Open Borders Are Anti-Libertarian -- They violate private property.

[dannno]

That's uninvited and unwelcomed by anyone, with any legitimate authority. Are you reading for comprehension?

Some of them seem to be invited and welcomed by their employers, and the people they buy or rent houses and apartments from, etc..

 

[Ronin Truth]

Some of them seem to be invited and welcomed by their employers, and the people they buy or rent houses and apartments from, etc..

Then let (require) their "sponsors" cover the entire costs of their 'guests' and the displaced/unemployed US citizen workers costs, while here.

 

[Ender]

Let's skip over the cost to school and feed their children and provide health care.

Gov does not belong in any of these issues- these are all things that should be handled locally or privately. We should be concentrating on freeing ourselves from gov overreach- which is the REAL PROBLEM.

Get the %*%* GOVERNMENT out of our private lives and the "problems" with immigrants will be gone.

 

[presence]

So then you admit I am subsidizing most, including immigrants.

So is your beef with the peaceful immigrant or the brutal hand of the state that steals from you and gives it to the immigrant?

There is nothing inherently anti freedom about immigration and migration.
There is something inherently anti freedom about state socialism.

Don't conflate the two.

 

[Danke]

So is your beef with the peaceful immigrant or the brutal hand of the state that steals from you and gives it to the immigrant?

There is nothing inherently anti freedom about immigration and migration.
There is something inherently anti freedom about state socialism.

Don't conflate the two.

Peaceful people that take stolen goods?

 

[presence]

Peaceful people that take stolen goods?

its legal

 

[Ronin Truth]

So is your beef with the peaceful immigrant or the brutal hand of the state that steals from you and gives it to the immigrant?

There is nothing inherently anti freedom about immigration and migration.
There is something inherently anti freedom about state socialism.

Don't conflate the two.

Simplify!

All crime sucks.

 

[presence]

Simplify!

All crime sucks.

ah yes... "the first contention"

The first contention is that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. They argue that we can't have people circumventing the system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate only when they protect the natural rights of others. Anything else is simply malum prohibitum, a state contrivance that is grounded solely in exerting control over nonviolent behavior. In a free society, individual property owners would decide who was allowed in and who was not.

https://mises.org/library/immigration-and-misplaced-blame

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[SUP][1][/SUP] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[SUP][2]

[/SUP]

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson:[SUP][3][/SUP]

Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).

"Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)); see also State v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).

​

 

[Ronin Truth]

ah yes... "the first contention"



https://mises.org/library/immigration-and-misplaced-blame

Nope, still just way too complex. Simplify!

All crime sucks, just in different ways. Victim-less ones not nearly so much.

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

"The best design is the simplest one that works." -- Albert Einstein

 

[erowe1]

Nope, still just way too complex. Simplify!

All crime sucks, just in different ways. Victim-less ones not nearly so much.

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

"The best design is the simplest one that works." -- Albert Einstein

If there's no victim, then by definition, there's no crime.

 

[William R]

So is your beef with the peaceful immigrant or the brutal hand of the state that steals from you and gives it to the immigrant?

There is nothing inherently anti freedom about immigration and migration.
There is something inherently anti freedom about state socialism.

Don't conflate the two.

They're not immigrants. Illegal aliens . They've broken into the country. We are a country with immigration laws and they need to be enforced.

 

[presence]

Nope, still just way too complex. Simplify!

There is nothing complex here.

There is that which is illegal
There is that which is criminal

Illegal because prohibited by State dictate per se.
Crime because there is a Victim with damages to body or property.

"The best design is the simplest one that works." -- Albert Einstein

just because its illegal doesn't mean its crime

NO VICTIM NO CRIME

if no victim then the decree is inherently not based on an underlying natural law between men and simply a state contrivance that is grounded solely in exerting control

 

[erowe1]

They're not immigrants. Illegal aliens . They've broken into the country. We are a country with immigration laws and they need to be enforced.

Are you saying that no matter what the laws are that the federal government makes up, they should always be enforced? Or are there some criteria that determine cases when they shouldn't?

 

[William R]

Are you saying that no matter what the laws are that the federal government makes up, they should always be enforced? Or are there some criteria that determine cases when they shouldn't?

Immigration laws need to be enforced. We have a border. This is a fugging country. Not some lame ass border-less utopian world.

 

[erowe1]

Immigration laws need to be enforced. We have a border. This is a fugging country. Not some lame ass border-less utopian world.

So no matter what those immigration laws are, the fact that they relate to immigration means they must always be enforced. There is no possible law the federal government could make up related to immigration that you would say it shouldn't enforce. Is that right?

 

[presence]

Immigration laws need to be enforced. We have a border. This is a fugging country. Not some lame ass border-less utopian world.

nobody has asked for these individuals to have welfare benefits, voting rights, or other entitlements of citizenship.

on this side of "the border" the rule of law should be ass, grass, cash, or gtfo


stop dumping corn on your doorstep and you won't need an exterminator

 

[Ronin Truth]

There is nothing complex here.

There is that which is illegal
There is that which is criminal

Illegal because prohibited by State dictate per se.
Crime because there is a Victim with damages to body or property.



just because its illegal doesn't mean its crime

NO VICTIM NO CRIME

if no victim then the decree is inherently not based on an underlying natural law between men and simply a state contrivance that is grounded solely in exerting control

"Hey Rocky, want to see me pull a rabbit out of my hat? Look, nuthin' up my sleeve." -- Bullwinkle

 

[erowe1]

So because we have some leeches we need to allow more in?

No. But we do have to allow more immigrants in. Whether or not someone is a leech (be they immigrant or citizen) is entirely separate and irrelevant to the question of immigration.

You have no right to dictate to everyone else how their property can be used when it doesn't violate anyone's rights, which is what those who support immigration restrictions always do.

 

[erowe1]

Wrong again, it is very important. If you are going to be a burden you are not going to be allowed in but nothing.

That has nothing to do with immigration though. If you're saying that all people on entitlements should be deported, which it sounds like you're saying, then that would have to apply to citizens too. Wouldn't it?

Well seeing how their actions cost me money/wealth/and lessen the power of my vote I have every right to deny entry to people that will rob me of my wealth, Liberty and future.

What about the ones who won't do that? You wouldn't also deny them entry?

And how do you go about denying people entry onto other peoples' property anyway?

 

[presence]

The problem is always framed either:

LEFT:
anybody comes in and
anyone here votes and gets entitlements

or

RIGHT:
nobody comes in unless government permission
and anyone here votes and gets entitlements


Ron Paul is about a third path:

LIBERTY:
anyone comes in but
only legal citizens vote and get entitlements

So because we have some leeches we need to allow more in? If immigration is such a great thing you and those like you get to pay for it.

You seem to be missing the Ron Paul / libertarian position on this issue.

Yes. Let them in. All of them... as many as would like to come.

When they; non citizens get here at the border, or if they have some interaction with the law within the interior:

Issue them a green card with an asterisk*

NO GOVERNMENT ENTITLEMENTS FOR NON CITIZENS; NONE, ZERO, ZILCH
NO VOTING
NO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FOR YOUR KIDS

COMMIT CRIME, TRY TO VOTE, OR APPLY FOR BENEFITS? DEPORTED; BAN HAMMER



Problem solved.