Report shows Obama is granting de facto amnesty to almost all illegal aliens

[Lord Xar]

It appears you recognize the true issue as the existence of the welfare state. It also appears that in absence of the welfare state you would be in favor of mass immigration.

Deportation of all participants of the welfare state would surely lighten the load more so (regardless of origin of birth.) Why do you not propose that?

edit: Also, my claim of increasing tyranny is well made, and was not refuted. You propose more government intervention when it comes to the physical location of an individual. i.e. a claim over others' property

I didn't offer to stop the welfare state, specifically calling out every peter - paul and mary, because I referenced the monolith that is government. I would assume it meant everyone under the sun in which I have to use the fruits of my labor to prop up it's malevolent nature. I assumed it was a given.

Also, I am of the mind of what Ron Paul said "A nation without borders, is no nation at all". If you think that allowing hordes of sycophants of government to start suckling on the teet of government, and then assume that "some time down the road", these same individuals AND all the ones currently getting fat on mothers milk will come to the conclusion that welfare is bad -- is a fools gambit.

I understand waxing poetic about ones' ideological standing and the nature of open borders. And this insatiable urge to use race to curry favor in your direction. But you advocate your own ruin, or lets say - you advocate the hurrying of the decline OF property rights, liberties.... and in this case, I believe it is your position that brings about an attack on MY property rights, not the other way around.

Until we get our own house in order, I think it is a bad idea (see california) to perpetuate this hypothesis of allowing open borders to bring what may come. To let the free market, which we don't have, coupled with a small government in which the power is more localized, which we don't have - to somehow sort this all it..... I'll be sitting, waiting, at the dinner table with santa clause, global warming and the easter bunny ... waiting

 

[Zippyjuan]

Perhaps ironic that Ron Paul said "A nation without borders is no nation at all" and also cautions that securing the border may be not to keep others out but us in. In this video he argues against tighter border security:

 

[Lord Xar]

Perhaps ironic that Ron Paul said "A nation without borders is no nation at all" and also cautions that securing the border may be not to keep others out but us in. In this video he argues against tighter border security:

Ron Paul also advocating for NO WELFARE! You can't, and still retain intellectual honesty, display a position and use it as a panacea for open borders without the context of Ron Paul's other positions on the matter. C'mon.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Illegal aliens are not elgible for federal government aid programs already. Some states do allow them to get welfare. He also says states should be able to make their own decisions. Should the Federal Government tell them they can't do that?

In the video he says "If we had a healthy economy, this would not be a problem". A catch there is that a healthy economy is more attractive to foreign workers seeking jobs. When did the net influx of illegal immigrants end? When the economy crashed in 2007. They come looking for jobs. When the jobs disappeared, they basically quit coming. A healthy economy is also able to absorb more workers which is why Ron Paul said it (illegal immigration) would not be such an issue.

There are over a million fewer illegal immigrants in the US today than there were seven years ago.

 

[staerker]

I didn't offer to stop the welfare state, specifically calling out every peter - paul and mary, because I referenced the monolith that is government. I would assume it meant everyone under the sun in which I have to use the fruits of my labor to prop up it's malevolent nature. I assumed it was a given.

Also, I am of the mind of what Ron Paul said "A nation without borders, is no nation at all". If you think that allowing hordes of sycophants of government to start suckling on the teet of government, and then assume that "some time down the road", these same individuals AND all the ones currently getting fat on mothers milk will come to the conclusion that welfare is bad -- is a fools gambit.

I understand waxing poetic about ones' ideological standing and the nature of open borders. And this insatiable urge to use race to curry favor in your direction. But you advocate your own ruin, or lets say - you advocate the hurrying of the decline OF property rights, liberties.... and in this case, I believe it is your position that brings about an attack on MY property rights, not the other way around.

Until we get our own house in order, I think it is a bad idea (see california) to perpetuate this hypothesis of allowing open borders to bring what may come. To let the free market, which we don't have, coupled with a small government in which the power is more localized, which we don't have - to somehow sort this all it..... I'll be sitting, waiting, at the dinner table with santa clause, global warming and the easter bunny ... waiting

I believe you view (based on past comments) that open borders are an end goal, and having no welfare state is also an end goal.

So, if there is a welfare state, and increasingly open borders, why would you fight against the increasingly open borders? Open borders are one of the end goals.

Yes, increasingly open borders may bolster the welfare state.

Which brings me to a previously brought up point: current Americans are bolstering the welfare state.

So, you either believe that all men are created equal, or that some (United States of American born?) are more entitled to redistributed wealth than others (racist? To use the term loosely.)

If you believe the former, than you should be in favor of deporting (aggressing against) all Americans on welfare, and not only immigrants. This would destroy the welfare state much more effectively than the aforementioned strategy, and would do so without discrimination due to the location of which an individual was born.

solution: Forget about borders, and attack the welfare state. Much cleaner.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I believe you view (based on past comments) that open borders are an end goal, and having no welfare state is also an end goal.

So, if there is a welfare state, and increasingly open borders, why would you fight against the increasingly open borders? Open borders are one of the end goals.

Yes, increasingly open borders may bolster the welfare state.

Which brings me to a previously brought up point: current Americans are bolstering the welfare state.

So, you either believe that all men are created equal, or that some (United States of American born?) are more entitled to redistributed wealth than others (racist? To use the term loosely.)

If you believe the former, than you should be in favor of deporting (aggressing against) all Americans on welfare, and not only immigrants. This would destroy the welfare state much more effectively than the aforementioned strategy, and would do so without discrimination due to the location of which an individual was born.

SO if your Dad lost his job and his savings and couldn't find another one, you would rather see him kicked out of the country (to which country or countries should they be sent?) than to take any government aid to help him pay rent and put food on the table? (Or what about yourself if it was you)?

 

[Lord Xar]

Illegal aliens are not elgible for federal government aid programs already. Some states do allow them to get welfare. He also says states should be able to make their own decisions. Should the Federal Government tell them they can't do that?

In the video he says "If we had a healthy economy, this would not be a problem". A catch there is that a healthy economy is more attractive to foreign workers seeking jobs. When did the net influx of illegal immigrants end? When the economy crashed in 2007. They come looking for jobs. When the jobs disappeared, they basically quit coming. A healthy economy is also able to absorb more workers which is why Ron Paul said it (illegal immigration) would not be such an issue.

There are over a million fewer illegal immigrants in the US today than there were seven years ago.

Zippy, removing the idea that "not eligible for federal government aid.." from the argument -- do you really believe that?

http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011
http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...m-to-get-much-bigger-tax-refunds-than-you-are
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/latest-scam-illegal-aliens-getting-bigger-tax-refund-checks/

I also worked in the educational system for a time -- and uhmmm, lets say - there was a LOT of welfare being used to educate the students. Again, is this something I really have to link. I know you know the strain of educating millions of illegal and children of illegal immigrants.

Also, what about Hospitals -- who foots the bill for all of the care illegals receive? I don't want to paste every single link here, but I'm fairly certain you are aware of the strain on the health care system illegals have.

I've seen you mention many times, "they don't get federal aid" - but that is just not true. Have an anchor baby, and boom - all better.

 

[Lord Xar]

I believe you view (based on past comments) that open borders are an end goal, and having no welfare state is also an end goal.

So, if there is a welfare state, and increasingly open borders, why would you fight against the increasingly open borders? Open borders are one of the end goals.

Yes, increasingly open borders may bolster the welfare state.

Which brings me to a previously brought up point: current Americans are bolstering the welfare state.

So, you either believe that all men are created equal, or that some (United States of American born?) are more entitled to redistributed wealth than others (racist? To use the term loosely.)

If you believe the former, than you should be in favor of deporting (aggressing against) all Americans on welfare, and not only immigrants. This would destroy the welfare state much more effectively than the aforementioned strategy, and would do so without discrimination due to the location of which an individual was born.

solution: Forget about borders, and attack the welfare state. Much cleaner.

I never said I was for open borders. I never said americans on welfare good - everyone else, bad. You seem to be infatuated with hate for America. And much of your position, it seems, focuses on arbitrarily attributing positions of hypocrisy on my part to try to validate your position. Quick question - not trying to sidetrack things.. do you believe in or desire a one world government? What I am driving at is - What is your position.. complete statelessness, one world government, limited government.. what?

 

[staerker]

SO if your Dad lost his job and his savings and couldn't find another one, you would rather see him kicked out of the country (to which country or countries should they be sent?) than to take any government aid to help him pay rent and put food on the table? (Or what about yourself if it was you)?

No I was applying what I believe to be his train of thought (deport immigrants because of welfare usage) to all people (due to welfare usage.) #allMenAreEqual

I am not in favor of taking those actions.

 

[staerker]

I never said I was for open borders. I never said americans on welfare good - everyone else, bad.

Okay, my bad!

And much of your position, it seems, focuses on arbitrarily attributing positions of hypocrisy on my part to try to validate your position

So then, do you think that you are a hypocrite? (You haven't said whether you believe all men were created equal or not.)

My position is based on certain principles, and I believe that if you hold to those principles, you must hold my position (or, be a hypocrite?)

Quick question - not trying to sidetrack things.. do you believe in or desire a one world government? What I am driving at is - What is your position.. complete statelessness, one world government, limited government.. what?

I have no position, really. In our fallen world nothing perfect is attainable, so the discussion of ideal situations and their viability is pointless. I just like pointing out wrong as wrong, to somehow stifle the perpetuation. And the United States Government is wrong.

 

[pcosmar]

Quick question - not trying to sidetrack things.. do you believe in or desire a one world government? What I am driving at is - What is your position.. complete statelessness, one world government, limited government.. what?

That is coming,, like it or not.

And the rampant Nationalism is one of the tools that will bring it about.

And no,, it is not my desire.

 

[PRB]

Perhaps ironic that Ron Paul said "A nation without borders is no nation at all" and also cautions that securing the border may be not to keep others out but us in. In this video he argues against tighter border security:

yep. the dilemma of a libertarian wanting both a free society and a nation.