Ron Paul Gives Latino Voters Straight Talk, No Pandering.

[WilliamC]

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.

I don't quite agree. The United States Federal Government has the authority to regulate those who come and go across our borders, that is the borders of the United States with other countries, and not within our borders, that is between States.

Since for the contiguous 48 States the only foreign countries that the United States has land borders with is Mexico and Canada, then the above premise implies that the United States Federal Government has the authority to regulate those individuals who come and go between Mexico and the United States, and between Canada and the United States.

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 so it should be so. But unfortunately today the United States Federal Government, through it's flawed domestic and foreign policies, has created conditions along the border that are no longer peaceful. Thus they have created a 'need' for more stringent border control and for identifying those criminals who congregate along the U.S. Mexico border.

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.

I have repeatedly stated that until the flawed domestic and foreign policies of the United States Federal Government are addressed and rectified, then there is no peaceful solution to be had, including your idea of a guest worker program, which the United States already has.

Personally I have worked with many many foreign nationals from all over the world, and they all followed legal guest worker programs to get their visas.

But not all individuals entering the USA are looking for legitimate work are they?

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.

Imagine that, the United States Federal Government is f@%ked up.

Why am I not surprised?

What part of that do you not understand?

I am not arguing that the United States Federal Government has a rational immigration policy.

What part of that do you not understand?

But you seem to agree that the United States Federal Government does have the legitimate authority to set immigration policies, or am I wrong about that?

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!

Again, why am I not surprised that the United States Federal Government has flawed immigration policies?

They do.

They also have flawed domestic and foreign policies that create circumstances that criminalize the US Mexico border in particular.

Do you disagree with this?

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?

I don't know where you're from but here in Mississippi I just need to go to my local State Troopers office and they will be kind enough to take care of my request for a concealed carry permit. So I don't follow your analogy.

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.

Of the dozens of foreign nationals I worked with over the years all had followed the requisite legal mumbo-jumbo to be in the United States so I don't follow your argument.

There are those who wish to avoid legal entry into the USA for nefarious purposes as well, and while the policy shouldn't be to treat all people this way (which it is incidentally but that's a different discussion) neither should it ignore this fact.

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?

Now you are losing me. How is this related to immigration policy?

You have digressed to conflating.

I reiterate, Government is incompetent.

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?

Oh I think you are doing better, but it isn't the minutia I'm interested in so much as understanding your world view.

Carry on.

 

[jmdrake]

National Guard...

You mean after first giving the full control of the Guard back to the states?

 

[WilliamC]

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.

Immigration is not equal to slavery, so your strikeout/replace alteration of my words is not conducive to rational, clear communication.

If you want to state that you believe immigration and slavery to be equal then make the case, don't try and conflate the two and make me look like I am arguing for slavery.

That is dishonest.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Immigration is not equal to slavery, so your strikeout/replace alteration of my words is not conducive to rational, clear communication.

If you want to state that you believe immigration and slavery to be equal then make the case, don't try and conflate the two and make me look like I am arguing for slavery.

That is dishonest.

Did you even read my last post?

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.

You've been attempting to attack my character in order to discredit me and avoid my arguments and I'm the dishonest one?

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

This is Statist propaganda written purely by the victors.

Seriously, anarchists, please try to bear with me. Do you seriously think exposing the war crimes of Imperial Japan and criticizing their action is statist? I'm beginning to think many of the anarchsits on this forum aren't even Anarcho-Capitalists, at least AnCaps generally have a good approval of Western Civilization & Western values. But some of you are starting to act like AnSocs or brick-throwing AnCommies. No offense.

Japan was doing the same thing everyone else was at that time. Did they commit rape and murder during their war path, sure. So did the US when it invaded the Philippines in 1908. Don't believe me, go there and check out the museums. "Comfort Women" might have been a Japanese custom, but it was started by the Americans there. What they have now is a market of Prostitution that caters directly to western and foreign visitors. It's the same way in every country that Japan invaded, "Comfort Women" were already there. It's just that culturally the Japanese are were far more open about it.

Rape and murder occurs within every war. However this isn't what we are talking about. State-backed Japanese prostitution rings were commonplace, torture happened to war prisoners. No Geneva convention. No habeas Corpus. No just war theory. Let me bring up something such as the Nanking Massacre:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html


"NANKING MASSACRE (December, 1937)

Known historically as the 'Rape of Nanking'. In 1937 (the real start of World War II) the Chinese capital (Nanking, now Nanjing) had a population of just over one million, including over 100,000 refugees. On December 13, the city fell to the invading Japanese troops. For the next six weeks the soldiers indulged in an orgy of indiscriminate killing, rape and looting. They shot at everyone on sight, whether out on the streets or peeking out of windows. The streets were soon littered with corpses, on one street a survivor counted 500 bodies. Girls as young as twelve, and women of all ages were raped by gangs of 15 or 20 soldiers, crazed by alcohol, who roamed the town in search of women. At the Jingling Women's University, students were carted away in trucks to work in Japanese army brothels. Over a thousand men were rounded up and marched to the banks of the Yangtze river where they were lined up and gunned to death to give practice in machine-gun traversing fire. Thousands of captured Chinese soldiers, many wounded, were simillary murdered. In the following six weeks, the Nanking Red Cross units alone, buried around 43,000 bodies. About 20,000 women and girls had been raped, most were then murdered. Over one hundred girls of the Ginling Girls School were raped. Department stores, shops, churches and houses were set on fire while drunken soldiers indulged in wholesale looting and bayoneting of Chinese civilians for sport. It is estimated that over 150,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers were killed in this, the most infamous atrocity committed by the Japanese army. Many had been shot in the back as they fled the city. In charge of the troops during this time was General Iwane Matsui. At the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Matsui was found guilty of a war crime unrelated to Nanking and sentenced to death. He was hanged in 1948. After the war, China tried about 800 persons for war crimes including those responsible for the Nanking and Shanghai massacres. The death penalty was given to 149 defendants. (It is known that one of the commanders during the atrocity was Prince Asaka, an uncle of Emperor Hirohito, but none of the Emperor's family was ever tried for war crimes).

American business man and Nazi Party member, John Rabe, who worked for Siemens in Nanking, became a hero to the Chinese when he established a seven square mile Safety Zone in the western side of the city to help protect civilians from the rampaging Japanese. Showing his Swastika armband and huge Nazi flags that adorned important buildings, the Japanese troops were reluctant to enter the zone. Known as the 'Good Nazi' he is reported to have saved the lives of over 200,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers. John Rabe died of a stroke in 1950 in Germany.

There's no such thing as a "Chinaman" either. China has over 20 distinctive cultures.

Freudian admission that you recognize there's distinct cultures, histories, and languages between people? Somewhat of a collectivist statement, no?

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

Why do you think that's the case?

Please name one other pre-Randian philosopher that believes in the strict individualism that people in this thread are espousing.

This is a lengthy discussion outside the scope of this thread that I don't want to get into here, but humans have been stateless for the vast majority of their existence. Iceland existed with a stateless legal order longer than the US has been around. And everything you mentioned has been addressed many times over, it just shows that you need to look for the answers to those questions rather than making assumptions.

Again, the statelessness of humanity is hardly anything to gloat about. When people think of ancient civilizations they think of Greece, Rome, & Persia for a reason. They were organized societies with governments with a logical structure to them. Such as the Republican Roman Empire or Democratic Greece. Iceland has been stateless or at least primitivist for a while, but they had a population that numbered in the thousands and didn't accomplish anything close to what America has accomplished. Granted, their population was lower so this was expected. However if their population size were increased along with their relevance, I could see a conquest easily happen.

Those are the things that people use to define themselves and each other and their relationships. They're not objective entities. They're concepts that are subjective to the individuals imagining them. When you think "I'm an American" and someone else think's "I'm an American" they have a different concept for what "American" is in their head. It's just shorthand for organizing individuals in your brain. There is no objective "National Identity". When you say the "National Identity" gets fuzzy that's all in your head.

The vast majority in the world would recognize one as an American. They see our common heritage, culture, language, military, government, law, traditions, etc.. I would like to see how many different definitions of an American there are, because I've only heard a few, all closely related to each other. This blurryness over who or who isn't an American simply doesn't exist in our world. Otherwise we would have Iraqis randomly claiming to be American, or Canadians claiming to be apart of the United States due to our cultural similarities. But that doesn't happen whatsoever. Making a distinction between people, such as an American and a Congolese man makes perfect sense. You're keeping their culture, legal system, government and history in mind. Even Science will say humans naturally put themselves into groups, which one can see evidence for just by looking at a map of nations or religions. Which proves that nationalism does in fact exist within nature.

And limiting our immigration policy due to things like culture, tension, religion, racism, and politics make perfect sense, not only is this common sense but it's also a science. Otherwise you could be opening up America to racism, ethnic tension, a largely ignorant/foreign voting class that will elect Liberal Democrats or Moderate Republicans. But again, this violates the vague, mystical NAP and made-up property rights , so let's just forget it.

 

[Enforcer]

I don't quite agree. The United States Federal Government has the authority to regulate those who come and go across our borders, that is the borders of the United States with other countries, and not within our borders, that is between States.

OMG You are trying to be anal retentive. The federal government gets to man the borders. Drop it and move on.

Since for the contiguous 48 States the only foreign countries that the United States has land borders with is Mexico and Canada, then the above premise implies that the United States Federal Government has the authority to regulate those individuals who come and go between Mexico and the United States, and between Canada and the United States.



And so it should be so. But unfortunately today the United States Federal Government, through it's flawed domestic and foreign policies, has created conditions along the border that are no longer peaceful. Thus they have created a 'need' for more stringent border control and for identifying those criminals who congregate along the U.S. Mexico border.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt

I have repeatedly stated that until the flawed domestic and foreign policies of the United States Federal Government are addressed and rectified, then there is no peaceful solution to be had, including your idea of a guest worker program, which the United States already has.

We do NOT have a Guest Worker program.

Personally I have worked with many many foreign nationals from all over the world, and they all followed legal guest worker programs to get their visas.

That is a LIE.

But not all individuals entering the USA are looking for legitimate work are they?

Well, the Socialist Security Administration says that 75 percent of those who entered without papers have a Taxpayer Identification Number and DO pay the taxes, others use fudged numbers, I have to wonder of those what percentage of those who work and pay the unconstitutional income tax compare to the few you obsess over?



Imagine that, the United States Federal Government is f@%ked up.

Why am I not surprised?



I am not arguing that the United States Federal Government has a rational immigration policy.

What part of that do you not understand?

But you seem to agree that the United States Federal Government does have the legitimate authority to set immigration policies, or am I wrong about that?

Asked and answered on numerous occasions. Read the freaking posts.


Again, why am I not surprised that the United States Federal Government has flawed immigration policies?

They do.

They also have flawed domestic and foreign policies that create circumstances that criminalize the US Mexico border in particular.

Do you disagree with this?

I do not agree in any way, shape, fashion or form.



I don't know where you're from but here in Mississippi I just need to go to my local State Troopers office and they will be kind enough to take care of my request for a concealed carry permit. So I don't follow your analogy.

Pretend to have an imagination and that suddenly were not true. If you went to get that permit, but nobody issued one because they never heard of it, what would you do then, Einstein?



Of the dozens of foreign nationals I worked with over the years all had followed the requisite legal mumbo-jumbo to be in the United States so I don't follow your argument.

There are those who wish to avoid legal entry into the USA for nefarious purposes as well, and while the policy shouldn't be to treat all people this way (which it is incidentally but that's a different discussion) neither should it ignore this fact.



Now you are losing me. How is this related to immigration policy?

My analogy was relative to IMPROPER actions. You did READ the post, didn't you? No, I don't think so. The example was one of an IMPROPER ACTION. THAT is the common denominator in the equation... IMPROPER that is.

You have digressed to conflating.

And you have devolved into making crap up to hide the fact that you cannot read.

I reiterate, Government is incompetent.



Oh I think you are doing better, but it isn't the minutia I'm interested in so much as understanding your world view.

Carry on.

WilliamC,

I worked in immigration law for six years. You are blowing smoke up folks arse with your claims. So, to prove the point, here's the challenge:

PRETEND you are the employer and own a restaurant. It's mid June. You want twelve Mexicans and have contacts in Mexico. The people want to come here to work, but have no American relatives; they do not want to become citizens; they do not want to go to school; the job is not agricultural or seasonal. It will last for an unknown amount of time. WHAT visa applies to that FACT SITUATION?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Please name one other pre-Randian philosopher that believes in the strict individualism that people in this thread are espousing.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism

Again, the statelessness of humanity is hardly anything to gloat about. When people think of ancient civilizations they think of Greece, Rome, & Persia for a reason. They were organized societies with governments with a logical structure to them. Such as the Republican Roman Empire or Democratic Greece. Iceland has been stateless or at least primitivist for a while, but they had a population that numbered in the thousands and didn't accomplish anything close to what America has accomplished. Granted, their population was lower so this was expected. However if their population size were increased along with their relevance, I could see a conquest easily happen.

Except the argument I was responding to was:

The fact is history has shown us that state-less societies never last that long.

Which is false. Now you're trying to argue that the state "civilizes" people and brings people out of a primitive life and into prosperity, which is also false. Property rights, production of wealth, peaceful trade and voluntary association is what generates prosperity and a civil society.

The vast majority in the world would recognize one as an American. They see our common heritage, culture, language, military, government, law, traditions, etc.. I would like to see how many different definitions of an American there are, because I've only heard a few, all closely related to each other. This blurryness over who or who isn't an American simply doesn't exist in our world.Otherwise we would have Iraqis randomly claiming to be American, or Canadians claiming to be apart of the United States due to our cultural similarities. But that doesn't happen whatsoever. Making a distinction between people, such as an American and a Congolese man makes perfect sense. You're keeping their culture, legal system, government and history in mind. Even Science will say humans naturally put themselves into groups, which one can see evidence for just by looking at a map of nations or religions. Which proves that nationalism does in fact exist within nature.

And limiting our immigration policy due to things like culture, tension, religion, racism, and politics make perfect sense, not only is this common sense but it's also a science. Otherwise you could be opening up America to racism, ethnic tension, a largely ignorant/foreign voting class that will elect Liberal Democrats or Moderate Republicans. But again, this violates the vague, mystical NAP and made-up property rights , so let's just forget it.

You obviously don't seem to grasp what I've been talking about. Picture a giraffe. That is a concept in you mind. It doesn't exist outside your mind. There are actual, living, biological creatures which are similar to the picture in your mind which do exist. When you see one, you compare it's features to the concept you hold and say that physical object (living physical biological organism) is a Giraffe (name for the concept you hold which allows you to classify individual, real-world animals, as giraffes).

Now get this. When I say this to someone else: "Picture a giraffe." They aren't thinking of the exact same thing you were, they have their own picture in their mind of what a giraffe is. They are probably thinking of something close to what you were, and they would likely agree with you that an animal you call a giraffe is a giraffe as well.

I never said anything about "blurryness over who or who isn't an American". I said they were nothing more than concepts and labels. I said that when you group real individuals together it's just a concept in your mind and that they aren't sentient, acting entities in the real world. It's just a way of organizing and compressing information in your head in a way that you can comprehend in an attempt to process information in a world too complex for humans to understand.

When you say "The Americans voted in Barack Obama as President", you lose information about individual actors and it can cause some pretty bad distortions.

Did "we", as part of the (conceptual non-acting) group "The Americans", vote in Barack Obama as president?

Did "we" as part of the group (American) Ron Paul supporters, vote for Barack Obama as president?

Did you, as a (real, acting, sentient) individual, vote for Barack Obama as President?

 

[WilliamC]

WilliamC,

I worked in immigration law for six years. You are blowing smoke up folks arse with your claims. So, to prove the point, here's the challenge:

PRETEND you are the employer and own a restaurant. It's mid June. You want twelve Mexicans and have contacts in Mexico. The people want to come here to work, but have no American relatives; they do not want to become citizens; they do not want to go to school; the job is not agricultural or seasonal. It will last for an unknown amount of time. WHAT visa applies to that FACT SITUATION?

I'm not going to try and bother parsing out the quotes you made inside of my quote, but you sure are belligerent to those who are simply trying to understand where you are coming from.

I don't care where you worked I'm not blowing smoke up your ass, the folks I worked with from foreign countries all had visas and went through whatever legal hoops they had to go through to get to the USA. Call it what you want, believe it or not, they had visa's and several of them went on to become legal US residents and even US citizens, so yes there are legal immigration routes currently in place for foreign citizens.

You seem to have a beef with the USA's immigration policy with Mexico, since that is the specific example you use. I can't help the fact that the USA has an irrational immigration policy and have repeatedly stated that both foreign and domestic policy needs to change before it is possible for the USA to have a rational immigration policy. You also ignore the crime on the border and the additional burdens it creates with respect to immigration policy.

Why you want 12 Mexicans, as opposed to 12 employees, I don't know, but I'm not going to fall for your baiting; I am not arguing against Mexicans.

In your hypothetical scenario, I would want 12 employees, damned if I care what Nationality they are, I just want them to be great employees so that I can run a great restaurant and make lot's of money.

In your hypothetical situation the restaurant manager should put out help wanted adds and first try to hire locally, then perhaps contact the city/county governments to see if they have leads for employees, then perhaps the State government if that doesn't work.

I don't think that the Federal Government should be involved in helping restaurant owners find employees at all.

As for citizens of any foreign country wishing to come to the USA for any employment, now that I could see being managed by the Federal Government simply to vet the individuals for legal entry into the USA, but as for as actual job placement I don't think the Federal Government should be doing that.

 

[WilliamC]

Did you even read my last post?

After my second quote in your post, where you strike out my word immigration and next to it put slavery, I sort of stopped reading.

See, you are trying to make it appear as if I'm arguing for slavery by falsely showing the arguments I make about immigration somehow mean I would also support slavery with that same reasoning.

That is a false assumption on your part.

If you want to equate slavery with immigration, then do so openly and we can have that discussion.

To try and slip it in as you did is dishonest and causes me to be uncertain if you are actually engaging in civil discourse or simply trolling.

You've been attempting to attack my character in order to discredit me and avoid my arguments and I'm the dishonest one?

You certainly are not sending clear signals as to your positions.

Nice one

 

[Enforcer]

I'm not going to try and bother parsing out the quotes you made inside of my quote, but you sure are belligerent to those who are simply trying to understand where you are coming from.

I don't care where you worked I'm not blowing smoke up your ass, the folks I worked with from foreign countries all had visas and went through whatever legal hoops they had to go through to get to the USA. Call it what you want, believe it or not, they had visa's and several of them went on to become legal US residents and even US citizens, so yes there are legal immigration routes currently in place for foreign citizens.

You seem to have a beef with the USA's immigration policy with Mexico, since that is the specific example you use. I can't help the fact that the USA has an irrational immigration policy and have repeatedly stated that both foreign and domestic policy needs to change before it is possible for the USA to have a rational immigration policy. You also ignore the crime on the border and the additional burdens it creates with respect to immigration policy.

Why you want 12 Mexicans, as opposed to 12 employees, I don't know, but I'm not going to fall for your baiting; I am not arguing against Mexicans.

In your hypothetical scenario, I would want 12 employees, damned if I care what Nationality they are, I just want them to be great employees so that I can run a great restaurant and make lot's of money.

In your hypothetical situation the restaurant manager should put out help wanted adds and first try to hire locally, then perhaps contact the city/county governments to see if they have leads for employees, then perhaps the State government if that doesn't work.

I don't think that the Federal Government should be involved in helping restaurant owners find employees at all.

As for citizens of any foreign country wishing to come to the USA for any employment, now that I could see being managed by the Federal Government simply to vet the individuals for legal entry into the USA, but as for as actual job placement I don't think the Federal Government should be doing that.

WilliamC,

The basic reason you get the kinds of responses that I give is that you fail to really try to understand the other guy's viewpoint.

For instance, if an employer wanted to hire twelve Mexicans, that is HIS business, not mine... damn sure not yours. But, you don't want to put yourself in the place of such an employer. You know, maybe his experience is that Mexicans work harder and he speaks Spanish as a first language. Maybe it's an authentic Mexican restaurant. Who gives a rat's ass? I asked you to put yourself in another guy's place and all you have is smart ass responses in order to avoid the subject.

Surely you are not so much of a dullard that you cannot understand that even if the United States allows a million foreigners in here per day, the visas might not cover every FACT SITUATION. What in the Hell do you really want out of people to whom no "proper" means has been established for them to enter by? Had you rather they lie to you and say they are really interested in coming here to be students, when all they really want is a $7.50 an hour job? What is it about the English language that baffles you?

George W. Bush advocated a Guest Worker program... I've heard the concept come out of mouths like Mitt Romney's and Rick Santorum's AND Ron Paul acknowledges that the immigration laws are too draconian in many circumstances.

The fact is, we do not have a Guest Worker program; the visa system does not cover all fact situations; laws that deny to PERSONS the equal protection of the law (14th Amendment to the Constitution) may legally be ignored. I tried to help you understand the problem with the analogy about a gun permit, but you have the imagination of a Doberman. But, what would you do if the law said you needed the permit to carry a firearm, but no agency or branch of the government issued a permit?

I understand the dilemma. In 1976 I was arrested for "possession of burglary tools without a license." I was a locksmith doing a service call from my personal vehicle after hours. When I went to the hearing, the judge asked me why I didn't have a license. I said, "I do." Then I had to explain that the only license that the county issued was a business license and it stated across the bottom in large letters: To be posted in a conspicuous manner on the business premises. How was I supposed to do service calls when the license had to be at the business premises?

The foreigners have the same, exact dilemma. They are told to come here properly, but no such proper channel exists for their FACT SITUATION. It don't matter how many visas are issued for families of Americans, students, agricultural workers, or white collar workers if the foreigner does not fit those categories. How can that be that difficult for you to understand?

I realize that you have no imagination, but for crying out loud, you cannot possibly be that stupid. OR maybe you think others really are??? THERE ARE NO VISAS IN EXISTENCE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT COVER THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING NON-AGRICULTURAL, BLUE COLLAR JOBS. Therefore, there is technically no law for them to break since 8 USC 1325 (which covers IMPROPER ENTRY) states that a person "enters {improperly} or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers...

Since there is no designated way for Guest Workers to enter, the law simply does not apply... and it is only a civil violation to begin with.

This ain't rocket science.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

After my second quote in your post, where you strike out my word immigration and next to it put slavery, I sort of stopped reading.

See, you are trying to make it appear as if I'm arguing for slavery by falsely showing the arguments I make about immigration somehow mean I would also support slavery with that same reasoning.

That is a false assumption on your part.

I'm comparing them because they are both unjust laws. I'm comparing them to show you how. You don't want to even think of illegal immigration laws as anti-liberty so you're coming up with all sorts of excuses, attack my character, and then ignore my posts because you're just that offended that I could possibly compare illegal immigration to slavery.

If you want to equate slavery with immigration, then do so openly and we can have that discussion.

Third time's a charm:

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.

To try and slip it in as you did is dishonest and causes me to be uncertain if you are actually engaging in civil discourse or simply trolling.

You're acting like I was trying to be subtle about it, when it's been a significant part of the responses I made. You're ignoring my arguments and attacking my character when it's clear that I'm not doing what you say I'm doing. How is that civil discourse?

You certainly are not sending clear signals as to your positions.

I don't know how much more you want me to clarify, but reading my posts might be a good start to fixing that problem.

Nice one

Thnx.

 

[WilliamC]

WilliamC,

The basic reason you get the kinds of responses that I give is that you fail to really try to understand the other guy's viewpoint.

For instance, if an employer wanted to hire twelve Mexicans, that is HIS business, not mine... damn sure not yours.

You have created a totally hypothetical situation. Why does the employer want to hire 12 Mexicans instead of 12 employees?

Sounds like you are introducing their nationality without any reason, well actually I'm sure you have a reason, I just don't know exactly what it is.

But, you don't want to put yourself in the place of such an employer. You know, maybe his experience is that Mexicans work harder and he speaks Spanish as a first language. Maybe it's an authentic Mexican restaurant. Who gives a rat's ass? I asked you to put yourself in another guy's place and all you have is smart ass responses in order to avoid the subject.

Dude, you are getting hung up on a make-believe scenario, and I'm not following you. I can't put myself into your hypothetical scenario without using my own experience.

Mine differs in that as a hypothetical restaurant owner I would want good employees, not Mexicans.

If you insist that they must be Mexicans, that's your bias.

Surely you are not so much of a dullard that you cannot understand that even if the United States allows a million foreigners in here per day, the visas might not cover every FACT SITUATION. What in the Hell do you really want out of people to whom no "proper" means has been established for them to enter by? Had you rather they lie to you and say they are really interested in coming here to be students, when all they really want is a $7.50 an hour job? What is it about the English language that baffles you?

You repeatedly ignore my statements that US immigration policy is not rational and instead keep premising that I am somehow defending this policy.

I am not.

But I find it difficult to argue against the idea that any Nation State has the legitimate authority to set immigration policy as part of what defines it's existence as a Nation State.

George W. Bush advocated a Guest Worker program... I've heard the concept come out of mouths like Mitt Romney's and Rick Santorum's AND Ron Paul acknowledges that the immigration laws are too draconian in many circumstances.

The fact is, we do not have a Guest Worker program; the visa system does not cover all fact situations; laws that deny to PERSONS the equal protection of the law (14th Amendment to the Constitution) may legally be ignored. I tried to help you understand the problem with the analogy about a gun permit, but you have the imagination of a Doberman. But, what would you do if the law said you needed the permit to carry a firearm, but no agency or branch of the government issued a permit?

Again, you repeatedly ignore my assertions that I do not believe the current immigration policies of the USA are rational, and instead suggest that I am somehow defending them, and you are not really interested in making converts as in arguing given your insulting attitude.

What part of Government is incompetent do you not understand?

Why do you think I somehow want to deny equal protection under the law to non-citizens in the United States, especially if they have not committed any violent or property crimes?

I understand the dilemma. In 1976 I was arrested for "possession of burglary tools without a license." I was a locksmith doing a service call from my personal vehicle after hours. When I went to the hearing, the judge asked me why I didn't have a license. I said, "I do." Then I had to explain that the only license that the county issued was a business license and it stated across the bottom in large letters: To be posted in a conspicuous manner on the business premises. How was I supposed to do service calls when the license had to be at the business premises?

Not really related to immigration policy but again government is incompetent. Why are we arguing about this?

The foreigners have the same, exact dilemma. They are told to come here properly, but no such proper channel exists for their FACT SITUATION. It don't matter how many visas are issued for families of Americans, students, agricultural workers, or white collar workers if the foreigner does not fit those categories. How can that be that difficult for you to understand?

For the umpteenth time government is incompetent, including US immigration policy.

In a more rational, free-market economy we wouldn't have the crime associated with the US Mexico border however, and until this problem is resolved there is no peaceful solution to immigration and travel across it.

I realize that you have no imagination, but for crying out loud, you cannot possibly be that stupid. OR maybe you think others really are??? THERE ARE NO VISAS IN EXISTENCE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT COVER THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING NON-AGRICULTURAL, BLUE COLLAR JOBS. Therefore, there is technically no law for them to break since 8 USC 1325 (which covers IMPROPER ENTRY) states that a person "enters {improperly} or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers...

Where have I been arguing for these people to be arrested if they haven't broken laws pertaining to everyone, including citizens?

Seems you think that just because I see a role for the US Federal Government in setting immigration policy for the United States (and in a more perfect society said role would largely consist of vetting individuals for crimes against people/property) you seem to think I am against foreign workers.

I am not, I just realize that there are criminal elements using the US Mexico border to further violent crime in the USA, and that's a big problem that unfortunately falls within the purview of the US Federal Government to deal with.

You come across as somewhat hostile and thin-skinned, but that's the internet for you I guess.

Since there is no designated way for Guest Workers to enter, the law simply does not apply... and it is only a civil violation to begin with. This ain't rocket science.

Neither is Dale Carnage.

 

[Enforcer]

You have created a totally hypothetical situation. Why does the employer want to hire 12 Mexicans instead of 12 employees?

Sounds like you are introducing their nationality without any reason, well actually I'm sure you have a reason, I just don't know exactly what it is.

If you quit acting stupid, you would know what the reason is. We're talking about FACT SITUATIONS. It's obvious you are probably in the eighth grade, so let me make it simple for you:

A FACT SITUATION works like this:

Visas are geared toward certain FACTS. The fact is some people want to come here and learn. They get a student visa. Some people come here as seasonal agricultural workers. That's a fact situation. Now, a student cannot get a work visa to go to school. That is illegal. So, they have to get the visa that fits their FACT SITUATION.

You keep wanting to dodge and duck the issues. I think you are a professional troll, myself, but you might just be uneducated. Let's face it, you have no imagination AND you cannot accept the fact that an employer might require the services of a Hispanic... be it a genuine need or a preference. I had to pick Mexicans because every country is treated differently. As stated in earlier posts, Cubans (as an example) are safe the moment their feet hit American soil.

You know full well what my intentions are, unless you lied in earlier posts (which is obvious to me you did.) It doesn't matter what the reason is. An employer finds twelve Mexicans he wants to hire. It's his jobs; it's his business; it's his money. Who in the Hell are you to tell the employer who he can and cannot hire? And quit being coy. Admit it. No visa fits that employer's needs. That's the freaking point!



Dude, you are getting hung up on a make-believe scenario, and I'm not following you. I can't put myself into your hypothetical scenario without using my own experience.

Are you a dullard?

Mine differs in that as a hypothetical restaurant owner I would want good employees, not Mexicans.

That's your choice, but you have no legal or moral right to force it on another employer. Another employer may tell you that Mexicans are the best employees.

If you insist that they must be Mexicans, that's your bias.

No sir, it is the bias of MILLIONS of employers that willingly hire them over others.


You repeatedly ignore my statements that US immigration policy is not rational and instead keep premising that I am somehow defending this policy.

I am not.

But I find it difficult to argue against the idea that any Nation State has the legitimate authority to set immigration policy as part of what defines it's existence as a Nation State.



Again, you repeatedly ignore my assertions that I do not believe the current immigration policies of the USA are rational, and instead suggest that I am somehow defending them, and you are not really interested in making converts as in arguing given your insulting attitude.

I'm not trying to convert you to a damn thing. I have nothing to sell. I'm tired of people who say they like Ron Paul trying to impose their standards on the rest of the world. It's counter to Ron Paul's platform. If you think Mexicans are nasty and lazy, that's your prerogative, that's your Right. If someone thinks the Mexicans hung the freaking moon, that is their prerogative. Live and let live. Just because someone disagrees with you and had rather hire someone other than a National ID carrying, USDA approved. Socialist Security believing subject of the United Socialist States of Amerika, does not negate the fact they have every Right to do so.

What part of Government is incompetent do you not understand?

Why do you think I somehow want to deny equal protection under the law to non-citizens in the United States, especially if they have not committed any violent or property crimes?

Maybe I feel that way because you will continue to use phrases like "illegal" alien / immigrant at the expense of my Liberty, yours and everyone else.



Not really related to immigration policy but again government is incompetent. Why are we arguing about this?



For the umpteenth time government is incompetent, including US immigration policy.

In a more rational, free-market economy we wouldn't have the crime associated with the US Mexico border however, and until this problem is resolved there is no peaceful solution to immigration and travel across it.

That statement either needs elaboration or it makes no sense. Try again.


Where have I been arguing for these people to be arrested if they haven't broken laws pertaining to everyone, including citizens?

Seems you think that just because I see a role for the US Federal Government in setting immigration policy for the United States (and in a more perfect society said role would largely consist of vetting individuals for crimes against people/property) you seem to think I am against foreign workers.

So, set a freaking policy. Pass a Guest Worker program that addresses the immediate need and move on.

I am not, I just realize that there are criminal elements using the US Mexico border to further violent crime in the USA, and that's a big problem that unfortunately falls within the purview of the US Federal Government to deal with.

Criminal activity versus people that partake of opportunities willing offered are horses of a different color.

You come across as somewhat hostile and thin-skinned, but that's the internet for you I guess.



Neither is Dale Carnage.

WilliamC,

You attempt to come across as all-knowing, but fail on many counts. If you cannot understand analogies and hypothetical examples in order to illustrate a point, you are not qualified to vote NOR offer a valid opinion on any legal or political topic.

In every analogy; in every example, there was a legal principle involved. Nobody says you have to agree with what is being said. You merely have to put yourself in another guy's boots. When I said that maybe a person NEEDS twelve Mexicans, it's purely hypothetical. I don't always know the reasons. I realize you won't get much out of this, but here is my own experience:

In 2001 I was laid off from my job. I had no immediate need for a lot of money so I applied for a job in my neighborhood as a butcher trainee. I was hoping for a fall back survival skill I could turn in to money in hard times. Well, the guy at the store claimed he was out of applications and the manager wasn't there. We went through that scene for three days, when I produced a very neatly typed resume. At that point, the guy behind the counter leveled with me. He said:

"I can tell by listening to you that you are from around here. You don't have a very big family, do you?" Of course I didn't and had to admit to it. He continued: "I'm looking to hire one of the local Mexicans. You are a single guy with no family. You draw your check and other than your services, it doesn't benefit me. If I hire a Mexican, he will have a big family and he will buy his meat from me. He will recommend me to his friends." Anyway, that was HIS reason. I never bought from that guy because he locked American workers out. But, I am here today to defend his Right to do so. It's his business. Locking foreigners out under the pretext of them being "illegal" when OUR system does not anticipate their fact situation is just a chickensh!+ way of promoting racism without having the courage to stand up publicly for your convictions.

The reason we're arguing over this is that I know what it's like to be presumed guilty of a crime absent due process and I have seen enough of this repackaged National Socialist propaganda, so can the innocent act. You and I know it's one or the other. IF you cannot imagine scenarios and you cannot identify legal principles based upon analogies, you do not need to be in this discussion.

So, if you have nothing else, you can argue with the others that are calling you on your nonsensical postings.

 

[WilliamC]

WilliamC,
You attempt to come across as all-knowing, but fail on many counts.

You sure do have some strange opinions about me.

All knowing? Really?

I have no idea who you are and where you are coming from nor whether or not you are an honest debater or a troll, but you are painting yourself further into the latter corner.

What is with the red-lettered replies within the quote of mine that doesn't show up when I respond to your post? Are you just trying to throw in some gratuitous insults and make it seem I don't have a response to them because I won't be bothered to take the time to parse them out?

More than anything else this strongly indicates to me that you are not being forthright in your positions.

If you are compelled to insult me do it in the main part of your post where it shows up when I respond, otherwise it makes you look immature. At least to me.

If you cannot understand analogies and hypothetical examples in order to illustrate a point, you are not qualified to vote NOR offer a valid opinion on any legal or political topic.

No, I just don't buy into your hypothetical example without expounding upon it. After all it's hypothetical, so that means that the parameters aren't established until they are well-defined.

Nothing requires me to accept any hypothetical scenario you come up with as valid.

In every analogy; in every example, there was a legal principle involved. Nobody says you have to agree with what is being said. You merely have to put yourself in another guy's boots. When I said that maybe a person NEEDS twelve Mexicans, it's purely hypothetical.

See here's where you fail me. Your example was a restaurant owner who needs 12 employees. Automatically you want me to accept that the only valid way he can get his employees is to get them from the Nation of Mexico. Now this is a different situation, since I am forced to wonder why a hypothetical restaurant owner would want 12 Mexicans rather than 12 employees. Then I am wondering why you are specifying Mexicans rather than some other nationality.

I don't always know the reasons.

You don't know the reasons you are postulating your hypothetical scenario?

I realize you won't get much out of this, but here is my own experience:

In 2001 I was laid off from my job. I had no immediate need for a lot of money so I applied for a job in my neighborhood as a butcher trainee. I was hoping for a fall back survival skill I could turn in to money in hard times. Well, the guy at the store claimed he was out of applications and the manager wasn't there. We went through that scene for three days, when I produced a very neatly typed resume. At that point, the guy behind the counter leveled with me. He said:

"I can tell by listening to you that you are from around here. You don't have a very big family, do you?" Of course I didn't and had to admit to it. He continued: "I'm looking to hire one of the local Mexicans. You are a single guy with no family. You draw your check and other than your services, it doesn't benefit me. If I hire a Mexican, he will have a big family and he will buy his meat from me. He will recommend me to his friends." Anyway, that was HIS reason. I never bought from that guy because he locked American workers out. But, I am here today to defend his Right to do so. It's his business. Locking foreigners out under the pretext of them being "illegal" when OUR system does not anticipate their fact situation is just a chickensh!+ way of promoting racism without having the courage to stand up publicly for your convictions.

I don't think US immigration policies should be based upon your personal experience. Sorry.

The reason we're arguing over this is that I know what it's like to be presumed guilty of a crime absent due process and I have seen enough of this repackaged National Socialist propaganda, so can the innocent act.

Ah, here is the crux of your problem. You are assuming that I am a false debater and have unstated premises, namely premises which would support National Socialist propaganda.

That is news to me. Do you think that any nation which sets immigration laws is automatically socialist?

What about a State or County government that sets laws regarding employment?

You and I know it's one or the other. IF you cannot imagine scenarios and you cannot identify legal principles based upon analogies, you do not need to be in this discussion.

Well I am close to putting you on ignore but I figure I'll give you one more chance. I may learn something, like that there are people out there who think I am some sort of National Socialist.

That's a new one for me.

So, if you have nothing else, you can argue with the others that are calling you on your nonsensical postings.

I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I think I have a pretty good idea, and it doesn't seem to be an interesting place. Rather angry and petulant from what I can tell.

Your continued insults and name calling strongly indicate you are not interested in rational discourse and achieving mutual understanding, at least not at the expense of somehow scoring imaginary points in your own personal debate game you are playing.

 

[Enforcer]

You sure do have some strange opinions about me.

All knowing? Really?

I have no idea who you are and where you are coming from nor whether or not you are an honest debater or a troll, but you are painting yourself further into the latter corner.

I could only say, it takes a troll to know one.

What is with the red-lettered replies within the quote of mine that doesn't show up when I respond to your post? Are you just trying to throw in some gratuitous insults and make it seem I don't have a response to them because I won't be bothered to take the time to parse them out?

What's with your endless attempts to address every sentence with B.S. that necessitates a red letter response so that people can see the counter - argument?

More than anything else this strongly indicates to me that you are not being forthright in your positions.

You've been calling me a liar all this time and impugning the character of others. Perhaps the real problem is that YOU don't like being forthright.

If you are compelled to insult me do it in the main part of your post where it shows up when I respond, otherwise it makes you look immature. At least to me.

You are the one that looks immature. You're afraid to address me in a manner where I can respond in a give and take fashion. Stay tuned to when I do a main post and take a hint as to how you should respond. Quit quoting every sentence and I won't have to do this shit with the red letters.



No, I just don't buy into your hypothetical example without expounding upon it. After all it's hypothetical, so that means that the parameters aren't established until they are well-defined.

I really don't care what you "buy" into. You cannot tell the difference between an analogy that gives you a legal principle to consider and a hypothetical situation. Your are, therefore, not qualified to hold any civil discourse on this subject since the law applies precedents (legal principles and analogies from other cases) to arrive at some semblance of justice.

Nothing requires me to accept any hypothetical scenario you come up with as valid.

Common sense should... IF you hope to understand the principle.



See here's where you fail me. Your example was a restaurant owner who needs 12 employees. Automatically you want me to accept that the only valid way he can get his employees is to get them from the Nation of Mexico. Now this is a different situation, since I am forced to wonder why a hypothetical restaurant owner would want 12 Mexicans rather than 12 employees. Then I am wondering why you are specifying Mexicans rather than some other nationality.

There may be a hundred ways to get a qualified employee; however, an employer is not bound by YOUR standards. Neither is an employer required to hire who YOU think should get the job. As I stated, I do not know all the reasons that employers hire foreigners. All I know is, it is their choice AND if I deny them their choice, it will cost me something. The anti - immigrant lobby in this country has given us the so - called "Patriot Act," National ID (REAL ID Act), the National Defense Authorization Act, the end of innocent until proven guilty, the crackdown on your Miranda Warnings, the proliferation of warrant less searches, plus much, much more.



You don't know the reasons you are postulating your hypothetical scenario?

I know the reasons I postulated the hypothetical scenarios. You chose to be dishonest and drag this out rather than to give an honest answer.



I don't think US immigration policies should be based upon your personal experience. Sorry.

Immigration policies should not be based upon a popularity contest NOR your lack of regard for the Liberties of your fellow man.



Ah, here is the crux of your problem. You are assuming that I am a false debater and have unstated premises, namely premises which would support National Socialist propaganda.

So far, you've done NOTHING on this forum that leads me to believe you understand the concept of Liberty.

That is news to me. Do you think that any nation which sets immigration laws is automatically socialist?

If a nation denies God given, UNALIENABLE Rights, they are certainly suspect.

What about a State or County government that sets laws regarding employment?

No government official needs to dictate who an employer can hire. Employers create the jobs. They belong to the employer to give to whomever they damn well please.





Well I am close to putting you on ignore but I figure I'll give you one more chance. I may learn something, like that there are people out there who think I am some sort of National Socialist.

Maybe it is because you are advocating the primary feature of the NS agenda.

That's a new one for me.



I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I think I have a pretty good idea, and it doesn't seem to be an interesting place. Rather angry and petulant from what I can tell.

Your continued insults and name calling strongly indicate you are not interested in rational discourse and achieving mutual understanding, at least not at the expense of somehow scoring imaginary points in your own personal debate game you are playing.

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!+.

 

[WilliamC]

I'm comparing them because they are both unjust laws. I'm comparing them to show you how. You don't want to even think of illegal immigration laws as anti-liberty so you're coming up with all sorts of excuses, attack my character, and then ignore my posts because you're just that offended that I could possibly compare illegal immigration to slavery.

Third time's a charm:

You're acting like I was trying to be subtle about it, when it's been a significant part of the responses I made. You're ignoring my arguments and attacking my character when it's clear that I'm not doing what you say I'm doing. How is that civil discourse?

Ok, I get that you are premising that slavery is somehow equal to immigration, I'm sorry I didn't immediately pick up on that. As far as attacking your character, well sometimes I do tend to try and use pointed humor as a debating tool, perhaps not very effectively.

I disagree that slavery and immigration are equal, I think that a government, as part of it's existence, has a legitimate authority to decide within the geographical area it governs certain laws, and among those are laws related to who can live, work, and receive government benefits should they exist.

This doesn't mean I think all governments a priori have an obligation to do this, but as someone who cannot understand how anarchy would every work in our world barring some global utopian enlightenment, I do believe that large enough human populations will inevitably self-organize into governments.

Here where I live we happen to have a Federal Government which is corrupt, bloated, and ripe for collapse. It's bad policies and laws create all types of problems, including immigration problems, especially exacerbated by the drug war and the crime involved with it. Until these policies are addressed I don't see how it is possible to have a peaceful, open, free Southwest border between the United States and Mexico. Thus, despite it's creating conditions that foster the problem, there is a problem with illegal immigration, that is individuals deliberately immigrating to the United States in order to carry out property and violent crimes against US citizens and foreign nationals within the borders of the United States.

As flawed as our Federal Government is, I do think it is appropriate for there to be laws and policies in place to minimize the damage from these criminal immigrants, but the best solution would be to limit the Federal Government in many other areas so it does not create the problems in the first place. Then perhaps we could get to a situation where we would not have to worry so much about criminal foreign nationals trying to enter and live in the USA in order to conduct crimes. I do not think that it is rational nor would result in more peace and harmony and individual liberty if the US Federal Government would have even more of an open border policy than it does now until these other issues are largely resolved.

But to directly address the comparison of slavery and immigration, well I get confused because now we have to define what we mean.

Are you specifically referring to chattel slavery where humans are the legal property of other humans via application of preexisting laws codifying such, or are you using slavery in a more general sense to imply situations where citizens are forced to serve the government they live under through conscription or mandated payments and the like?

As for immigration I have a hard time understanding how any government can function without having some authority to select the individuals who choose to reside, live, and work in the geographical area said government is responsible for, and I have a hard time understanding how a National Government in particular doesn't have the authority to control who and what comes across it's borders.

Just because I think a government has authority to regulate traffic across it's borders to some degree though doesn't mean I think that the way it is currently being done is correct though.

So is your premise that all laws government makes regarding immigration policy be as unjust as laws government would make about slavery, assuming said government recognized slavery to begin with? That is are you suggesting that the very fact that the US Federal Government has an immigration policy enough to make the US Federal Government unjust and needing to be abolished?

I don't know how much more you want me to clarify, but reading my posts might be a good start to fixing that problem.

Sometimes I do scan things rapidly and reply in haste, this is true.

Thnx.

Welcome.

 

[teacherone]

Locking foreigners out under the pretext of them being "illegal" when OUR system does not anticipate their fact situation is just a chickensh!+ way of promoting racism without having the courage to stand up publicly for your convictions.

...... You and I know it's one or the other. IF you cannot imagine scenarios and you cannot identify legal principles based upon analogies, you do not need to be in this discussion.

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.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ok, I get that you are premising that slavery is somehow equal to immigration, I'm sorry I didn't immediately pick up on that. As far as attacking your character, well sometimes I do tend to try and use pointed humor as a debating tool, perhaps not very effectively.

He's only equating them in the sense that both are an infringement on your rights as a human being and are unjust laws. Slavery is a greater restriction of your rights than are immigration laws, but they are both infringements nonetheless.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I disagree that slavery and immigration are equal, I think that a government, as part of it's existence, has a legitimate authority to decide within the geographical area it governs certain laws, and among those are laws related to who can live, work, and receive government benefits should they exist.

Ok, but a government is just a group of individuals. The authority these governing agents have is no greater than the authority of each sovereign individual who gave up a part of their authority in order for the government to rule them. None of these individuals have the right to arbitrarily claim a geographical area as "their" territory. To do so is nothing short of a gang arbitrarily claiming a neighborhood as "their" territory and claiming the right to control it. It's no different. You don't legitimately obtain property by arbitrarily claiming something is yours and backing it up with force.

Government is limited by the limits of sovereign individuals who gave it power. To ignore this is to say that when individuals get together and call themselves a "government" all bets are off and might makes right. If that's the case then slavery is fine, so long as people form a government and formally make laws that recognize it as legal.

This doesn't mean I think all governments a priori have an obligation to do this, but as someone who cannot understand how anarchy would every work in our world barring some global utopian enlightenment, I do believe that large enough human populations will inevitably self-organize into governments.

Human populations will inevitably self-organize into governmental structures. Households, churches, places of business, etc all have rules, the difference is that the state is a coercive monopoly on law which is funded through threats of violence. It's possible to organize without a centralized monopoly funded with violence, and it won't take a "utopian" enlightenment, but an acceptance of free markets. It will eventually end as institutionalized slavery did, when enough people realize it's immoral, unnecessary, and necessarily harmful. This is what the very core of the liberty movement is.

Here where I live we happen to have a Federal Government which is corrupt, bloated, and ripe for collapse. It's bad policies and laws create all types of problems, including immigration problems, especially exacerbated by the drug war and the crime involved with it. Until these policies are addressed I don't see how it is possible to have a peaceful, open, free Southwest border between the United States and Mexico. Thus, despite it's creating conditions that foster the problem, there is a problem with illegal immigration, that is individuals deliberately immigrating to the United States in order to carry out property and violent crimes against US citizens and foreign nationals within the borders of the United States.

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.

As far as using it as a protective measure. It's punishing innocent people. If you want the government to protect from violent drug-cartel thugs, then you should be more concerned about bringing an end to the drug war and bringing more attention to things like Operation: Fast and Furious.

As flawed as our Federal Government is, I do think it is appropriate for there to be laws and policies in place to minimize the damage from these criminal immigrants, but the best solution would be to limit the Federal Government in many other areas so it does not create the problems in the first place. Then perhaps we could get to a situation where we would not have to worry so much about criminal foreign nationals trying to enter and live in the USA in order to conduct crimes. I do not think that it is rational nor would result in more peace and harmony and individual liberty if the US Federal Government would have even more of an open border policy than it does now until these other issues are largely resolved.

It would result in more peace and harmony (and justice) to the innocent people who have to face the consequences of those laws. But again, I'm not going to argue that the USG hasn't created a problematic scenario, because it has. But it's going down the tubes whether we have open borders or not. Immigration laws won't stop that from happening by a long shot.

But to directly address the comparison of slavery and immigration, well I get confused because now we have to define what we mean.

Are you specifically referring to chattel slavery where humans are the legal property of other humans via application of preexisting laws codifying such, or are you using slavery in a more general sense to imply situations where citizens are forced to serve the government they live under through conscription or mandated payments and the like?

It doesn't matter. I was comparing them as an example of unjust laws. All of those are examples of unjust laws which are an invasions of rights.

As for immigration I have a hard time understanding how any government can function without having some authority to select the individuals who choose to reside, live, and work in the geographical area said government is responsible for, and I have a hard time understanding how a National Government in particular doesn't have the authority to control who and what comes across it's borders.

Just because I think a government has authority to regulate traffic across it's borders to some degree though doesn't mean I think that the way it is currently being done is correct though.

So is your premise that all laws government makes regarding immigration policy be as unjust as laws government would make about slavery, assuming said government recognized slavery to begin with? That is are you suggesting that the very fact that the US Federal Government has an immigration policy enough to make the US Federal Government unjust and needing to be abolished?

Well "illegal immigration" isn't on the top of my list of reasons to abolish the Federal Government, but sure, why not.

Sometimes I do scan things rapidly and reply in haste, this is true.

No worries. This response was much better with you taking the time and effort for this discourse to be possible.

It's not like I'm perfect either.

Welcome.