The Shocking Truth Behind Amnesty

[GunnyFreedom]

Is [mod delete] the same as @%&*!?

That would seem to me an accurate assessment.

 

[Michelangelo]

Many are arguing over the consequences of immigration without addressing the real problem of immigration itself. All things in balance, and immigration is very out of balance. That I think we can mostly agree with.

Can you please elaborate on what your concern is? I will attempt to address it to the best of my ability.

It doesn't help that many on the right in the '60s sadly courted racist support, and alienated minority voters. I think Rand Paul knows what he's doing, we don't need a majority of the minority votes, just more than what Romney got.

The United States will become a minority-majority country within our lifetimes. Much of the southwest has reached minority-majority status and Hispanics will at minimum become the plurality and may even become the majority. We shouldn't be playing racial politics at all, but if we are going to play that game there is no point in alienating the largest growing demographic group in favor of the declining demographic group.

Libertarians should break with Republicans on this issue. Hell, libertarians should break with Republicans altogether. Their brand is toxic but the libertarian label might still be worth something if we make it clear that we're different than them when it comes to these issues.

A change of language would do very little to curb 8 out of 10 pulling levers for democrats. Their culture, especially after our country's meddling in Latin America, is inclined to favor the socialist model. If you're hungry and not overly educated, obviously you're going to gravitate towards whatever scraps you can receive. And what's worse is that generational speaking, there isn't much in terms of economic mobility in comparison to earlier immigrant groups.

Again, why in the world are we implying that voting Republican is any better? Both parties are filled with statists.

Hispanics and Asians are both moving up economically. Hispanics are taking longer than some other migrant groups in reaching the top of the economic ladder, but that is because they started out at the bottom. A recent study by Min Zhou (UCLA Sociology Professor) found that Mexican-Americans are more successful than one would think.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Too many people here are not acknowledging the current state of America, regarding the welfare government. Until this is changed, illegal immigration is DEVASTATING the US economy. And before someone writes dissertation trying to explain Austrian economics, save your time. I already know and agree, but I am also looking at the now and real, and not what I wish. And if you need proof, a great example is the Dominican Republic. With it's smaller population, 10 million illegal immigrants from Haiti have destroyed their nation.

It is actually the supporters of illegal immigration that fail to appreciate Austrian Economics. There is more to a nation's "wealth" than simply whether there has been a net increase in GDP. Imagine a Southern California without the stifling burdens of its idiotic regulatory state. Would it be a "richer" region than the same region 50 years earlier? Probably? Would anybody want to live there? Probably still not.

People don't care about the marginal economic impact of immigration in the face immigration that devastate quality of life and makes entire states and counties no go zones. I live in Miami Beach. It is probably the only livable area left in Miami Dade Country, and only for single people. When I have a family, I'll have to move. Is Miami Dade wealthier than it was in the 1940's? Sure. But if the price of that wealth turning the entire country in to a third world hell whole with pockets of exclusive, billionaire luxury high rises, how exactly is that wealth a benefit?

 

[Dr.3D]

Again, why in the world are we implying that voting Republican is any better? Both parties are filled with statists.

That's not true. Some of us are here to vote for somebody who isn't a "statist" and he happens to be in the Republican party.
Perhaps you need to read the Mission Statement of these forums again.

 

[Michelangelo]

That's not true. Some of us are here to vote for somebody who isn't a "statist" and he happens to be in the Republican party.
Perhaps you need to read the Mission Statement of these forums again.

Most =/= All

The Pauls and company are the exception. Republicans as a whole are statists unless you wish to argue the Bushes, McCain, Romney, Boehner etc are friends of the liberty movement?

I restate myself; both parties are statist and it is silly to propose one is genuinely better than the other.

 

[erowe1]

I kinda thought I'd have gotten some +reps for post 44 by now. Oh well.

 

[TheCount]

I just want to say thank you to everyone participating in this thread. As we all know, there have been allegations that Paul supporters and/or libertarians are racist, etc, etc. Instead, as we see in this thread, the beliefs of true racists are diametrically opposed to liberty, and racist arguments don't go far with supporters of liberty.

I disagree with this - this is collectivism.

How can you possibly claim to disagree with collectivism when your opinions on race relations are based on collectivist thought?

 

[jllundqu]

Are you trying to make yourself and state look bad?

You said you worked in immigration but you obviously [mod delete]. You should just put a welcome mat at the border.

And speaking of boring, you just look like an average joe smith with no good traits. I bet your taste in music, arts and life in general [mod delete].

Someone's got some compensation issues Ad hominems suit you perfectly btw... I'll wait while you look up "ad hominem" in the online dictionary before you respond with something equally refreshing. lol

 

[Dr.3D]

Most =/= All

The Pauls and company are the exception. Republicans as a whole are statists unless you wish to argue the Bushes, McCain, Romney, Boehner etc are friends of the liberty movement?

I restate myself; both parties are statist and it is silly to propose one is genuinely better than the other.

I for one would like to know what your plan to do something about it is. It's not like there is suddenly going to be a stateless society.
If we end up having eight years of Hillery, I'm going to die from barfing to death.

 

[Carson]

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - Updated 2010

 

[Michelangelo]

I for one would like to know what your plan to do something about it is. It's not like there is suddenly going to be a stateless society.
If we end up having eight years of Hillery, I'm going to die from barfing to death.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450325-Libertarians-as-Kingmakers&p=5501645#post5501645

I created a new thread to answer this sidebar.

 

[AuH20]

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - Updated 2010

Rand actually talked about this very subject a week or two ago. He stated point blank that we can't realistically let the entire world in and cater to them.

 

[Michelangelo]

Rand actually talked about this very subject a week or two ago. He stated point blank that we can't realistically let the entire world in and cater to them.

'Letting everyone in' vs. today's broken immigration system is a false dichotomy. Consider the fact that there is a black market price for those who wish to enter into the United States and that it is roughly $4,000-$5,000. With that price we have about eleven million people who have entered the United States illegally. This is a small percentage of the current US population and hardly anything close to the 'whole world'.

One keyhole solution is DRITI (Don't Restrict It, Tax It) by Nathan Smith. The details can be found here.
Gary Becker has a similar situation where we have potential migrants out-right pay for citizenship. Details can be found here.

It may be disturbing to think that citizenship can be bought, but why not? Citizenship is already bought and sold today. Several countries, including the United States, already sell citizenship to those willing to 'invest' in the country a given amount. Illegal migrants essentially buy their way in by paying coyotes. Why not just replace all of this with a simpler system where we ask potential migrants to pay an upfront bond of $50,000 to enter? If they are law abidding for so so years they get citizenship at the end. They won't get any welfare in the meantime and any incidental costs they incur will be paid for through the bond.

Again, we know that at $5,000 we only get some eleven million migrants. This suggests we'd have even less willing to pay $50,000. Indeed, the only ones who would be willing to pay that amount are those confident they can make the money back through work. We don't have to ask whether they will do high or low skilled work or anything like that. We won't create a way for politicians to control the labor market. All that'll matter is whether they can pay the bond amount through their own hard work or by getting someone to lend them the money.

 

[erowe1]

A change of language would do very little to curb 8 out of 10 pulling levers for democrats.

That's not any worse than pulling levers for Republicans.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

'Letting everyone in' vs. today's broken immigration system is a false dichotomy. Consider the fact that there is a black market price for those who wish to enter into the United States and that it is roughly $4,000-$5,000. With that price we have about eleven million people who have entered the United States illegally. This is a small percentage of the current US population and hardly anything close to the 'whole world'.

One keyhole solution is DRITI (Don't Restrict It, Tax It) by Nathan Smith. The details can be found here.
Gary Becker has a similar situation where we have potential migrants out-right pay for citizenship. Details can be found here.

It may be disturbing to think that citizenship can be bought, but why not? Citizenship is already bought and sold today. Several countries, including the United States, already sell citizenship to those willing to 'invest' in the country a given amount. Illegal migrants essentially buy their way in by paying coyotes. Why not just replace all of this with a simpler system where we ask potential migrants to pay an upfront bond of $50,000 to enter? If they are law abidding for so so years they get citizenship at the end. They won't get any welfare in the meantime and any incidental costs they incur will be paid for through the bond.

Again, we know that at $5,000 we only get some eleven million migrants. This suggests we'd have even less willing to pay $50,000. Indeed, the only ones who would be willing to pay that amount are those confident they can make the money back through work. We don't have to ask whether they will do high or low skilled work or anything like that. We won't create a way for politicians to control the labor market. All that'll matter is whether they can pay the bond amount through their own hard work or by getting someone to lend them the money.

If you require a 50k payment to come live and work here, you'd just have people come here without paying the 50k. It also doesn't solve the problems of enforcement of those illegally living here. The only viable solution compatible with a free society is to eliminate immigration laws.

 

[Michelangelo]

Unrestricted open borders are ideal but the reaction of some of those here makes it clear that there is still much resistance to the idea among the wider libertarian movement, let alone the general public. An immigration tariff would certainly be several steps short of open borders, but it would be better than the current situation and is therefore worthy of being advocated for.

I certainly like your enthusiasm though!

 

[PRB]

what's with all the mod deletes??

 

[GunnyFreedom]

what's with all the mod deletes??

A few of us lost our minds

 

[AuH20]

That's not any worse than pulling levers for Republicans.

Republicans (despite as bad as they are) sometimes act as a brake to the sad destination we are destined to end up in. A vote for the democrats is essentially a startling increase in the speed of the passenger car. Case in point: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...erts_markey_proposal_may_threaten_free_speech All contemporary political roads lead to tyranny but I'd rather take my time getting there, while exploring other non-political ends.

 

[erowe1]

Republicans (despite as bad as they are) sometimes act as a brake to the sad destination we are destined to end up in. A vote for the democrats is essentially a startling increase in the speed of the passenger car. Case in point: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...erts_markey_proposal_may_threaten_free_speech All contemporary political roads lead to tyranny but I'd rather take my time getting there, while exploring other non-political ends.

I disagree. Between Romney and Obama, a Romney presidency would have sped up government expansion significantly more than Obama. Likewise with McCain.