Ron Paul Gives Latino Voters Straight Talk, No Pandering.

[WilliamC]

Still can't come to grips with the fact that people are not "illegal" can you? Even if such a crime existed, one is innocent until proven guilty.

I don't understand your point.

So long as Nations exist, they will write laws regarding who is and isn't a citizen.

Thus there can very well be illegal people within a country, defined by the countries laws of citizenship.

Are you denying this?

Or just stating that all such laws are, in your opinion, automatically unjust?

 

[Enforcer]

I don't understand your point.

So long as Nations exist, they will write laws regarding who is and isn't a citizen.

Thus there can very well be illegal people within a country, defined by the countries laws of citizenship.

Are you denying this?

Or just stating that all such laws are, in your opinion, automatically unjust?

There is no law in the United States that makes a person an "illegal alien." The ONLY time the issue is addressed is in 8 USC 1325 and that is a CIVIL law that applies strictly to ENTRY. Improper Entry is a civil violation of the law and has no more "criminal" connotations than you being called a defendant in a divorce suit. Removal proceedings in an immigration process are civil in nature, not criminal.

Being in the United States without papers is not a crime. Again, the law only addresses ENTRY... and you have to catch someone in the act before that even applies.

I'm particularly sensitive to this issue as the feds once set out to kill me on the basis that I was an enemy combatant / domestic terrorist absent any form of due process AND absent any laws that criminalized my actions. When you call foreigners "illegal" absent any law that would make them "illegal," you are adding to the precedents that allow LEOs to go after Americans on the most spurious of pretexts. In short, what you guys that call foreigners "illegal" aliens are doing is dangerous to your Liberties and mine. It is freaking dangerous.

If an employer has a job and offers it to a foreigner, that is the employer's Right to give what he / she owns to whomever he or she chooses. Calling someone an "illegal" for exercising their unalienable Rights is plain wrong on every level. Create a Guest Worker program and be done with this idiotic argument.

 

[WilliamC]

There is no law in the United States that makes a person an "illegal alien." The ONLY time the issue is addressed is in 8 USC 1325 and that is a CIVIL law that applies strictly to ENTRY. Improper Entry is a civil violation of the law and has no more "criminal" connotations than you being called a defendant in a divorce suit. Removal proceedings in an immigration process are civil in nature, not criminal.

I don't see why you are disagreeing with me. What part of

Now as for how illegal foreign citizens are treated once they somehow come to the attention of a law enforcement agency within the country that they are not supposed to be in is a different question.

I am in no way arguing that an illegal immigrant should be treated like a violent felon or even a criminal unless they, while in the USA, actually break criminal laws that apply to citizens.

As I said in my previous post, the vast majority of the problems of immigration, legal or illegal, are created by the foreign and domestic policies of the Federal Government.

Until those policies are addressed and changed, then there is no peaceful way to deal with the problem of gang violence along the Southwest border, and 'illegal immigration' will simply be used as yet another wedge issue to drive apart those of us who should be agreeing that the problem is government, not people.

do you disagree with?

Being in the United States without papers is not a crime. Again, the law only addresses ENTRY... and you have to catch someone in the act before that even applies.

Where am I arguing for there to be 'papers'?

I'm particularly sensitive to this issue as the feds once set out to kill me on the basis that I was an enemy combatant / domestic terrorist absent any form of due process AND absent any laws that criminalized my actions. When you call foreigners "illegal" absent any law that would make them "illegal," you are adding to the precedents that allow LEOs to go after Americans on the most spurious of pretexts. In short, what you guys that call foreigners "illegal" aliens are doing is dangerous to your Liberties and mine. It is freaking dangerous.

Ummm...., so just because I recognize the difference between a citizen of a foreign nation that has chosen to legally immigrate to the USA and a citizen of a foreign nation that deliberately avoided the legal process of immigration, I am now 'freaking dangerous'?

Again, where have I suggested anything about treating a foreign citizen who has not been charged with any other crime as some sort of dangerous felon?

I don't.

If an employer has a job and offers it to a foreigner, that is the employer's Right to give what he / she owns to whomever he or she chooses. Calling someone an "illegal" for exercising their unalienable Rights is plain wrong on every level. Create a Guest Worker program and be done with this idiotic argument.

Again, you completely fail to acknowledge the fact that I stated which is it is the fault of the Federal Government that we have an illegal immigration problem, and until that problem is dealt with it is impossible to make peaceful progress in solving the problem.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Why is this so confusing?

As long as there are Nations there will be national borders.

Nations don't have borders, a nation is a description of a group of people. States claim territories under their jurisdiction. Nation-states claim borders.

As long as there are governments there will be aggressive, violent collectives.

For the anarchists abolitionists here, hey, if we can get to some sort of global utopian awakening vis-a-vis John Lennon and all sing 'Imagine' and give up all sense of identity enslaving black people, then I'm probably closer than you are.

What does "giving up all sense of identity" mean, too? Are you implying we need government to identify with other people and communities? That we need the state to give us a sense of belonging to a community? Which still only concerns "group-identity" and not your identity as an individual person.

But human nature and evolution are responsible for territoriality slavery, and until we transcend ourselves and give up Nations and Governments an anti-liberty oppressive institution then there will always be borders legal slaves and slave owners and border control of who crosses them the hunting down of runaways.

That's what countries do.

That's what individual humans acting as agents of an abstract oppressive authoritarian concept do, because they think it's lawful, just, and in the best interests of "their society".

Now as for how illegal foreign citizens are treated once they somehow come to the attention of a law enforcement agency within the country that they are not supposed to be in is a different question.

I am in no way arguing that an illegal immigrant should be treated like a violent felon or even a criminal unless they, while in the USA, actually break criminal laws that apply to citizens.

As I said in my previous post, the vast majority of the problems of immigration, legal or illegal, are created by the foreign and domestic policies of the Federal Government.

Until those policies are addressed and changed, then there is no peaceful way to deal with the problem of gang violence along the Southwest border, and 'illegal immigration' will simply be used as yet another wedge issue to drive apart those of us who should be agreeing that the problem is government, not people.

Right, and the only way to change people's attitudes about government policies and slavery "illegals" is to... talk about it... like we're doing... right now.

Having more people to do more work is great when you don't have government interventionism disrupting the market or redistributing wealth.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Foreign nationals A person trespassing on private property of US citizens another person?

better...

 

[WilliamC]

Still can't come to grips with the fact that people are not "illegal" can you? Even if such a crime existed, one is innocent until proven guilty.

Seems to me you don't think Nations have any authority to regulate who can cross their borders and who can establish residence in said Nation.

Illegal immigrants by definition do not follow legal channels to enter and live in the country which they exist, therefore they are by definition illegally in said country.

You can play semantics all you wish, but said people are illegal in the sense they have violated immigration laws to reach their destination.

 

[WilliamC]

Nations don't have borders, a nation is a description of a group of people. States claim territories under their jurisdiction. Nation-states claim borders.

Basic geography refutes this statement.

Nations have borders. Countries have borders. States have borders, counties have borders, cities and towns and villages have borders.

It's what defines them geographically and defines the reach of the laws that said governments establish.

If you don't accept this then no wonder you are confused about legal versus illegal immigration.

 

[Enforcer]

Seems to me you don't think Nations have any authority to regulate who can cross their borders and who can establish residence in said Nation.

Illegal immigrants by definition do not follow legal channels to enter and live in the country which they exist, therefore they are by definition illegally in said country.

You can play semantics all you wish, but said people are illegal in the sense they have violated immigration laws to reach their destination.

I'll have you know, with my ass on the line, I do not play semantics. BEFORE ANYONE can be called an "illegal" any freaking thing, there must be a law making something illegal.

Your first mistake is not understanding the subject matter. In speaking on this very issue, Attorney General Michael Mukasey (appointed by George W. Bush) told the liberal ABA: “Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime...”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/12...ong-or-every-violation-of-the-law-is-a-crime/

The context in which Mukasey spoke was in regards to an IMPROPER action - and Entry into the United States without the requisite paperwork is an improper act, not a crime; therefore, NOT illegal.

Because you do not understand the subject matter, you end up making false accusations against me. You wrote:

"Seems to me you don't think Nations have any authority to regulate who can cross their borders..."

Where in the Hell did you get such an idea? Did you even bother to read what I've written thus far? Of course, we have the Right, as a nation to regulate who can cross our borders. But, just like gun control, the word regulate does not mean human registration nor FORCED citizenship for Guest Workers.

Of course, the United States has the authority to regulate who crosses our borders. The government must also treat everyone that is a citizen equally under the law. So, instead of regulating immigration, specifically by updating the immigration laws to reflect the changing times and the needs of society, the government gives employers no other choice than to hire people that do not have a visa BECAUSE FOR MILLIONS WE HAVE NOT CREATED A VISA THAT FITS THEIR FACT SITUATION. If there are no "legal" channels to follow, there is no criminal law to violate. You cannot create a visa for the rich, people with American relatives and students while locking out factory workers, hospitality workers, and others who work low end NON-AGRICULTURAL jobs. It is discriminatory against employers. It would, therefore, be unconstitutional.

This is not rocket science, sir. It cannot be that difficult to understand. Some people just want to come here and work. They don't want to become citizens and we don't need them as citizens. Use your head:

If a 50 year old immigrant is forced to become a citizen and they are disabled by the age of 62 and live to be 85, they will draw out of the system for TWICE AS LONG AS THEY PAID IN. You want to force someone to do that?

Ignoring unconstitutional laws is well within the purview of all people.

Finally, you pretend not to understand what I say. Perhaps you think that people reading this are idiots? Or are you really not understanding simple English?

When you call ANYONE an illegal anything, you are creating a precedent whereby YOU, ME and EVERYBODY else will be judged according to that standard. Now, what part of that sentence are you having a problem with?

 

[Enforcer]

I don't understand your point.

So long as Nations exist, they will write laws regarding who is and isn't a citizen.

Thus there can very well be illegal people within a country, defined by the countries laws of citizenship.

Are you denying this?

Or just stating that all such laws are, in your opinion, automatically unjust?

Just because we can define who can and cannot become a citizen, we cannot outlaw the flow of foreigners for business purposes. All you can do is regulate it. For the past 200 + years, it has been a self regulating process that has worked pretty good, EXCEPT for the times that control freaks have stepped in to muck up the natural order of things.

 

[row333au]

The average illegal migrant (person) - who does live and act the entering and living illegally within the country as unwelcome guest or acting like a legal citizen - are doing what they do due to economic impoverish situation and hostile community existence; to which they justify what they do as like stealing to feed in the struggle of survival of the fittest means.

Illegal migrants would bypass the qualifying processing of a country's requirement that is mandatory to the nation's best desired categories and acceptable qualities being consider in becoming part of their permanent citizen of its communities and society. Most of those who does the illegal migration knows that they will not be able to qualify or knows exactly that they will fail miserably if they went through the process of qualifying.

One of those avenues to cheat your way in is by pretending to be an asylum seeker (now the genuine of this does compete in the grey areas - example Afghans and Pakistanis).... but in America mostly its border crossing.

But over all the last thing they would consider is that all things have thresholds. As in limited resources and conserving for future citizens' needs - humanitarian would have to give-in with maintaining the means to have the nation and its citizens live according to the high living standard of quality and quantity available to all of its citizens - and this is where the 'limiting the greed factor' vs 'limited population expansion factor' is debated.

But for both argument the solution is not migration but to help in helping the stability of their origin country's economy and stopping hostility existence (since almost all of them would choose not to leave their country if they have the same version of America or as close to it as possible). Therefore the solution lies temporary in securing the country's border and as well as making those countries have better American free economy across the board of their society in discouraging them by making their country more attractive to really settle in...

Hence the culprit of such as the Federal Reserve, IMF, WTO and UN's top management, in transforming the whole world into one global monopoly of so called ruling class done through globalisation of corporatism (200 corporation controls 80% of the worlds resources but employs only few millions compare to worlds population of billions)...

This is what Ron Paul has been advocating on in abolishing the one rule governance (not elected by a sovereignty and its citizen) to overwhelm and supersede a country's sovereignty rights and laws, thus in its real practical results will lessen and reverse the illegal and legal migration pattern globally, if he becomes effective citizens' consensus.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Seems to me you don't think Nations have any authority to regulate who can cross their borders and who can establish residence in said Nation.

What is a Nation?

Where does this "National Authority" originate?

What is the extent of this "National Authority", (does "it" have the right to protect "itself" from threats to it's purity, maybe by exterminating particularly "dirty" races and other undesirable elements - if not, why not?)?

Illegal immigrants by definition do not follow legal channels to enter and live in the country which they exist, therefore they are by definition illegally in said country.

You can play semantics all you wish, but said people are illegal in the sense they have violated immigration slavery laws to reach their destination.

And runaway slaves were illegally running away from their legal owners. The one thing the government is good at is creating bad laws.

 

[Enforcer]

Agreed. However, I would strongly oppose any permanent fortifications or a fence unless it was in a few strategic locations.

Go ahead and build the fence. Hispanics are pretty good with shovels. Create a Guest Worker program and be done with this madness.

 

[WilliamC]

I'll have you know, with my ass on the line, I do not play semantics. BEFORE ANYONE can be called an "illegal" any freaking thing, there must be a law making something illegal.

Look, I'm not doubting your sincerity, and I might agree with you more than I disagree, and I'm not looking to get into the minutia of immigration law, but you are refusing to answer basic questions which will allow me to assess your position, and you are attacking me for positions I do not advocate.

In my past experience, those who do so repeatedly are trying in some way to be deceptive.

I'm not.

Real simple now, do you state that it is unjust and immoral for a Country to regulate which non-citizens enter said country and which non-citizens can live in said country and which non-citizens can work in said country?

That's my only question.

If you think it is unjust then it seems to me you are arguing against the existence of defined Nations, national government, and government in general, which sounds a lot like anarchism.

If you think nations can do this, then how are non-citizens who fail to follow a nations laws regarding entry, living and working in said nation not considered to be illegally in said nation?

I'm not saying that 'people are illegal' as you want to push off as my words, and I'm not arguing for any specific course of action in regards to how a nation would treat a non-citizen whom it finds inside it's juristiction but who has not followed a legal procedure for being there.

I am saying that a fundamental aspect of a Nation or Country or whatever is that it has a defined geographic border, and that as part of the legitimacy of being a Nation, then part of the national laws are rightly about regulating immigration.

Is this a legitimate function of government or not?

 

[WilliamC]

What is a Nation?

Where does this "National Authority" originate?

Err... read my posts?

In the context of this thread and what I've stated it's pretty obvious I'm talking specifically about the Southwest border between the Untied States and Mexico, both of which are 'Nations' and have 'National Authority' to pass laws, including laws about immigration.

 

[WilliamC]

What is the extent of this "National Authority", (does "it" have the right to protect "itself" from threats to it's purity, maybe by exterminating particularly "dirty" races and other undesirable elements - if not, why not?)?

You have some serious issues.

Why do you want to exterminate undesirable elements or dirty races?

Why do you project this onto me?

 

[WilliamC]

Just because we can define who can and cannot become a citizen, we cannot outlaw the flow of foreigners for business purposes. All you can do is regulate it. For the past 200 + years, it has been a self regulating process that has worked pretty good, EXCEPT for the times that control freaks have stepped in to muck up the natural order of things.

For at least the third time in this thread I state that the Federal Government creates the vast majority of the problems with immigration with it's flawed domestic and foreign policies.

But fact is we currently have dangerous criminal drug gangs and such trying to enter the USA to further commit crimes of violence against US citizens.

If you don't think this is a legitimate concern then you have some other agenda, probably anarchist/racist in nature, which does not recognize the legitimacy of National Governments to exists.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Err... read my posts?

In the context of this thread and what I've stated it's pretty obvious I'm talking specifically about the Southwest border between the Untied States and Mexico, both of which are 'Nations' and have 'National Authority' to pass laws, including laws about immigration.

I didn't ask you to give me examples of what you thought were Nations, I asked you to define the word "Nation" because we're obviously using the same word for different concepts.

A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history.[1] In this definition, a nation has no physical borders. However, it can also refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up.[2][3] In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state.[1] The word nation can more specifically refer to people of North American Indians, such as the Cherokee Nation that prefer this term over the contested term tribe.[1]

I'm obviously using the bold part while you're using something closer to what's directly after (which is closer to the Nation-State I was referring to earlier). What is it that you mean when you say "Nation"?

And where is this authority derived? This is a serious question. How does a "Nation" come to have "authority"?

You have some serious issues.

Why do you want to exterminate undesirable elements or dirty races?

Why do you project this onto me?

LOL, what are you talking about, how was that not a legitimate question? You're claiming this authority exists. I asked you to what the extent of this authority has legitimate power and somehow (?) that means "I want to exterminate dirty races and undesirables" and am somehow projecting it onto you, which means you don't have to answer the question because I "have issues". How convenient. Is it unlimited and if not, why not? What is the purpose of this authority? What stops anything "it" does from being a legitimate exercise in power or not?

 

[WilliamC]

I didn't ask you to give me examples of what you thought were Nations, I asked you to define the word "Nation" because we're obviously using the same word for different concepts.

I'm obviously using the bold part while you're using something closer to what's directly after (which is closer to the Nation-State I was referring to earlier). What is it that you mean when you say "Nation"?

And where is this authority derived? This is a serious question. How does a "Nation" come to have "authority"?

I am using Nation in the sense of a Nation-State with a National government and geographic boundries, not as an abstraction for a culture.

Nations already exist, regardless of whether or not I believe they legitimately came into existence.

National governments pass laws, including laws regarding immigration.

Now if you deny the legitimacy of Nation-States, then I see where you deny the legitimacy of laws regarding immigration.

But if you accept that at least some Nation-States legitimately exist, then I do not see where you deny the legitimacy of laws of said Nation-State with regards to non-citizens entering into, visiting, living in, and working within the geographic bounderies of said Nation-State.

Here in the USA our Federal Government was created by the Constitution and (theoretically) embodies the concepts of the Declaration of Independence, and it's authority comes from the people of the United States.

While I do have reservations as to the Constitution itself, especially since the original Constitution explicitly legalized slavery, my limited political goals are to elect politicians who will return the Federal Government to a smaller, more Constitutionally limited form.

Yes, I know this is naive, but I'm not ready to start shooting yet.

In the context of this specific thread, I am talking about the Southern border between the USA and Mexico, another Nation-State whose legitimacy I currently accept even if I think its government is more corrupt than even our own.

LOL, what are you talking about, how was that not a legitimate question? You're claiming this authority exists. I asked you to what the extent of this authority has legitimate power and somehow (?) that means "I want to exterminate dirty races and undesirables" and am somehow projecting it onto you, which means you don't have to answer the question because I "have issues". How convenient. Is it unlimited and if not, why not? What is the purpose of this authority? What stops anything "it" does from being a legitimate exercise in power or not?

You are the one who brought into the discussion the idea of "exterminating particularly "dirty" races and other undesirable elements" so I gather this is some goal of yours.

I just recognize the huge problem with violent criminal gangs currently trying to enter the USA from Mexico due to the USA's flawed Drug War.

Until the USA changes it's foreign and domestic policies significantly, it will face this problem.

Best solution it to remove the flawed policies, but until this is done then I see the rational for enhanced border security.

Again, you have issues because you went from talking about immigration to wondering if I was somehow a racist and wanted to commit genocide.

I am not, but since you introduced the idea I wonder if you are indeed projecting your own views onto me.

 

[Enforcer]

Look, I'm not doubting your sincerity, and I might agree with you more than I disagree, and I'm not looking to get into the minutia of immigration law, but you are refusing to answer basic questions which will allow me to assess your position, and you are attacking me for positions I do not advocate.

In my past experience, those who do so repeatedly are trying in some way to be deceptive.

I'm not.

Real simple now, do you state that it is unjust and immoral for a Country to regulate which non-citizens enter said country and which non-citizens can live in said country and which non-citizens can work in said country?

You've accused me of having something to hide when I've told you over and over in plain English:



That's my only question.

If you think it is unjust then it seems to me you are arguing against the existence of defined Nations, national government, and government in general, which sounds a lot like anarchism.

If you think nations can do this, then how are non-citizens who fail to follow a nations laws regarding entry, living and working in said nation not considered to be illegally in said nation?

I'm not saying that 'people are illegal' as you want to push off as my words, and I'm not arguing for any specific course of action in regards to how a nation would treat a non-citizen whom it finds inside it's juristiction but who has not followed a legal procedure for being there.

I am saying that a fundamental aspect of a Nation or Country or whatever is that it has a defined geographic border, and that as part of the legitimacy of being a Nation, then part of the national laws are rightly about regulating immigration.

Is this a legitimate function of government or not?

You asked the question and I honestly answered it. The United States has the authority to regulate those who come and go within our borders; however, what they do not have is the legitimate authority to prohibit the free flow of trade and travel by limiting it to citizens.

When I was a kid, we used to travel from California to Mexico with no visas, passports, etc. and it was adequately regulated. I have no issue to debate with regards to regulate; however, that does not extend to a prohibition on people that come here to engage in lawful pursuits.

And, since, you are dodging the issue about "illegal" aliens instead of dropping that term for the accurate undocumented foreigner, I feel that you want me to agree that there is some "problem" to solve when you simply need some appeasement. Create a Guest Worker program and be done with the cow manure.

The government has a law stating that it is a civil violation to enter the United States improperly. Then, THEY DO NOT PROVIDE A "LEGAL" MECHANISM FOR THE FACT SITUATION.

What part of that do you not understand? That is as plain of an English sentence that one can give you. Now, let us do the "legal" part:

People enter the United States without the requisite paperwork for the simple reason that no visa existscovering their fact situation. Congress is charged with providing us with an uniform Rule of Naturalization. (See Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution) Congress hasn't even done that!

Let's do an analogy and maybe you can understand this:

A statute says that you must have a permit to carry a firearm in your state. So you contact state officials. They look at you with a blank look and say we don't issue a permit in this state. You have a Right to keep and bear Arms, so exactly what law are you breaking if you don't have a permit that does not exist?

You want to demand that people come here "legally." No such concept exists in the legal language as it pertains to this issue. Everything is not legal or illegal. Sometimes it is proper and improper. Proper and improper have nothing to do with "legal" or illegal. They are totally different concepts.

A cop issues you a ticket that is filled out improperly. Is it a crime? No, it is not. So how can his actions be illegal?

An anti - immigrant Congressman, who happens to an attorney, did propose legislation which would change 8 USC 1325 so that Improper Entry would be changed to Unlawful Entry. That legislation FAILED. If it were illegal to enter the U.S. without papers, it would not have been necessary to change the statute to read unalwful instead of its current IMPROPER.

How are my posts not fully answering your questions?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I am using Nation in the sense of a Nation-State with a National government and geographic boundries, not as an abstraction for a culture.

Nations already exist, regardless of whether or not I believe they legitimately came into existence.

So you're essentially using "Nation" as a word for the state. States don't exist in outside your head either... they are also abstract concepts that individual human beings identify with and modify their behaviors to conform with. They aren't sentient entities or actors, but subjective concepts held by individual people that guide their actions.

National governments pass laws, including laws regarding immigration slavery.

Now if you deny the legitimacy of Nation-States, then I see where you deny the legitimacy of laws regarding immigration.

Actually, it doesn't matter whether Nation-States are legitimate or not. The problem is the law is anti-liberty.

But if you accept that at least some Nation-States legitimately exist, then I do not see where you deny the legitimacy of laws of said Nation-State with regards to non-citizens entering into, visiting, living in, and working within the geographic bounderies of said Nation-State.

All you're talking about is very large, organized groups of gangs claiming territory and getting popular consent for it by claiming it's everyone in their "society's" territory. You feel like you're part of this united group of people with common "ownership" over some territory. This claim isn't based on legitimately obtaining property by laboring to transform it, but arbitrarily declaring control and backing it up with violence.

If you're a peaceful hardworking person who hasn't infringed on anyone's rights and move somewhere, and find someone who voluntarily wants to pay you to work for him so you can support yourself... and then some people who don't think you should be there (for whatever reason) turn around and get a gang together to push you out of "their" hood through the use of force then they're nothing more than a thuggish gang with no respect for property rights and voluntary association.

If you're a slave who a group of people declares has no rights and you run away and they get a gang together to hunt you down and force you back into slavery then they're nothing more than a thuggish gang with no respect for property rights and voluntary association.

Writing formal laws and pretending these infringements are just because it's the "will of the Nation" doesn't change that.

Here in the USA our Federal Government was created by the Constitution and (theoretically) embodies the concepts of the Declaration of Independence, and it's authority comes from the people of the United States.

While I do have reservations as to the Constitution itself, especially since the original Constitution explicitly legalized slavery, my limited political goals are to elect politicians who will return the Federal Government to a smaller, more Constitutionally limited form.

So it gets it's authority from the sovereignty of individuals. Where do these sovereign individuals get the right to violate the rights of another sovereign individual?

On top of which, it's not a bad thing you have reservations about the Constitution because it hardly restricts government it's not even a legitimate contract. You should be critical of it. Dr. Paul actually recommends people read this essay by Lysander Spooner:



^^ Click

Yes, I know this is naive, but I'm not ready to start shooting yet.

Who said anything about shooting?

You are the one who brought into the discussion the idea of "exterminating particularly "dirty" races and other undesirable elements" so I gather this is some goal of yours.

How does that make sense at all? I was questioning you about the legitimacy of what you called a "national authority", where this authority came from and to what extent it had the right to exercise it's power. I also said slavery laws were an illegitimate exercise in "authority". Do you gather that institutionalized slavery is also a "goal" of mine?

To me it seemed like you were trying to dodge the question.

Again, you have issues because you went from talking about immigration to wondering if I was somehow a racist and wanted to commit genocide.

I am not, but since you introduced the idea I wonder if you are indeed projecting your own views onto me.

How? I didn't say anything about you at all? Can you show me where I did? Can you show me how anything in that post referred to you personally at all?

Would you consider self-identifying with the concept of "National Authority" an "issue"?