Paleoconservatives at VDare.com Critique Rand's "Change of Heart" on Immigration

[spladle]

I don't think Rand's plan would even be considered amnesty if he punished the illegal's in some fashion as part of his proposal, not deport them, but some other form of punishment. I don't exactly know what he could do to punish them, but they should be punished for committing a crime, a crime which by no means is victim-less.

Pray tell, who is the victim when a human being crosses an imaginary line in the sand?

 

[whoisjohngalt]

So a majority of Republicans support an eventual path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and this is going to hurt Rand in what way exactly?

The damage, if any, will come from primary voters who tend to take more extreme positions on many of the issues. Most people list it as a low issue, especially in the Republican party so I think Rand is on safe ground here.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Pray tell, who is the victim when a human being crosses an imaginary line in the sand?

So you don't believe in property rights?

 

[Romulus]

VDare.com is a well-known harbor for extreme and hardcore racists and white nationalists. This is not exactly what I would call surprising or worrisome.

This... ignore them.

 

[spladle]

They should atleast be punished to discourage more people from entering illegally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfU9Fqah-f4

 

[whoisjohngalt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfU9Fqah-f4

I'm with Milton Friedman and Rand Paul on immigration. I wish we could have open borders and no welfare state. But by asserting that it's a victimless crime, you are asserting that property rights do not exist and that criminal trespass is not a crime. "Imaginary lines" are what define property after all.

Also, there is the property rights violated when they take tax dollars out of a system they did not pay into and when they compete for employment on an uneven playing field.

Despite all this, I'm not hard line on immigration and I really love Rand's plan, but how can you say its a victimless crime?

 

[spladle]

So you don't believe in property rights?

Of course I believe in property rights. Do you?

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Of course I believe in property rights. Do you?

See above. So can I come trespass on your property. After all, I'm only crossing an imaginary line. No victim.

 

[spladle]

I'm with Milton Friedman and Rand Paul on immigration. I wish we could have open borders and no welfare state. But by asserting that it's a victimless crime, you are asserting that property rights do not exist and that criminal trespass is not a crime.

No you're not. Milton Friedman was an advocate of illegal immigration. You are also confused about the implications of free immigration for property rights. Strictly speaking, when you say that I am not free to have someone on my property that I would like to have there, you are advocating communism, or state ownership of all land and property within its borders. I am not a communist, and so I do not advocate immigration restrictions. You advocate immigration restrictions, and so you are a communist. QED

 

[spladle]

See above. So can I come trespass on your property. After all, I'm only crossing an imaginary line. No victim.

The difference is that I believe individuals own property. The state, in my view, owns nothing. The state, in your view, owns everything.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

The difference is that I believe individuals own property. The state, in my view, owns nothing. The state, in your view, owns everything.

Where did I say I was against illegal immigration? Where did I say I was talking about state owned land? You can have whoever you want on your land, but not if he has to cross my land to get there when I don't want him on it. You are employing a straw man. Nice try though.

If illegal immigrants were only using so called "state" land, that would be one thing. In reality, the vast majority our committing criminal trespass on privately owned land. All I was asserting is that there often is a victim. You said there wasn't.

 

[spladle]

Where did I say I was against illegal immigration?

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I assumed that you thought crimes with victims were bad.

Where did I say I was talking about state owned land? You can have whoever you want on your land, but not if he has to cross my land to get there when I don't want him on it. You are employing a straw man. Nice try though.

You appear to be conflating immigration with trespass. Do you understood that those are two different things?

 

[spladle]

If illegal immigrants were only using so called "state" land, that would be one thing. In reality, the vast majority our committing criminal trespass on privately owned land. All I was asserting is that there often is a victim. You said there wasn't.

What leads you to believe that illegal immigrants are more likely to trespass than US citizens?

 

[whoisjohngalt]

What leads you to believe that illegal immigrants are more likely to trespass than US citizens?

Well, I live in Texas where there is no state owned land on the border. Since immigration is made illegal, they aren't just walking down the state owned roads. The nature of immigrating across the border into Texas require that they commit criminal trespass. It's pretty simple.

 

[erowe1]

They should atleast be punished to discourage more people from entering illegally.

If the law is wrong in the first place, which it would be if it makes a crime where there are no victims, then why should people be punished for breaking it?

 

[erowe1]

Nonsense. Most Americans don't support amnesty. The elites do thought.

That must be why Tancredo and Hunter did so well in 2008.

 

[spladle]

Well, I live in Texas where there is no state owned land on the border. Since immigration is made illegal, they aren't just walking down the state owned roads. The nature of immigrating across the border into Texas require that they commit criminal trespass. It's pretty simple.

Oh, sorry for my misunderstanding of your position, that makes sense then.

I maintain, however, that the harm from such trespasses is likely to be de minimis and certainly less than the harm from forcing people to stay in Mexico. Would you agree with that much?

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Oh, sorry for my misunderstanding of your position, that makes sense then.

I maintain, however, that the harm from such trespasses is likely to be de minimis and certainly less than the harm from forcing people to stay in Mexico. Would you agree with that much?

Of course, I would. I know its confusing because you are in an argument with a bunch of xenophobes. In my belief, property crimes should not be subject to a response of lethal force unless the property in question is one's own body, but I think that is covered under our right to liberty and life. I think it should be adjudicated in cases of property crime.

There is some significant impact though. I was looking for a youtube video, but I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence of some of the destruction caused especially as it pertains to drug running. These problem are, of course, created by government and not by the immigrants, but I continue to assert that there is a victim. Trying to deport 12 million immigrants is not part of the solution nor is it desirable.

 

[spladle]

Of course, I would. I know its confusing because you are in an argument with a bunch of xenophobes. In my belief, property crimes should not be subject to a response of lethal force unless the property in question is one's own body, but I think that is covered under our right to liberty and life. I think it should be adjudicated in cases of property crime.

There is some significant impact though. I was looking for a youtube video, but I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence of some of the destruction caused especially as it pertains to drug running. These problem are, of course, created by government and not by the immigrants, but I continue to assert that there is a victim. Trying to deport 12 million immigrants is not part of the solution nor is it desirable.

Alright, yeah, you're owed a sincere apology, I did lump you in "with a bunch of xenophobes." =X That was a mistake in judgment, and I'm sorry.

I live in Texas myself and lived in California for a year, I'm pretty familiar with all the good arguments for opposing immigration. Spillover effects from the drug war are chief among them, it's true.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Alright, yeah, you're owed a sincere apology, I did lump you in "with a bunch of xenophobes." =X That was a mistake in judgment, and I'm sorry.

I live in Texas myself and lived in California for a year, I'm pretty familiar with all the good arguments for opposing immigration. Spillover effects from the drug war are chief among them, it's true.

Rand said it best. Just keep pointing out like he did that we have amnesty whether we call it that or not. The xenophobes are an increasingly small minority.