Pew: 81% Hispanic Immigrants Want Bigger Government

[fisharmor]

Yes. Illegally crossing our border, absolutely.



There is nothing to square.

An Appeal to the Reason of Those Still Reading

I'm writing to you because I know how this works. People argue all the time on the internet. Side A argues with side B, and, with very few exceptions, neither side A nor side B ends up with a modified position as a result of the opposite side's efforts.

I'm writing to you because you're on side C. The side that is casually checking out what other people's position on an issue is, keeping an open mind, and determining which side's position has greater merit.

At this point, it's apparent which side that is.

This is the way the immigration debate always goes down. I mentioned earlier that I knew exactly what they were going to say. I was taken aback initially by the fact that two anti-immigration proponents had nothing at all to say and chose to stick with base insults, but nevertheless, like clockwork, the anti-immigration "constitutionalists" showed up with their two best arguments.

I have already insinuated that these are "living document" arguments. There is zero functional difference between these arguments:
1) "I want Obamacare. It's not explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, and has historically not been considered a power of the federal government, but we're going to do it anyway. To appease the people who might want to follow the Constitution, we are going to twist the meaning of 'commerce among the states' into something quite obviously beyond the original intent, into an idea that is also much better described using more accurate words."

2) "I want immigration restrictions. It's not explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, and has historically not been considered a power of the federal government, but we're going to do it anyway. To appease the people who might want to follow the Constitution, we are going to twist the meaning of 'invasion' and 'naturalization' into something quite obviously beyond the original intent, into an idea that is also much better described using more accurate words."

Both are 100% "living document" arguments. That's an unanswerable fact.

Now notice the response from LibertyEagle at the top of this post.

There is nothing to square.

That is the official response by the anti-immigration element here. "I refuse to answer your concerns. There is nothing to do here. You are wrong."
Now, side C reader, I ask you: is this an appropriate justification for a gigantic arm of the US federal government? "Go away kid, you bother me"?

Side C reader, at this point it is forehead-smackingly obvious that the anti-immigration side simply has no argument. They want what they want and are unwilling to discuss why what they want is even justified.

I show up in these anti-immigration threads whenever possible and I make these arguments ad nauseum, and I have never been refuted in any fashion more meaningful than "I'm defining what invasion means, and it means washing your dishes".

So I leave it up to you, side C reader. Consider the arguments. Make your decision.
The side with a coherent position will accept you with open arms no matter what your previous position. Most of us were on the wrong side of this issue, before we actually thought about it.

 

[erowe1]

individual sovereigns who voluntarily enter into mutual insurance company that holds territory against trespass

Is that really what you propose? Something people voluntarily enter?

And for those of us who don't voluntarily enter your company, and who don't mind having brown people around us, you would just let us go on welcoming Mexican immigrants here?

 

[jabowery]

Even without the common sense argument regarding the nature of sovereignty's relationship to territory I previously outlined, Article 1, Section 8's very first sentence states:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year (1808) one thousand eight hundred and eight

The mendacious traitors who are trying to destroy the nation will now argue:

But that doesn't explicitly state that Congress, after 1808 shall prohibit any migration.

To which, my reply is simply this:

When do we convene a Grand Jury to indict these traitors, thence to try, convict and hang them?

Until then, we don't have a legitimate government.

 

[Southron]

And Rand still wants to give them US citizenship and a right to vote...

Rand Paul is one the saner voices in the GOP, but his immigration policy is dumb and ultimately suicidal for his own political future. And it's hard to tell how much of it is pandering to the cheap labor interests, and how much of it is plain ingnorance.

Unfortunately he seems much weaker on immigration than 2008ish Ron Paul. He's really not that far off from Rubio who really tanked in popularity on the right after the whole immigration bill debate. So far he has been able to say the right things but he has backed a path to citizenship and said he could see himself supporting the Senate bill-essentially the same bill that Rubio took a beating for supporting.

The fact is that working class Americans care about immigration.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Get a load of this guy!
Count the green bars, genius.

Not even taking into consideration any argument you might offer to the subject of the thread, I find that statement embarrassing and without any weight (other than in the club here at RPF).

 

[jabowery]

Not even taking into consideration any argument you might offer to the subject of the thread, I find that statement embarrassing and without any weight (other than in the club here at RPF).

The herd mentality among the anti-liberty "libertarians" is, predictably, an overriding consideration in their thinking. Depart from the Austrian School catechism and you might be excommunicated from The Body of Ron Paul or something.

Get a load of this gem in response to my quite reasonable assertion that one of them would have murdered Andrew Jackson if Jackson had challenged them to a duel:

Hold on a sec. Have your references to Andrew Jackson really been made on the assumption that people here liked him? Seriously?

I mean, we can hear an argument that, perhaps, it would have been "justifiable homicide", but to bring up what "people here like.."? *retch*

 

[Anti Federalist]

When the only thing you can think of when you see a problem is, "The government has to do something to stop this!" then supporting liberty is not what you're up to.

We could stop it tomorrow, with a net loss of government.

But "we" don't have the stomach for that.

So we keep playing the system's game, which is rigged to always favor the house.

Meanwhile we've gambled away the mortgage and the kid's college fund, all to build a slave state.

LOL @ Democracy.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This entire debate is stupid. We have an out of control government that has murdered millions, dictated that the murder of tens of millions could not be stopped by anyone, steals a third or more of what each person earns, declares war on its own people for the substances they put into their bodies and locks them in cages, police strip searching people on the side of the road without getting a bullet put into their brains, a population of sheep that waves their flags and "Supports the troops for fighting for their freedom" while all this crap goes on, a program of mass theft that is euphemistically called "Entitlement programs", our God-given right to bear arms are being threatened, and we're seriously sitting here debating whether Andrew Jackson was a good President (For the record, I don't believe he was) and who can or cannot cross the imaginary border? And here we are using no true scotsmen fallacies and strawmen to discredit each other... over immigration?

I want one good answer for why the heck I should care. If I hear "Because they're going to take their jobs" I'll tell you you're a statist central planner and that's that. If you want to tell me there's some kind of a "Right to immigration" I'll say "Fine, but there is no right to vote or collect welfare" and that's that.

 

[erowe1]

We could stop it tomorrow, with a net loss of government.

I'm all for the net loss of government. But I don't think that would hamper immigration.

 

[jabowery]

If you want to tell me there's some kind of a "Right to immigration" I'll say "Fine, but there is no right to vote or collect welfare" and that's that.

A sure-fire litmus test of an anti-liberty "libertarian" is they will not include, with every statement about the right to freely immigrate, that before that should be allowed the welfare state must first be eliminated. Oh, they'll occasionally fess up when confronted with their mendacity, as I have just done here, but then they'll go right back to preaching both "no welfare" and "open borders" without any priorities.

Sheer, unadulterated treason.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Viva la tyranny.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Obama Knew This: Latinos Like Obamacare

Jonathan Alter’s recent book The Center Holds recounts President Obama’s attempt to mobilize Latino voters in 2012 after early focus groups were discouraging. They revealed that “Latinos liked the president personally but didn’t think he was effective. … They were largely unfamiliar with achievements like the auto bailout and the health care bill …” How to respond? Not, it turns out, by talking about immigration reform:

“The best way out of that hole was to educate Latino voters about Obamacare, which was immensely popular when Latinos learned the details. The pitch was much more direct than in Obama’s English-language media. Certain families, the Spanish-language ads said, “will receive economic help from the government to pay for quality [health] insurance. If the election was partly about the role of government in America life, Chicago was betting that Latinos favored a big role.“

The bet was hugely successful, of course, which raises the question: Are Latino voters “natural Republicans,” as we’re often told … or natural Californians? The answer is pretty obvious (as almost any Democratic campaign strategist will admit, at least after a few drinks).