Ron Paul Gives Latino Voters Straight Talk, No Pandering.

[Feeding the Abscess]

You don't seem to understand the difference between importing people and people abusing our laws.

With your logic, if someone is driving dangerously fast in a school zone and a cop doesnt pull him over because "the man probably had to go to the restroom."

My example may be a bit ridiculous, but it still is correct on principle. Your justifying ILLEGAL action. Again, it is about principle.

I've never used marijuana before, but just for you, I'm going to go buy some, and then smoke a joint or something. Then I'll sell the rest. Come arrest me, okay? And don't be a wuss and send the stasi. I want you to do it. If you object on the grounds that I should be able to do as I wish with my body and participate in a free market, you're justifying ILLEGAL action.

Principles, dude. Principles.

 

[William R]

Ron is blowing it on this. He should know better than anyone that open borders with a welfare state only grows government. And the last time I looked the welfare state isn't going anywhere. Hospitals and schools are being ruined due to illegal immigration. I suspect he's doing this to show he's not a racist. It is an overreaction to the Newsletters and will hurt him with rank and file conservatives.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron is blowing it on this. He should know better than anyone that open borders with a welfare state only grows government. And the last time I looked the welfare state isn't going anywhere. Hospitals and schools are being ruined due to illegal immigration. I suspect he's doing this to show he's not a racist. It is an overreaction to the Newsletters and will hurt him with rank and file conservatives.

He's been saying this for years, it has nothing to do with the newsletters.

Just as an aside, how do you have free trade and travel with anything but open borders?

 

[No Free Beer]

I've never used marijuana before, but just for you, I'm going to go buy some, and then smoke a joint or something. Then I'll sell the rest. Come arrest me, okay? And don't be a wuss and send the stasi. I want you to do it. If you object on the grounds that I should be able to do as I wish with my body and participate in a free market, you're justifying ILLEGAL action.

Principles, dude. Principles.

Are you a citizen of this country?

 

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Ron is blowing it on this. He should know better than anyone that open borders with a welfare state only grows government. And the last time I looked the welfare state isn't going anywhere. Hospitals and schools are being ruined due to illegal immigration. I suspect he's doing this to show he's not a racist. It is an overreaction to the Newsletters and will hurt him with rank and file conservatives.

I agree completely. I understand he wants to purge the immigrants through the abolition of the welfare state, but desperate times call for desperate measures. The gains in popularity we could achieve by taking a hard stand on the immigration issue could gain us SO MANY democrats, especially those in unions, who routinely complain about how illegals drive down wages.

 

[Southron]

And really, with what our country stands for these days, losing our national identity might be a good thing.

Which national identity do you prefer? Perhaps the Mexican model of government suits you. Immigration has political consequences. Undoubtedly, we will become more like the countries our immigrants are from.

 

[No Free Beer]

I agree completely. I understand he wants to purge the immigrants through the abolition of the welfare state, but desperate times call for desperate measures. The gains in popularity we could achieve by taking a hard stand on the immigration issue could gain us SO MANY democrats, especially those in unions, who routinely complain about how illegals drive down wages.

Exactly.

But it is even bigger than that. We are a nation of laws. John Adams defended the British against the colonists based on LAW and PRINCIPLE.

There are some people on here who are hypocrites because they want our government to stop illegally entering other countries around the world... yet, it is perfectly okay and justified for individuals to invade our land whenever they see fit.

Serial Hypocrisy.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Which national identity do you prefer? Perhaps the Mexican model of government suits you. Immigration has political consequences. Undoubtedly, we will become more like the countries our immigrants are from.

Peace, commerce, friendship - with everyone

Are you a citizen of this country?

Going to answer the question? My citizenship has no bearing on the situation I outlined.

 

[No Free Beer]

Going to answer the question? My citizenship has no bearing on the situation I outlined.[/QUOTE

Sure it does. By you making a decision on whether to smoke a joint or not in your own country, as a citizen, and disobeying laws is one thing.

By you smoking that joint, by disobeying a law, are you breaking the laws of another nation? Are you invading another country/nation?

Your argument with mine is like apples and oranges...

 

[MelissaWV]

If only certain supporters did as good a job of not muddying things, not pandering, and not lumping folks into big easy-to-manage groups (it's easier not to think of individuals and just address a perceived herd).

 

[AuH20]

if you think losing our national identity would be a good thing, then you should probably renounce your citizenship right now and get off the forum. People like you make me cringe.

I think he's referring to the corporate dominated, consumer based culture which has basically buried any knowledge of American heritage and civics. But even with all that said, do you really want to move to the alternative? Evo Morales of Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador & Hugo Chavez of Venezuela are heroes in Latin America and personify a rising tide of discontent which is moving into our nation. As bad as our government is, I do not want those type of poisonous ideas implemented here.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The big problem with using the army to keep people out is that in a SHTF situation, they can be used to keep people in. Ideally, people who own border land should keep people out. (they want to here in southern AZ ranches and other property owners, but the law makes it difficult) National Guard is the next best solution. Any org that's only accountable to the Feds or completely unaccountable is more than likely a very bad idea.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Sure it does. By you making a decision on whether to smoke a joint or not in your own country, as a citizen, and disobeying laws is one thing.

By you smoking that joint, by disobeying a law, are you breaking the laws of another nation? Are you invading another country/nation?

You realize that Ron Paul advocates civil disobedience right?

What is the law? When is the law unjust?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

What is the result of unjust law?

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

this would be good supplementary material:



http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html

 

[No Free Beer]

You realize that Ron Paul advocates civil disobedience right?

You do realize that there is a difference between being a citizen of this country and being a foreigner INVADING this land?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

You do realize that there is a difference between being a legitimate citizen of this country Plantation Owner and being a foreigner INVADING a Negro Slave in this land?

Good thing the government gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

And if you want to talk about omg INVASION, you should look into what government does concerning our rights, which is actually a form of invasion unlike those individuals who peacefully come to "this land" to support themselves and voluntarily work with other people.

I'd recommend reading those links, they really aren't all that long.

 

[The Free Hornet]

P.S. I can remember being at rallies that favored upholding the constitution and the immigration laws. There would often be an opposing group. I would try to explain to them if they really cared about the illegal immigrants they would come over to our side. I don't know if I've ever really had any takers.

Could you elaborate? If someone has been here years and may not even speak Spanish, what side do you expect them to take? Part of 'our side' is that some immigration laws ought be modified to fix problems caused by the law not being enforced. Not to mention the perverse and unconstitional laws that encouraged some - but not all - to come here?

 

[RiseAgainst]

LOL @ national socialists, always outing themselves when brown people come up.

 

[AuH20]

LOL @ national socialists, always outing themselves when brown people come up.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

and that is different than this how? (probably NSFW, and I'm linking because I don't know how appropriate actually posting it would be, but it seems pretty similar to the one above to me...)

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/racist-comic.jpg

 

[Zippyjuan]

Is there a "crisis" of illegal immigration? The total estimated number of those here illegally has actually been falling for the last two years- it has recently flattened out.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/02/nation/la-na-pew-immigration-20110202

The number of illegal immigrants living in the United States was virtually unchanged last year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. The annual report found 11.2 million living in the U.S., versus 11.1 million in 2009.


February 02, 2011|By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times


After two years of declines, the number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. was virtually unchanged last year, according to a report released Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center.

The annual report, relied upon by both sides in the contentious immigration debate, found 11.2 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., statistically identical to the 11.1 million estimated in 2009. The number peaked in 2007 at 12 million and dropped steadily as the economy collapsed.

The stabilization seems to stem largely from a dwindling number of people making the often perilous journey into the U.S. from Mexico.

"People in Mexico look at the U.S. economy, they look at the U.S. as a potential source of employment, and they see that the opportunities aren't here," Passel said. "They weigh that against the cost of hiring somebody to get them across the border and the risks of getting across the border."

Employment (not benefits) is the primary draw for most of them and when the economy tanked in 2008 the numbers dropped. When the economy picks up those numbers will probably start to rise again.

As for fortifying the border, some 40% of those here illegally came here on a legal basis and overstayed- student, work, tourist or other visas. A more fortified border has no impact on those numbers.

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/alm...-s-legally-but-overstayed-visas-senators-say/

Almost half of all illegal aliens in the United States entered legally and then remained here after their visas expired, but the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) ability to track immigrants who stay past their visa expiration date is severely limited, according to a new report released by Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME).

The Senators cited a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed 40-45 percent of the estimated total population of illegal aliens — 4 to 5 million people – stayed past their visa expiration dates. But DHS’ U.S. VISIT program – which is supposed to identify people who overstay their visas by comparing entry and exit information – cannot keep up with the number of potential overstays it identifies by matching entry and exit records.

In fact, US-VISIT processes less than half of the potential overstays it identifies, and GAO found that the program has a backlog of 1.6 million potential overstay records. Once a potential overstay has been identified, the information is provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which devotes just 3 percent of its investigative man-hours to tracking down immigrants whose visas have expired.

But I suppose we could build a bigger government bureaucracy to keep track of everybody in the country (legally and illegally so we know who is or isn't here legit) and check the papers on everyone and expell anyone who can't prove they belong here. And hire more military and police for the Department of Homeland Security to guard the borders and patrol our cities to procect us from these illegals. The Patriot Act probably allows that. Of course we would also have to raise your taxes to pay for this too. Papers please!