Obama to Begin Pushing Amnesty Bill!

Correct, if they do not initiate force, or the threat of force against anyone.
^In Reference to allowing Chinese Soldiers to just cross our borders


God, I hate seeing so many people getting owned by their own ideology. The end all be all! You fail, Pennsylvania.
 
Last edited:
And Constituent AGAIN, belittles and forces conversation offtrack along with his cohorts.

Hey MODS -- what is happening to this site? It is fairly apparent it has been supplanted and nothing is done.
These posters are not libertarians, only far leftists in disguise.

I don't get it. This place is truly sucking now.

Refute the arguments, if you'd like.

Since you used plural, I can only assume you believe I'm a far leftist, and if you believe that, you may be beyond hope.
 
In regards to soldiers on U.S. soil: China, with Canada's approval could amass an army of the same strength directly across the border from Michigan, complete with long range artillery, aircraft and tanks, yet technically they have not violated the border. I wonder if you would feel any less uneasy about it?
 
Last edited:
In regards to soldiers on U.S. soil: China, with Canada's approval could amass an army of the same strength directly across the border from Michigan, complete with long range artillery, aircraft and tanks, yet technically they have not violated the border. I wonder if you would feel any less uneasy about?

Canadians have a culture similar to our own. Unlike the Mexicans, they don't shit on our vegetables.
 
Canadians have a culture similar to our own. Unlike the Mexicans, they don't shit on our vegetables.

Well the country in my example with whom we would share the border is not so important ;). The point is, even if we shared a border with China, China could amass its army along that border, and we would not sleep any better just because they haven't come here "illegally".
 
Refute the arguments, if you'd like.

Since you used plural, I can only assume you believe I'm a far leftist, and if you believe that, you may be beyond hope.

I remember us getting into it before in which you seemed to think 'things' revolved around you. Like I said before, and I'll say it again - you ain't that important. And to be more specific, no - I wasn't talking about you. Though we disagree on most everything or its implemenation to 'get there', you are neither condescending or inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
I remember us getting into it before in which you seemed to think 'things' revolved around you. Like I said before, and I'll say it again - you ain't that important. And to be more specific, no - I wasn't talking about you. Though we disagree on most everything or its implemenation to 'get there', you are neither condescending or inappropriate.

:o You did use plural, and there wasn't much defense of immigration outside of Penn and myself. I still don't know who else you were talking about, but sorry nonetheless.
 
Oh and here's a question for the immigrant-haters: You claim that the reason you hate so-called "illegals" is because they're breaking US law by being here. If Obama changes the law and makes it legal for them to be here, they won't be breaking the law any more. So you should stop hating them at that point, right?

Sure. But why stop there? Why not change laws to make fraud legal? Might as well since there has yet to be one single arrest or prosectution of the criminals on Wallstreet that happily contributed to the financial crisis.

Why not change laws to make sex with minors legal? That way we won't have to worry about pedephiles anymore because it would be legal, right?

I hope you can determine that the above comments are sarcasm because I believe you're an [name-calling redacted by Mod]. :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You immigrant-haters are in the minority. You're more vocal, but you're still the minority.

Speak for yourself, not for others.

The vast majority of people who want to logically discuss immigration limits are not "immigrant-haters".

The destruction of the US middle-class was achieved via immigration of cheaper labor and outsourcing of jobs. Too much immigration all at once is a big part of our current condition. If people didn't lose jobs and have their wages reduced, the debt bubble would not have grown like it did. (And the government pushed debt too!)

Our government inflated the labor pool exactly like they have inflated the currency. Each dollar becomes worth less, each worker becomes worth less.

Legal, illegal, unskilled, highly skilled, it doesn't matter. We have taken way too many people onto this sinking boat.

Border security is a separate issue. Even if you have unlimited legal immigration, you still need to secure your borders.
 
Oh and here's a question for the immigrant-haters: You claim that the reason you hate so-called "illegals" is because they're breaking US law by being here. If Obama changes the law and makes it legal for them to be here, they won't be breaking the law any more. So you should stop hating them at that point, right?

And if Obama decrees theft to no longer be a crime, we should embrace the thief.

"immigrant-hater" I think you are on the wrong forum. We don't fall for those silly labels. You hater!!

I'm a Minuteman. I patrol the border because my gov't won't do it. I don't hate illegal aliens. I just don't want them sneaking across illegally. They cost my state alone over 5 billion dollars a year. They send back to Mexico around 30 billion dollars a year. They kill approximately 25 Americans a day. Americans that would be alive if illegals couldn't get in so easily. If their first action in our country is to break our laws then what makes you think they will be law abiding?

What is it with you pro-illegal types? Why is it okay for Mexico and other countries to enforce their immigration laws but it's not okay for us to do it?

Neither of you answered my question. I'm shocked!!!


I'll answer your question, Deborah. It's only okay to enforce laws that are morally correct. Just like Danke said, if Obama made it legal to steal, we wouldn't all embrace thievery. Similarily, just because some politicians have made it illegal to cross the border, that doesn't mean I need to change my moral stance to conform to the law.

Forthermore, we all agree that only just laws should be enforced. There is literally no one on the planet who thinks otherwise. So really the discussion we're having here is whether or not it's MORAL to cross a border.

The answer is that of course it's moral. It's no more immoral for a person to cross a border and compete with you for a job than it is for a person to be born in America and then compete with you for a job. It's no more immoral for a person to cross the border and commit crime than it is for a person to be born here and commit crime. If you think adding people to the population is immoral, you must conclude that an American woman giving birth to a baby here is also immoral. Are you suggesting we impose Chinese-style birth limits, to curb the number of Americans competing for jobs?

If you're going to say that it's immoral to compete with Americans for jobs, then you must also condemn every American who competes for a job. This is stupid and wrong. You can't condemn someone for taking something away from you that you never owned to begin with. Wealth is not a static resource to be divided up. It is an unlimited resource to be EARNED.

You are all engaging in double-think. When you ask the government to enforce strict anti-immigration policies, you're asking for a police state. You're asking for razor wire and watch towers along the border. You're asking for every employer in the country to become an agent of the state. You're asking for armed patrols you roam the landscape, demanding that everyone produce proof of citizenship at any arbitrary time. This is not freedom. This is not liberty. This is not the American way. It sure as hell isn't capitalism! And in the long run, it's going to hurt you, both in terms of your liberty and also in terms of your prosperity. Immigration is good for the economy. If you can't understand why that is, then you don't understand free market economics.
 
Last edited:
Sure we'd all love to end all welfare and shrink the federal gov by 90%. But that is NOT going to happen anytime soon. So we are left with the reality of adding 20 million new voters who will vote to INCREASE government power and welfare spending, which in turn will attract tens of millions of more hoping for similar amnesty. Do you see where this is headed?????

We will never be able to shrink government if this happens. Think long and hard about that.


20 million? Think again. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the McCain-Kennedy amnesty/immigration acceleration bill would have increased our population by over 80 million over two decades. That's right, 80 million, mostly because of chain migration. (The first version of the bill, later rewritten, would have added 120 million.)

I don't know what the Obama amnesty bill will look like (if the Dems are even stupid enough to attempt it), but the McCain-Kennedy version wasn't a mere amnesty -- the actual nation-wrecking part of it was the vastly increased immigration, nearly all of it from the third world. To be sure, it would be a winning move for the Democratic party, but for the Republican party (and traditional America) it would be The Final Solution. (Not to mention the greatly increased number of guest worker programs, even as the existing ones aren't being fully utilized.)

I don't care how many cultural Marxists, theoretical bubble Libertarians, "citizens of the world", pro-Hispanic organizations, leftists, neocons and others try to justify this and throw labels at those who oppose amnesty, it won't fly in this economic climate. The last attempt at amnesty created an uproar even when the economy was supposedly on sound footing. The last thing most folks want right now is more cheap labor when they're unemployed or underemployed. That might not jibe with some posters' loftier notions, but that's the way it is, despite what the New York Times or Reason magazine may tell you.

I hope Obama, the Dems and neocons try to sell this crap sandwich to America. The backlash is going to be a sight to behold.
 
Minuteman2008, I agree with you completely, but I am worried that good Americans with the backbone to fight this socialist takeover disguised as immigration policy are too few and far between right now. I hope we still have the will to protect liberty and uphold the laws of the land. Otherwise, if this passes, it's all over for the constitution and limited government.

Our only hope then would be to flock to a large state in the west or a group of neighboring states, and begin to defy federal laws and mandates. I could see Utah and Nevada as two such states -- the beginning of "Free America."
 
You are all engaging in double-think. When you ask the government to enforce strict anti-immigration policies, you're asking for a police state. You're asking for razor wire and watch towers along the border. You're asking for every employer in the country to become an agent of the state. You're asking for armed patrols you roam the landscape, demanding that everyone produce proof of citizenship at any arbitrary time. This is not freedom. This is not liberty. This is not the American way. It sure as hell isn't capitalism! And in the long run, it's going to hurt you, both in terms of your liberty and also in terms of your prosperity. Immigration is good for the economy. If you can't understand why that is, then you don't understand free market economics.

Listen Feenix, you are extremely transparent and use extreme points to make a simple argument. The reason you do this is because your beliefs can't stand on its own. You keep waxing poetic about freedom/liberty etc... yet the very nature of your argument and support will bring about unprecedented police-state and yielding of liberty. I pointed out that all the states with high illegal immigration, are moving to an extreme left position - high taxes, high crime, lower educationatl standards and more regulation/control. You are dead wrong in your assumptions.

You can't have "lax" or "sorta" law abiding. You either have enforcement or you dno't. "Strict" enforcement means what? 100% following the law? Stop with your shennanigans. Nothing, let me repeat, NOTHING of good has come from such an extreme flow of immigrants into a country. Then because of our ridiculous laws, chain migration - citizenship to those born etc.... You might find living in a fantasy world which doesn't exist but everything else does, a fond notion. I don't.

Unchecked immigration, out of control welfare fraud, overburdening schools / hospitals/ social services and me footing the bill is NOT liberty, it is NOT the american way.

Controlled and reasonable immigration is good for the economy. But we don't have that, and you know it. You are just a leftist using leftist propaganda to ensure your argument.

Lets ask you a question. And lets see how it fits into your landscape of thought.

We have upwards of 20+million illegal immigrants. According to you, this is good and healthy for the economy. Now, lets say we legalize them and allow thru chain migration, tens of millions more. Now, this is NOT gonna stop illegal immigration, this will just encourage more. So, in lets say - 10 years... How do you think these citizens will vote? And do you think that political climate that will come about will be more or less freedom stealing? Do you think the welfare environment will still exist?

So, in reality, its your propaganda and open border philosophy that will actually bring about the fastest and surest liberty stealing & freedom destroying agenda. And coincidently, its the same agenda that is being followed by the corrupt Obama admin. and the previous Bush admin. Coincidence?
 
Last edited:
All the anti-illegal immigration folks on here and the open borders people could just compromise by cutting off all welfare to illegal aliens and maintaining the status quo in all other regards.
 
If all these illegals are made citizens, will they vote for Obama in 2012? Could this help him win again?

Now you are thinking strategy. Of course! As a matter of fact they will all probably be required to donate time to Acorn as part of the "path to citizenship." :rolleyes:
 
Here we go... let's play "Connect the Dots"!

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003025.html

Frankly I don't know why we don't bill the Mexican and any other government the full costs of Illegal immigrants? Why do the innocent Americans have to pay all the bills and price?

If the Foreign government doesn't pay, like mexico and others have their assets seized.

Hugo Chavez wanted out of the IMF, but was advised not to break, because of the previous Pro American puppet regimes that ran up $10's of Billions in IMF debt. Hugo's financial cabinet advised not, because the US/WB/IMF/UN will seize their assets to repay the debt (bank depoists, Citgo Oil/Gas, etc.)

So why not seize foreign assets to pay for the Billions in costs from illegal immigration?
 
They better hurry up and get these immigrants to sign up for citizenship so they can help pay for our bailouts.
Soon know one will want to immigrate as we will be a banana republic, get em now obama....lol
 
Canadians have a culture similar to our own. Unlike the Mexicans, they don't shit on our vegetables.

Is that a figure of speech? Because I've never done that, nor do I know any other Mexicans who have...
 
What we have now in this country is not immigration, but a wholesale invasion. Historically, invasions usually do not turn out well for the host population.

The Constitution was put in place after a fight for independence and a break from a global empire. The Constitution set rules in place to protect our freedoms, but our Constitution is now being undermined by open borders advocates and "free traders" in this country.

Yep.

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. "
 
Back
Top