Ron Paul Gives Latino Voters Straight Talk, No Pandering.

[Enforcer]

It's not like you can have a law for every FACT SITUATION (never heard the phrase).

Your examples are like a Japanese tourist caught stealing bread whose defense is "I only had YEN, and since there is NO MECHANISM by which a Japanese tourist can purchase bread with YEN, I had to steal some."

The fact of the matter is there are immigration laws. Immigrants who break them know it and know the risks.

The "risks" for an improper entry are a maximum $250 CIVIL FINE and deportation.

The visa system does have classes to fit people based upon who they are and why they want to come here. I used the term FACT SITUATION because that is what it amounts to. If you have a better term to describe why each visa fits a certain people / category, by all means correct me and I will use it.

The reality is that no visa exists that addresses the reasons and the people who enter the United States without papers, but for a legitimate purpose. It has always been questionable whether any law applies since we demand that people do something "properly," but fail to provide that "proper" mechanism.

You are acting like a dullard, much like the people that won't confine themselves to answering my simple questions. That is, most likely, because the answers are self evident. The immigration laws are unconstitutional because they are not uniform. The United States Supreme Court once opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

BTW, for you to claim to be a "teacher," your analogy sucks the big suck. A person goes to the bank and exchanges yen for dollars. There is a solution. If a foreigner wants to be a Guest Worker because an American offered them a job, there is no mechanism. Do you think that the people on this forum are stupid OR did you not know that?

The only "legal" way in (since you are too juvenile to understand the accurate legal term PROPER) for some people is to lie to the immigration authorities when all they want to do is exercise their Liberties. So, what you are advocating is to FORCE people to LIE to the immigration authorities in order to become citizens of a nation they do not want to be a citizen of? Are you effing kidding me?

 

[teacherone]

The only "legal" way in (since you are too juvenile to understand the accurate legal term PROPER) for some people is to lie to the immigration authorities when all they want to do is exercise their Liberties. So, what you are advocating is to FORCE people to LIE to the immigration authorities in order to become citizens of a nation they do not want to be a citizen of? Are you effing kidding me?

But this is incorrect.

http://www.h1base.com/content/h2bvisa

 

[Enforcer]

But this is incorrect.

http://www.h1base.com/content/h2bvisa

You obviously did not read the link you gave. Let me give you a relevant portion:

"...the H2B visa is that it requires 'labor certification' - an expensive and time consuming process that involves extensive advertising of the position, and satisfying the authorities that there are no US workers available to do the job.

That link also agrees with what I have told you in other posts. The H2B visa is capped at 66,000 per year. teacherone, I have a question:

Presupposing that there are still 12 Million people in the United States without papers and another TWO million entering annually, what percentage of those already here would ever qualify for the H2B visa? What percentage of the TWO million entering each year would be admitted properly?

You're the teacher here. So I will play student. If an employer is forced to go through a cumbersome and time consuming process to "prove" there are no qualified U.S. workers, then it must mean that employer does not own the jobs since they cannot give them to the person of their choice. Isn't it true that when the jobs are owned by the people (i.e. under government control) that constitutes socialism? Isn't ownership of production and labor by the government the very essence of socialism?

In order to keep the foreigners out and stifle business, you are telling us it is okay to create an expensive and time consuming process in order to deny to both the employer and the potential foreign employee their unalienable Rights?

Since the 14th Amendment guarantees ALL PERSONS (as differentiated from citizens) the equal protection of the laws, if we can make the process of discriminating against H2B workers expensive, difficult and numerically very minimal, will you argue for doing the same thing for ALL visas?

In a free market society / constitutional Republic, shouldn't the standard for the worker be that they have a job offer by a willing employer and proof that they will not become a public charge?

On what constitutional basis can you deny to the foreigner the equal protection of the laws?

On what constitutional basis can you tell an employer that you will make their life a living Hell if they prefer a foreign worker?

If you can dictate to the employer who they can and cannot hire, what are some of the other things you would advocate forcing an employer to do? Would you also dictate a gender based hiring quota? How about a race based quota?

 

[teacherone]

You obviously did not read the link you gave. Let me give you a relevant portion:

"...the H2B visa is that it requires 'labor certification' - an expensive and time consuming process that involves extensive advertising of the position, and satisfying the authorities that there are no US workers available to do the job.

That link also agrees with what I have told you in other posts. The H2B visa is capped at 66,000 per year. teacherone, I have a question:

You've already agreed in this thread that the US Government has the right to regulate immigration. I gave you an example of that regulation. There are a number of VISAs that immigrant workers can apply for.

Some are accepted and some denied. That's regulation.

If you are arguing against the US's ability to regulate immigration then, as other posters have said previously, you are arguing for open borders and the end of the nation state.

This is fine by me - just set your premises. An end to the Welfare-Warfare state is an interesting topic as well.

 

[WilliamC]

WilliamC,

Each of your concerns has been answered honestly and intelligently. You've chosen to attempt to change words and sentences around and dodge every honest inquiry made to you. You accuse others of "hiding" something while you have not given a straight answer even ONCE. Some of your questions give away a hidden agenda. For instance, asking me the government should have a role in who the employer hires.

This issue is plain and simple:

There have been as many as 12 million people without papers in the United States. According to the chief actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, upwards of 75 per cent of those in the United States have Taxpayer Identification Numbers and pay the same unconstitutional taxes as the half of taxpaying American citizens. Per capita, they are more likely to pay taxes than their American counterparts.

Obviously, with that level of compliance to an unconstitutional tax, the average undocumented person is here for a legitimate purpose. A real "crime" presumes that a person is out to do you harm. Ayn Rand once wrote something applicable to this:

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws".

When it comes to tyranny, you are advocating the very thing Ayn Rand was writing about. For whatever reason, you do not want some human beings to be able to exercise the Right to Liberty. Maybe you feel that reason is just, but you sure as Hell do not want to share it with us. I'm not B.S.ing you one bit pal. My dog in the fight is that each of these laws that have been designed to create human registration papers for the foreigners and screw with them have been applied to the citizenry of the U.S. to the point that we now live in a Socialist cesspool and there is still no end to the bigger and more intrusive government that anti - immigrants demand.

I do not know why some employers choose foreigners over Americans (except they will work harder for less and be more productive.) Some employers work people through temporary agencies and avoid having to put out money for insurance and 401k expenditures. I think the practice is deplorable, but that's their Right. If the jobs belong to the people, then we do not have a Right of ownership in the U.S. That, sir, is the essence of socialism. It's a point you artfully dodge.

Nothing has changed the bottom line in this worthless debate with you. If 75 percent of the people without human registration papers are paying taxes that even you probably do not pay, they are not here with a criminal intent. Furthermore, after six years of doing immigration work, if a "proper" method existed, you and I would not be having this discussion. The visa system, which is half a century old, has not kept pace with the situations that happen. If you deny to an employer his Right to hire whomever they choose, you have betrayed the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment... which guarantees the "equal protection of the laws."

Go ahead and put me on your ignore list. That way I can comment on your threads without having this long, drawn out discussion where I give honest answers and you sling a lot sh!+.

Look, when I hit the 'reply with quote' none of those red-lettered comments you make which insult me even show up, so I can't respond to them. I'm not interested in talking to someone who won't be bothered to put their comments in a post that I can in turn respond to. It defeats my goal of reaching mutual understanding.

If you aren't interested in having me respond to your posts, then I won't waste my time doing so. You are welcome to whatever opinions of me you may care to form based on this, indeed the detail of those opinions says much about your worldviews.

 

[WilliamC]

I understand where you're coming from, and to an extent I agree that the government has caused a lot of problems that don't help with the illegal immigration situation. But I find those laws unjust, and I think they're the least of the USG's problems, so I might as well argue for what I understand is right.

It seems we just have slightly different priorities on how to shrink the size of governments so that these problems can be dealt with in a more peaceful, rational fashion, that's all.

But as long as governments exist and operate over defined geographical areas there will be borders and laws pertaining to who can come and go across these borders, who can reside, live, and work within them. Otherwise the government would cease to exist as individuals in said geographical area would not have any reason to believe themselves accountable to the local law.

I just can't support anarchy until such time as we humans evolve since I always see anarchy as an unstable situation which will collapse into a de facto government in short order.

 

[Enforcer]

You've already agreed in this thread that the US Government has the right to regulate immigration. I gave you an example of that regulation. There are a number of VISAs that immigrant workers can apply for.

Some are accepted and some denied. That's regulation.

If you are arguing against the US's ability to regulate immigration then, as other posters have said previously, you are arguing for open borders and the end of the nation state.

This is fine by me - just set your premises. An end to the Welfare-Warfare state is an interesting topic as well.

IF the visa system does not address FACT SITUATIONS, it does not address the issue and the government, by default, does not regulate immigration. Does the federal government have the authority to regulate immigration? YES. Do they HAVE to regulate immigration? NO.

When the visa system is designed to be too costly and too cumbersome to comply with AND the numbers do not address the actual need PLUS those regulations end in discriminatory practices for the employer, both the employer and the foreigner can legally ignore the laws... At least that is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court.

We've had "open borders" since before the colonists arrived. No sir, I do not like your womb to the tomb surveillance strategies, the National ID / REAL ID Act, the so - called "Patriot Act," warrant less searches, the assault on private property Rights, the repeal of innocent until proven guilty, the crackdown on the Miranda Warnings and this incessant B.S. of calling people "illegal" any freaking thing absent Due Process. No sir, I do not want to rebuild the Berlin Wall along the southern half of America and maintain a TRILLION DOLLAR agency to oppress American employers who had rather ship jobs overseas than to comply with idiotic laws that are designed for no other reason than to keep the Hispanics out of the U.S.

In order for immigration regulations to meet constitutional muster, they must treat all classes of people equally when they want to enter the United States for a legitimate purpose. When you deny to the employer the ability to hire whomever they choose, it is patently unconstitutional. PERIOD. Now then, I have answered your questions, now answer mine.

 

[Enforcer]

Look, when I hit the 'reply with quote' none of those red-lettered comments you make which insult me even show up, so I can't respond to them. I'm not interested in talking to someone who won't be bothered to put their comments in a post that I can in turn respond to. It defeats my goal of reaching mutual understanding.

If you aren't interested in having me respond to your posts, then I won't waste my time doing so. You are welcome to whatever opinions of me you may care to form based on this, indeed the detail of those opinions says much about your worldviews.

Of course you can respond to my questions. Cut and paste the relevant sections. This constant point / counterpoint repeated over and over makes the thread too long and people are not going to read the same post fifty times.

I counter your arguments. You reply quoting what was already said. I counter and put all the previous discussion into the post. Adding insult to injury, you post stuff over and over that has already been addressed and / or is non-responsive. That ends up in the next post and so on and so on. IF we played this game your way, one response would be in excess of fifty paragraphs with every fourth posting I did.

 

[teacherone]

IF the visa system does not address FACT SITUATIONS, it does not address the issue and the government, by default, does not regulate immigration. Does the federal government have the authority to regulate immigration? YES. Do they HAVE to regulate immigration? NO.

When the visa system is designed to be too costly and too cumbersome to comply with AND the numbers do not address the actual need PLUS those regulations end in discriminatory practices for the employer, both the employer and the foreigner can legally ignore the laws... At least that is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court.

We've had "open borders" since before the colonists arrived. No sir, I do not like your womb to the tomb surveillance strategies, the National ID / REAL ID Act, the so - called "Patriot Act," warrant less searches, the assault on private property Rights, the repeal of innocent until proven guilty, the crackdown on the Miranda Warnings and this incessant B.S. of calling people "illegal" any freaking thing absent Due Process. No sir, I do not want to rebuild the Berlin Wall along the southern half of America and maintain a TRILLION DOLLAR agency to oppress American employers who had rather ship jobs overseas than to comply with idiotic laws that are designed for no other reason than to keep the Hispanics out of the U.S.

In order for immigration regulations to meet constitutional muster, they must treat all classes of people equally when they want to enter the United States for a legitimate purpose. When you deny to the employer the ability to hire whomever they choose, it is patently unconstitutional. PERIOD. Now then, I have answered your questions, now answer mine.

I'm not sure if you've realized this, bur your arguments are exactly the same as any open border anarchist.

This is fine by me - your world-view is based on natural rights and that any two people have the inaliable right to enter into any contract of their own choosing.

Cool. No problem. Fine with me. There are plenty more like yourself on this forum.

I'm not sure why you insist on bringing in the Constitution into your arguments - you don't need the Constitution to achieve your goals - just an absence of a National Government and a free people.

This is of course not what Ron Paul represents - but I welcome your support none the less.

Be sure to donate in the upcoming moneybomb!

 

[nbhadja]

America deserves the flood of illegal immigrants. How about America stops suppressing 3rd world countries by using the CIA to set up puppet corporatist governments that whore the people out to Western Corporations at slavery like wages. That is what causes people to want to leave their countries like Mexico.

If Mexico ever had a revolution and got a government that kicked out the central bankers, the imperialists western corporations who currently write the laws in Mexico than the US government would bomb Mexico to pieces.

 

[Enforcer]

I'm not sure if you've realized this, bur your arguments are exactly the same as any open border anarchist.

This is fine by me - your world-view is based on natural rights and that any two people have the inaliable right to enter into any contract of their own choosing.

Cool. No problem. Fine with me. There are plenty more like yourself on this forum.

I'm not sure why you insist on bringing in the Constitution into your arguments - you don't need the Constitution to achieve your goals - just an absence of a National Government and a free people.

This is of course not what Ron Paul represents - but I welcome your support none the less.

Be sure to donate in the upcoming moneybomb!

You like to sound suave and educated, but you are highly misinformed. I am not for inalienable Rights; I am a supporter of unalienable Rights.

Unalienable Rights are rooted in the Declaration of Independence. And, according to Thomas Jefferson (the man that authored the Declaration of Independence):

"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, May 12, 1821

Jefferson drew heavily on John Locke for his philosophies and critics even argue that Jefferson plagiarized their work - which he did not, he only expounded on it. Locke was a prolific believer in Natural Rights.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson)

Letter to Justice William Johnson, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
So, your claim is that this is not what Ron Paul represents. Please do elaborate.

 

[teacherone]

So, your claim is that this is not what Ron Paul represents. Please do elaborate.

Not sure why you're so antagonistic. Like I said, there are many other open border anarchists against the Nation State here on the forums - that's fine and dandy, just not what Ron Paul represents.

Instead of going on and on about fact situations, just admit that you are against the Nation of the US erecting and maintaining borders and regulating their crossing.

I appreciate any one who supports Ron Paul, Minarchists, Anarchist, Libertarians... etc.

Welcome to the forums Enforcer.

 

[Enforcer]

Not sure why you're so antagonistic. Like I said, there are many other open border anarchists against the Nation State here on the forums - that's fine and dandy, just not what Ron Paul represents.

Instead of going on and on about fact situations, just admit that you are against the Nation of the US erecting and maintaining borders and regulating their crossing.

I appreciate any one who supports Ron Paul, Minarchists, Anarchist, Libertarians... etc.

Welcome to the forums Enforcer.

I am antagonistic because you asked me questions and I answered them forthrightly and honestly. You then inferred that I had some other agenda. I asked honest questions of you. You choose to ignore them as if you have a monopoly on the truth.

We already have borders. The one with Mexico was established in about 1848 (if my memory serves me right) in a treaty. Militarizing the border at the cost of jeopardizing our own constitutional Liberties is an idiotic show that I'm not willing get involved in. Benjamin Franklin once said:

"He who would trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety."

You've changed your tune from Ron Paul does not believe in Natural Rights to Ron Paul wants some kind of militarized border with a plan to maintain the status quo regarding immigration. According to one website:

"Paul believes that illegal immigrants should not be given an "unfair advantage" under law.[329] He has advocated for a "coherent immigration policy..."

Well now, even Ron Paul is a politician and can appease everyone sometimes. Ron Paul understands that undocumented workers are NOT illegal aliens as there no federal law that makes presence NOR entry a crime. Those who over-stay a visa or enter into fraudulent schemes to come / stay in the United States are committing crimes, so Ron Paul is addressing them, while maintaining a policy consistent with what I've told you throughout this thread. Ron Paul acknowledges that we need a "coherent immigration policy."

So, Ron Paul can tell you what you want to hear and he can tell me what I want to hear, but at the end of the day, you have not proven precisely what Ron Paul advocates. The fact is, you have failed as your self described role as "teacherone" to teach me a flipping thing.