Immigration & Welfare

[Dr.3D]

Immigrants bad. Will everybody who either is an immigrant themselves or descended from an immigrant please leave.

How about putting the word, Illegal in front of Immigrants? Seems you guys are always forgetting to do that.

 

[TheCount]

No it is their Relationship to the Nation as a whole, you know good and well that wanting to naturalize is not an interaction with a private party.

Sure, but we were talking about immigration, not naturalization.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Sure, but we were talking about immigration, not naturalization.

If you are not talking about naturalization, then you are still talking about permission enter/remain in the general territory of the Nation, it is still not an interaction with a private party.

 

[TheCount]

Zip, you are lying, we have been over this and repeating your lies does not make them true.

We have been over it repeatedly. Mysteriously, every time anyone points out that is actually the citizen children of the illegal immigrants who receive welfare, everyone involved in your half of the argument stops posting.

 

[Swordsmyth]

We have been over it repeatedly. Mysteriously, every time anyone points out that is actually the citizen children of the illegal immigrants who receive welfare, everyone involved in your half of the argument stops posting.

Illegals having already broken 1 law are quite happy to break more, and Liberal government workers are quite happy to break the law and help them cheat.
And those anchor babies are not the head of the household, their parents get the money and spend it how they wish, in point of fact that is one reason they have the children, to get more welfare.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I thought you would embrace my objection to your purism.

Seriously though, if I saw improvements happening politically where these mass migrations are happening I would be cheering them on louder than you. You are right that welfare etc are problems regardless of who else comes in. But there's no denying the communities that are majority recent immigrants are far more communistic and anti liberty than your average backwards small town in the heartland. Nobody in the liberty movement wants the Texas government to reflect El Paso, or the U.S government to reflect southern California.

Go ahead and make that case if you can. I'm not close minded just dealing with the facts as they are. If some individual illegal alien is pro liberty then yeah I'd prefer him as a neighbor over 90% of Americans but that's a rare bird.

I'll have to go ahead and deny it.

The average resident of the average backwoods small town in the heartland talks more pro-liberty (slightly, sometimes)...

...and then votes for Bush/Bush/McCain/Romney/Trump.

I'm not willing to condone an even larger police state, violating the rights of millions, in order to ensure we get more politicians like that.

Our fellow Americans already did stupid things, so lets bring in people who will make sure we can't fix them?

Mega FAIL

I'm saying that the number of immigrants entering the country has no effect on the odds of things being fixed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization

When you bring in too many too fast they refuse to become Americans, and begin to colonize portions of territory, and eventually try to breakaway and then usually seek to steal more territory.

Like the Muslims in Europe.

This makes immigration indistinguishable from invasion.

What is the correspondence between this theory and the history of the US from say 1850-1900?

Modern transportation changed things. It is now cheaper, faster and easier to get here.
Before then the U.S. had an advantage that other nations in history did not, 2 massive oceans to deter immigration, and at that time the population of Mexico was much less, and the rest of the world had not destroyed themselves so horribly with socialism etc. so less people from anywhere wanted to come and those who did were not so un-American.

Relative the native population, far more immigrants arrived in the period I mentioned than have been arriving in recent decades.

Yet, none of the horrors you claim follow mass immigration occurred...

Instead, the US became the richest and powerful country in the history of the world...

More pressing? In what lala land universe is that? I have yet to see the so called "alt-right" beliefs being propagated by the MSM, being forced as official policy throughout academia, or permeating the general mindset of academia, or being taught and implement on students as policy in major universities...

That's beside the point. The important struggle is not between SJWs and the alt-right.

It's between libertarians and statists (which of course includes both SJWs and the alt-right).

The reason that the alt-right is a special threat at the moment is that it's subverting libertarianism.

Libertarians are taking sides statist civil war that they will lose, whoever wins, when they should be fighting against both sides.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I'm saying that the number of immigrants entering the country has no effect on the odds of things being fixed.

It does when the rest of the world is now more communist than we are.

Relative the native population, far more immigrants arrived in the period I mentioned than have been arriving in recent decades.

Yet, none of the horrors you claim follow mass immigration occurred...

Instead, the US became the richest and powerful country in the history of the world...

The culture dramatically changed and not for the better, and you ignored the fact that the rest of the world has gotten even worse politically since, choosing to only discuss the relative levels of immigration.

And just so you know I believe that some controlled immigration can still be positive.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

@Swordsmyth

What do you think determines how communistic a state is?

...to save a step, if the answer is "what the people think," I ask: what determines what the people think?

 

[William Tell]

I'll have to go ahead and deny it.

The average resident of the average backwoods small town in the heartland talks more pro-liberty (slightly, sometimes)...

...and then votes for Bush/Bush/McCain/Romney/Trump.

I'm not willing to condone an even larger police state, violating the rights of millions, in order to ensure we get more politicians like that.

Lol, who do you think elected Ron Paul in Texas? Who elected Rand Paul in Kentucky. Name one of our liberty champions who was put in there with majority immigrant support, Walter Jones, Massie? Name somebody.

You know there is no way in hell they would have won in saturated immigrant districts. Because all those districts elect people like Sheila Jackson Lee and Nancy Pelosi. We might have almost no hope now but we will have none if it all goes the way of the way of Mexico.

As much as I despise the NeoCons you mentioned, I will not support immigration policies that are guaranteed to turn this country into a Democrat paradise where we would have had 2 terms of Gore followed by 2 terms of Obama followed by 2 terms of Hillary, with no liberty movement taking place at all.

Open borders is a suicidal policy for liberty lovers if you allow the kinds of immigrants we get to have any political influence. coming here to work is one thing, screwing us out of our liberty is another. We shouldn't put up with it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Lol, who do you think elected Ron Paul in Texas? Who elected Rand Paul in Kentucky. Name one of our liberty champions who was put in there with majority immigrant support, Walter Jones, Massie? Name somebody.

You know there is no way in hell they would have won in saturated immigrant districts. Because all those districts elect people like Sheila Jackson Lee and Nancy Pelosi. We might have almost no hope now but we will have none if it all goes the way of the way of Mexico.

As much as I despise the NeoCons you mentioned, I will not support immigration policies that are guaranteed to turn this country into a Democrat paradise where we would have had 2 terms of Gore followed by 2 terms of Obama followed by 2 terms of Hillary, with no liberty movement taking place at all.

Open borders is a suicidal policy for liberty lovers if you allow the kinds of immigrants we get to have any political influence. coming here to work is one thing, screwing us out of our liberty is another. We shouldn't put up with it.

So, what you're telling me is that, by keeping out the immigrants, we can continue to have half a dozen members of Congress?

 

[William Tell]

So, what you're telling me is that, by keeping out the immigrants, we can continue to have half a dozen members of Congress?

Yes, as opposed to zero. And states that are passing constitutional carry and such instead of gun bans and mandatory vaccines and shit like that the people the immigrants in California elected are supporting.


There is not a single political upside to massive immigration at this point. Not one.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

There is not a single political upside to massive immigration at this point. Not one.

What's the political downside to promoting nativism in the GOP?

...

Even assuming that hispanics are inherently anti-liberty (they aren't), and we could never win them over (we could), I'll gladly trade a theoretical loss of one of our half dozen seats to demographic change in twenty years over 20 more years of Trumpism (which is the main obstacle to libertarianism right now). Let me put it another way: if the GOP spends the next 20 years fighting against immigration, whatever tiny, infinitesimal spark of libertarian sentiment it has will be long dead, and that fight will have been utterly pointless.

 

[Swordsmyth]

@Swordsmyth

What do you think determines how communistic a state is?

...to save a step, if the answer is "what the people think," I ask: what determines what the people think?

What makes it so is irrelevant and complex, the fact is that everywhere else in the world believes that government is the answer to every problem.
The lip service that liberty gets in this country requires the government to give us token measures of freedom, these and the lip service can be built upon to improve things.

Flooding us with those who openly oppose liberty will only make things worse, since perfect is presently beyond our grasp, I will take better rather than worse.

The same goes for mixed bag Dump vs. Hitlery, Romney, Obummer, etc.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What makes it so is irrelevant and complex

Do you think race is a major factor?

 

[William Tell]

What's the political downside to promoting nativism in the GOP?

...



Even assuming that hispanics are inherently anti-liberty (they aren't), and we could never win them over (we could),

So, you use a picture of Donald Trump here, and mentioned how the heartland has voted a few posts above this to imply that most Republicans are anti-liberty, but you won't admit that immigrants are?

I'll gladly trade a theoretical loss of one of our half dozen seats to demographic change in twenty years over 20 more years of Trumpism (which is the main obstacle to libertarianism right now).

So your strategy is to destroy the GOP as a vehicle to elect liberty candidates, by inviting millions of communists into this country who you will magically convert to libertarianism in large enough numbers to make up for it. I have no problem with that if it would work but it simply won't.

You have not showed a political upside to more immigrants. You have used the enemy of my enemy is my friend argument. But they are not your friend, they are Hillary Clinton's friend as any quick look at electoral results by demographic will show you. With enough money a liberty candidate can get elected in a Republican district. With all the money in a world a liberty candidate can't get elected in a heavily immigrant Democratic district.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Do you think race is a major factor?

Considering the state of Europe even before the immigration disaster, I would say that is a pretty stupid idea.
Sorry to disappoint you but I won't be falling into that trap.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

So, you use a picture of Donald Trump here, and mentioned how the heartland has voted a few posts above this to imply that most Republicans are anti-liberty, but you won't admit that immigrants are?

Of course immigrants are anti-liberty (never said otherwise), but so obviously are the natives.

So your strategy is to destroy the GOP as a vehicle to elect liberty candidates, by inviting millions of communists into this country who you will magically convert to libertarianism in large enough numbers to make up for it. I have no problem with that if it would work but it simply won't.

What will destroy (has destroyed?) the GOP as a vehicle for electing liberty candidates (not that it was ever a good one) is the rise of nativism. The only hope is that this particular nativist interloper is so incompetent that he might sink his own movement, but if you fellows have your way, and that movement grows, libertarians might as well run independent in future elections. You're trying to win the general by losing the primary. Imagine where we'd be right now if Ron had been focused on ensuring that the GOP remain competitive against the Dems in the future, rather than fighting for a space within the GOP in the present.

You have not showed a political upside to more immigrants.

Again, the point is that their presence/absence has no effect on political outcomes, since they vote the same as natives.

However, the promotion of nativist politics, does have an effect on political outcomes, as explained.

But they are not your friend, they are Hillary Clinton's friend as any quick look at electoral results by demographic will show you.

A quick look at election results will show you that ~99% of voters voterd for Hillary/Trump and are therefore all of our enemies.

With enough money a liberty candidate can get elected in a Republican district. With all the money in a world a liberty candidate can't get elected in a heavily immigrant Democratic district.

With enough money anyone can win anywhere, but in reality, the odds of a liberty candidate winning anywhere is very, very small.

The odds of them winning in a GOP district drop as nativism (a competing ideology) gets stronger.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Considering the state of Europe even before the immigration disaster, I would say that is a pretty stupid idea.

Indeed

So, if not their race, what do you think it is about hispanics which makes them less amenable to liberty than natives?

....supposing for the sake of argument that they are.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Of course immigrants are anti-liberty (never said otherwise), but so obviously are the natives.

Not to the same degree

What will destroy (has destroyed?) the GOP as a vehicle for electing liberty candidates (not that it was ever a good one) is the rise of nativism. The only hope is that this particular nativist interloper is so incompetent that he might sink his own movement, but if you fellows have your way, and that movement grows, libertarians might as well run independent in future elections. You're trying to win the general by losing the primary. Imagine where we'd be right now if Ron had been focused on ensuring that the GOP remain competitive against the Dems in the future, rather than fighting for a space within the GOP in the present.

Not all Liberty candidates are open borders nuts.

Again, the point is that their presence/absence has no effect on political outcomes, since they vote the same as natives.

They vote worse, and the degree to which they do so rises with the percentage of un-assimilated immigrants.

However, the promotion of nativist politics, does have an effect on political outcomes, as explained.

Controlled Immigration is not the exclusive property of Nativists, anymore than freedom is the exclusive property of Anarchists.

A quick look at election results will show you that ~99% of voters voterd for Hillary/Trump and are therefore all of our enemies.

Some of them are merely misguided, the immigrants are hostile to liberty.

With enough money anyone can win anywhere

Not true

The odds of them winning in a GOP district drop as nativism (a competing ideology) gets stronger.

Controlled Immigration is not the exclusive property of Nativists, anymore than freedom is the exclusive property of Anarchists.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Indeed

So, if not their race, what do you think it is about hispanics immigrants of any race which makes them less amenable to liberty than natives?

....supposing for the sake of argument that they are.

Culture is the short answer.