin with... they mostly are taking up land that is used. It's not like they are choosing only to settle in undeveloped and unused land... them actually doing that would be pretty rare I think.

Public use is different than Private Property and you know it.

I don't know it. I don't acknowledge the existence of public property. If I were to acknowledge the existence of public property, I would be acknowledging the existence of rights for an abstract concept known as government.

Does governments have rights? Can they hold property? I would say they can't, because I'm not a statist... unlike some people (*cough* *cough*)

Otherwise, where's your deed.

Where's your deed of ownership? You don't have one either. At best, you have a fee simple document that says you're allowed to live on a particular piece of land as long as you continue to be the government's willing slave.

At no point whatsoever were you ever granted ownership to anything.

I recognize your ownership because you have put equity into the land that you live on and you have a greater claim to that land than anyone else can claim. I don't care about your deed or fee simple document, it means nothing to me.

The next thing you know is once this precedent is set - maybe once the dems get in [or the next republican administration], you will own nothing and be happy about it and will be living in small cell structures owned by the technocrats. Where's your head, man?

I dunno, where's your head man? I'm having to explain to you that governments don't have rights and don't actually own anything... shouldn't you know that by now?

 

[PAF]

He did trespass though. And it seems your basis for saying it's not trespass is because it's public property... so I'll address that below.

Even if you subscribe to that [public property is private property], he worked and he paid local/state taxes like everybody else, so no, he did not trespass.

I would definitely say you have some fractional ownership of the land certainly. Presumably your family has been stolen from just as mine was and has earned some amount of equity in the property that is often mislabeled as "public".

Just because you have some earned equity in the public land doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on the "public land". But it does entitle you to take some fair portion of the land or assets with you in your secession.

For what it sounds like though, you have consistently forfeited any of these claims outside of your immediate "fee simple" land ownings, as you have consistently said your private property starts and stops at your property's fence line. So... while I do think you're entitled some portion of the "public assets", you have consistently forfeited such claims. But if you want to forfeit your claims, that's your choice to make, certainly.


They control it certainly but they don't own it. They think they own it, but I will dispute their claims to my dying breath. And if you actually hold the principles that you claim to, so should you.

And besides Alaska, there is virtually nowhere in the US that is "unused land". Even the public parks and such, Yellowstone etc, are owned, used, and maintained.

Could that land be used more efficiently? Yea certainly. There's tons of open land for immigrants to settle in. But just because there's open land doesn't mean the land is free for the taking, or that it should be free for the taking.

If you have a few dozen acres on your property, would you be cool if I just pulled up a few trailer homes for me and my buddies onto your property because, from my perspective, the property wasn't being used?

And immigrants aren't really taking up "unused land" to begin with... they mostly are taking up land that is used. It's not like they are choosing only to settle in undeveloped and unused land... them actually doing that would be pretty rare I think.



I don't know it. I don't acknowledge the existence of public property. If I were to acknowledge the existence of public property, I would be acknowledging the existence of rights for an abstract concept known as government.

Does governments have rights? Can they hold property? I would say they can't, because I'm not a statist... unlike some people (*cough* *cough*)


Where's your deed? You don't have one either. At best, you have a fee simple document that says you're allowed to live on a particular piece of land as long as you continue to be the government's living slave.

At no point whatsoever were you ever granted ownership to anything.

I recognize your ownership because you have put equity into the land that you live on and you have a greater claim to that land than anyone else can claim. I don't care about your deed or fee simple document, it means nothing to me.


I dunno, where's your head man? I'm having to explain to you that governments don't have rights and don't actually own anything... shouldn't you know that by now?

The way things are currently doesn't mean it's the way that it should be. You make a lot of good points, but from an anarchist point of view I shouldn't have to subscribe to it even if/when I'm forced to live in it. All I can say at this point is, all of this is designed and is getting the manufactured consent in order to fulfill the agenda of the new world order. The U.N./WEF recognized that their old way of doing things wasn't getting the traction, so by doing an end run and falsely appealing to libertarian principles they are gaining leverage. There's too much information to resurrect for this post/thread to connect the dots, but you can reference everything that I've started a thread on to see where it's going. And no, I'm not the best communicator/writer, but as far a collecting information and understanding it and seeing where this is headed, I'm very on top of what's going on.

It's getting late, maybe we'll pick it up later.

 

[TheTexan]

Even if you subscribe to that [public property is private property], he worked and he paid local/state taxes like everybody else, so no, he did not trespass.

So... if I come onto your property... and set up a small business next to your house.... it's no longer trespassing, because I pay taxes?

Is that how that works?

The way things are currently doesn't mean it's the way that it should be. You make a lot of good points, but from an anarchist point of view I shouldn't have to subscribe to it even if/when I'm forced to live in it. All I can say at this point is, all of this is designed and is getting the manufactured consent in order to fulfill the agenda of the new world order. The U.N./WEF recognized that their old way of doing things wasn't getting the traction, so by doing an end run and falsely appealing to libertarian principles they are gaining leverage.

I don't know if I would say the U.N./WEF is attempting to appeal to libertarian principles (I wish they would).

We both want similar things I think and just have different ways of trying to fight it... which is fine.

There's too much information to resurrect for this post/thread to connect the dots, but you can reference everything that I've started a thread on to see where it's going. And no, I'm not the best communicator/writer, but as far a collecting information and understanding it and seeing where this is headed, I'm very on top of what's going on.

It's getting late, maybe we'll pick it up later.

 

[acptulsa]

"Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."

-John Adams

Says the Fedbot who is in favor of destroying everyone's wages and savings through currency debasement.

 

[Madison320]

If people coming here was such a big deal, Ron Paul, mises.org, fff.org would be discussing that, which they don't. In fact, all 3 of the mentioned have been warning about what I have talking about. The root cause is well known, but few folks are even talking about it anymore in favor of bigger, more intrusive government and even more government goons.

Actually immigration is a big deal to Ron Paul, especially since he lives in Texas.

Ron Paul believes immigration should be handled thru property rights. He believes people should only be allowed to enter the country by permission. Ron Paul is not an anarchist however I think his position in this case is the same as an anarchist would be.

The guy in the video seems to be an anarchist but he's assuming a government framework to come to his conclusion.

 

[Invisible Man]

Actually immigration is a big deal to Ron Paul, especially since he lives in Texas.

Ron Paul believes immigration should be handled thru property rights. He believes people should only be allowed to enter the country by permission. Ron Paul is not an anarchist however I think his position in this case is the same as an anarchist would be.

The guy in the video seems to be an anarchist but he's assuming a government framework to come to his conclusion.

Ron Paul also believes that people should be allowed to enter the US without being required to show anyone a passport, and that employers should be able to hire whomever they want without being required to verify that they have legal residency.

 

[Madison320]

Ron Paul also believes that people should be allowed to enter the US without being required to show anyone a passport, and that employers should be able to hire whomever they want without being required to verify that they have legal residency.

He clearly supports employers hiring whoever they want but I'm pretty sure he's against unrestricted entry. Do you have a link to that?

I just check the section on immigration in his book Liberty Defined and he clearly does not support unrestricted entry. In fact he supports an increase in border guards.

 

[Invisible Man]

He clearly supports employers hiring whoever they want but I'm pretty sure he's against unrestricted entry. Do you have a link to that?

I just check the section on immigration in his book Liberty Defined and he clearly does not support unrestricted entry. In fact he supports an increase in border guards.

See this post providing a bunch of quotes from his book, Liberty Defined.

Immigration: Post in thread 'Site Issue Evaluation: Ron Paul's border / immigration position'

Apr 11, 2016

According to his book, Liberty Defined, we can say the following about his immigration positions:

1) For practical purposes he is against deporting most illegal immigrants. It isn't clear under what circumstances he would favor deportation (p. 153):

. . . sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home... isn't going to happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for...

• erowe1

• 

Regarding passports, he writes:

Another concern I have with the immigration issue is that the strong border protection proponents are as interested in regulating our right to freely exit the country as they are in preventing illegal entry. No longer can we travel even to Canada or Mexico without a U.S. passport. Our government keeps tabs on our every move, which involves a lot more than looking for drug dealers, illegal immigrants, or stopping a potential terrorist.... A tight border policy to keep certain people out is one thing, but tight border control to limit our ability to leave when we please is something else.

 

[Madison320]

See this post providing a bunch of quotes from his book, Liberty Defined.

Immigration: Post in thread 'Site Issue Evaluation: Ron Paul's border / immigration position'

Apr 11, 2016

According to his book, Liberty Defined, we can say the following about his immigration positions:

1) For practical purposes he is against deporting most illegal immigrants. It isn't clear under what circumstances he would favor deportation (p. 153):

. . . sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home... isn't going to happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for...

• erowe1

• 

Regarding passports, he writes:

But you said he's against checking passports on entry, not leaving. I've got the book right here in front of me and that's very clearly not his position.

 

[Invisible Man]

But you said he's against checking passports on entry, not leaving. I've got the book right here in front of me and that's very clearly not his position.

What do you think he's proposing? Allowing people to leave without a US passport, but then telling them that they can't get back in? Being able to travel to Mexico and Canada without a passport would naturally entail both exiting and entering the US without one. That's how it was before 9/11.

 

[Madison320]

What do you think he's proposing? Allowing people to leave without a US passport, but then telling them that they can't get back in? Being able to travel to Mexico and Canada without a passport would naturally entail both exiting and entering the US without one.

Leaving and entering are 2 logically separate things. You need a gym id to ENTER the gym, but you don't need one to LEAVE the gym.

 

[Invisible Man]

Leaving and entering are 2 logically separate things. You need a gym id to ENTER the gym, but you don't need one to LEAVE the gym.

You're not answering the question. Do you honestly think the quote I provided does not show that Ron Paul supports letting Americans travel to Mexico and Canada and then re-enter the US without passports?

Because clearly, that is precisely his point. In fact being let into those countries without a US passport wouldn't even be within the purview of our government, it would be up to the governments of Mexico and Canada. Being let back into the US is the only point where this issue would even come up.

He says, "No longer can we travel even to Canada or Mexico without a U.S. passport." He's referring to how we used to be able to do that, including re-entering the US, up until recently.

Edit: Granted, he is only talking about the right of Americans to leave the US and reenter without US passports. He's not saying that non-US citizens have a right to enter the US. Nevertheless, the practical result is the same. If US citizens are allowed to leave and reenter the US without showing passports, then anybody at all would have to be able to enter the US without showing a passport.

 

[Madison320]

You're not answering the question. Do you honestly think the quote I provided does not show that Ron Paul supports letting Americans travel to Mexico and Canada and then re-enter the US without passports?

Because clearly, that is precisely his point. In fact being let into those countries without a US passport wouldn't even be within the purview of our government, it would be up to the governments of Mexico and Canada. Being let back into the US is the only point where this issue would even come up.

He says, "No longer can we travel even to Canada or Mexico without a U.S. passport." He's referring to how we used to be able to do that, including re-entering the US, up until recently.

I figured it out. We used to be able to get back in to the US with just a birth certificate or driver's license before 2009. So Ron Paul supports border controls but he's concerned the whole entry/exit process is getting too strict. I thought you made it sound like he was against any form of border control.

 

[Invisible Man]

I figured it out. We used to be able to get back in to the US with just a birth certificate or driver's license before 2009. So Ron Paul supports border controls but he's concerned the whole entry/exit process is getting too strict. I thought you made it sound like he was against any form of border control.

I would say that the level of border control he's in favor of is so lenient that, if the federal government followed it, it would be effectively neutered in preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country or living and working here indefinitely without there being any effective means of identifying and catching them.

 

[Madison320]

I would say that the level of border control he's in favor of is so lenient that, if the federal government followed it, it would be effectively neutered in preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country or living and working here indefinitely without there being any effective means of identifying and catching them.

If that's true he's changed his position since writing Liberty Defined.

 

[Invisible Man]

If that's true he's changed his position since writing Liberty Defined.

What means of identifying and catching illegal immigrants that would actually be effective does Ron Paul currently support?

 

[Madison320]

What means of identifying and catching illegal immigrants that would actually be effective does Ron Paul currently support?

He doesn't say specifically. He says the police should not be prohibited from determining an individual's citizenship if the person is caught participating in a crime. And if found guilty, lose their right to stay in the country.

 

[Invisible Man]

He doesn't say specifically. He says the police should not be prohibited from determining an individual's citizenship if the person is caught participating in a crime. And if found guilty, lose their right to stay in the country.

OK, that's not nothing. But that only works on the ones who are caught participating in other crimes.

 

[Madison320]

OK, that's not nothing. But that only works on the ones who are caught participating in other crimes.

Yeah, he says we shouldn't go out of our way to deport illegals. Just let them stay but don't grant them citizenship. He thinks we should have more border guards, let citizens on the border post no trespassing signs, and many other things that makes me assume he thinks the focus should be on preventing them from entering in the first place, not trying to remove people that are already here.

He also thinks if we had a free market libertarian system, illegal immigration wouldn't be much of a problem anyway. There'd be a big demand for labor and we'd be prosperous so no one would care about imported labor. And with no welfare or birthright citizenship there'd be little incentive to come here for free stuff.

 

[jmdrake]

I did see that part actually, and he didn't really make a counter argument about it not being private property. He apparently just thinks that because the ruling class has adverse possession of this private property, that it's somehow ok to trespass? I don't follow that logic.

Adverse possession? Do you even know what that means? But okay. Let's go with the private property argument. If a private property owner hires an "illegal immigrant" to do work on his property then how can that possibly be trespassing?

I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat that kicks them out I just want them kicked out. Neither party is likely to actually do it.

So you're willing to tresspass on someone else's private property in the name of...property rights?