When Does Open Immigration Become An Invasion?

[erowe1]

So, one person actually watched the video?

The preview pic with the baby on the American flag told me I wasn't going to like it. No, I didn't watch it.

 

[thoughtomator]

The preview pic with the baby on the American flag told me I wasn't going to like it. No, I didn't watch it.

It's the Ron Paul Liberty Report...

 

[fisharmor]

The preview pic with the baby on the American flag told me I wasn't going to like it. No, I didn't watch it.

Ok then cliffs notes... Ron's only justification for having immigration restrictions is that we have a congress which is authorized to pass laws.

He does not mention article 1 section 8 the way he does when he talks about congress' enumerated powers, he does not talk about the 10th amendment.... in brief, he does not appeal to the constitution consistently.

I havent said this in a year or so, so here goes... the reason I am not a constitutionalist is not that I think there are better systems.

I am not a constitutionalist because nobody can apply it consistently... not even constitutionalism's greatest public advocate in the last 100 years!

Ron Paul himself is clearly going off script for something that only sounds good on the surface. In that respect he is no different from people who purposely redefine "militia" or "among" to justify the different federal overreaches they like.

The only possible fair treatments of constitutionalism are
1) nobody gets to ignore it ever (which has never happened) or
2) everyone gets to ignore it.

We are living the second option, and Ron Paul is actually in favor of it.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

What if government policy encouraged millions of socialists to immigrate to the United States and vote for socialist dictators? Oh wait.

This^

It's an easy way to conquer a borderless country.

Let's ask the Natives then?.......May be there's a lesson to be learned.

While living in tyranny, we have to ask one question - what will help us get closer to liberty? In my opinion, allowing in millions of new voters, who don't support liberty, is NOT the answer.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The preview pic with the baby on the American flag told me I wasn't going to like it. No, I didn't watch it.

Kind of hard to discuss a video when no one watches it.

Nice to hear what Ron himself (and Daniel McAdams) have to say.

 

[erowe1]

No one said they hated immigrants. They said they didn't like ILLEGAL immigrants.

You keep saying that. But obviously it's not true. If it were, you'd be fine with legalizing all the immigration that is now illegal. Then those illegal immigrants would be legal immigrants.

 

[Ender]

lol. No it's not. When I was growing up, they were called ILLEGAL ALIENS and neocons didn't exist then.

It's really very simple. They are ILLEGAL, because they are breaking our immigration laws; they are ALIENS because they are nationals of a different country than our own.

Uhhhh..... yeah, they did- the Father of the NeoCon takeover was William Buckley. Pretty sure you were around then.

The whole illegal immigration thing is part of the taking away of natural human rights. Most people want natural rights unless it involves letting others have theirs.

Take away entitlements- let people work and live.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Uhhhh..... yeah, they did- the Father of the NeoCon takeover was William Buckley. Pretty sure you were around then.

No. He was more of a Rockefeller Republican. The long-standing big government establishment wing of the Republican Party.

 

[Ender]

No. He was more of a Rockefeller Republican. The long-standing big government establishment wing of the Republican Party.

NO.

BUCKLEY IS THE FATHER OF THE NEOCON TAKEOVER. Learn a little history.

 

[Dianne]

When they take armed control of American land.

 

[Ender]

When they take armed control of American land.

Mexican drug cartels are controlled by the alphabets- it's what the WoD is for.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You keep saying that. But obviously it's not true. If it were, you'd be fine with legalizing all the immigration that is now illegal. Then those illegal immigrants would be legal immigrants.

And murder wouldn't be murder, if it was legalized too.

You must have missed the concept that we have no requirement to let in ANYONE. Much less to be overrun in such large numbers that instead of assimilating into our culture, they are changing it.

There is no country without borders.

 

[LibertyEagle]

NO.

BUCKLEY IS THE FATHER OF THE NEOCON TAKEOVER. Learn a little history.

No, that was Bill Kristol's daddy.

 

[Ender]

And murder wouldn't be murder, if it was legalized too.

You must have missed the concept that we have no requirement to let in ANYONE. Much less to be overrun in such large numbers that instead of assimilating into our culture, they are changing it.

There is no country without borders.

Reminds me of the dialog between the Little Prince and the King:

King: Stooop!!! Where are your papers?

Prince: What papers?

King: You can’t cross the border without papers!

Prince: What border?

King: well that border there! To cross it, you’ll need a visa. Do you have one?

Prince: No

King: Then you can’t cross it! Those are the rules. Stop! you just backed into another country. What are you? A smuggler? A refugee? An idealist? Speak up! what are you?

Prince: I’m ignorant

King: Oh well, you might outgrow it. Now look, uh, my country is too small for the both of us. But I have a colonial possesion over to your left. Now if your papers are in order, you can settle down there.

Prince: You’re majesty, It’s such a small planet. Why do you need borders?

King: Why do we need borders?!

Prince: Yes, why do you need borders? You told me to ask questions

King: Well any child understands why we need borders.

Prince: I don’t

King: Well fo course you don’t understand. You’re a child!


Prince: Explain it to me. I want to learn.


King: Now where are your papers?

Prince: I don’t have any

King: Well you can’t stay without papers!

Prince: Then I’ll leave!

King: Just as well, you’re dangerous. where is your passport? It’s gotta be stamped

Prince: I don’t have a passport.

King: Then you can’t leave!
Come back here! Get off this planet! Come back here! Get off this planet

So much for Liberty, eh?

 

[erowe1]

And murder wouldn't be murder, if it was legalized too.

But murder is wrong. Legalizing it wouldn't change that, and I would hate it regardless if it were legal. See how that works?

So, when you say that the only reason you're against illegal immigration is that it happens to be illegal, and that you're not against the immigration itself, you're lying.

Lying is another thing that's wrong.

 

[erowe1]

You must have missed the concept that we have no requirement to let in ANYONE.

What you do have a requirement to do is to allow me to let anyone in. If I choose to, you have no right to stop me. You are free to keep them off of your own property, but you have no right to keep them off anyone else's. The whole swath of land that the regime in Washington, DC, claims to have under its jurisdiction is not actually owned by them or anyone else. And it shouldn't be treated that way.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No, that was Bill Kristol's daddy.

You are correct about that, but Buckley was the guy behind hijacking the American Right by neocons. An agent of action for the Idea Man. To this day neocons and apologists like Limbaugh cite Bill Buckley as an important influence.

CIA counterfeit conservative William F. Buckley Jr., after completing his snitch work as FBI shill/informant at Yale, was recruited by the Agency and did his CIA stint with E. Howard Hunt (future Watergate conspirator) in Mexico. Buckley, with intelligence community colleagues James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, Priscilla Buckley, and William J. Casey, went on to found National Review magazine as the premier publication of the CIA’s synthetic “Conservative movement” replacing the non-interventionist Old Right coalition of Americans opposed to the corporate welfare-warfare state of Roosevelt and Truman.
What most Americans mistakenly regard today as the “Conservative movement” has undergone many convoluted and dramatic transformations over the past sixty years.
Perhaps the most keen observer has been the late Murray N. Rothbard, the internationally acclaimed economist and historian (and bête noir of Buckley).
How this disinformation process began is detailed in Rothbard’s engaging and insightful book, The Betrayal of the American Right.
It tells the full story of how this subversive movement at war with American liberties and the rule of law, came about.
This book is the definitive examination of how the CIA’s phony “Conservative movement” arose and deluded millions in the name of national security and state power.
“Conservatism,” since the days of Burke and Robespierre, has stood for the status quo and an apologia for tyranny.
William F. Buckley, Jr.’s entire career as a “public intellectual” was built upon one ignominious deception after another as a servitor of state power.
The synthetic “Conservative movement” he help spawn has continued unabated, growing like a cancer in the American body politic.
Buckley was a student at Yale University (Skull and Bones 1950) where he served as shill and informant for J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. One of Buckley’s Yale professors, former Trotskyist communist Willmoore Kendall (formerly of the OSS and later consultant to the CIA) was a recruiter of talent for the newly created Agency. Kendall recruited Buckley in 1951.
Kendall introduced him to former Trotskyist James Burnham (also formerly of the OSS). Burnham was consultant to the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination, the CIA’s covert action division. He was later to actively work on the CIA coup d’etat against Mossadegh in Iran.
Burnham first introduced Buckley to agent E. Howard Hunt in his Washington, D. C. apartment. Buckley then served with Hunt in Mexico where Hunt was chief of station and Buckley’s control officer. Hunt later figured as a principal in the Watergate Scandal that brought down Richard Nixon.
Hunt, in his memoirs, American Spy, (in which Buckley wrote the introduction) observes that prior to his stint in the CIA, Regnery published Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, an indictment of the supposed pervasive liberalism on that campus. The book launched Buckley’s career as spokesman for the emerging “Conservative movement” of the early 1950s. With what we now know about CIA covert recruiting on college campuses during this period, particularly Yale, Buckley’s initial book bears a new revisionist examination.
What is not widely known is that the whole enterprise was largely that of a “vanity press” arrangement, with the Buckley family operating covertly under the clandestine guise of the Catawba Corporation, commissioning and financing the book’s publication and publicity. The book’s ownership copyright secretly belonged to Catawba, not WFB.
Buckley was later approached by Regnery to serve on the board of directors of the publishing firm, along with that of William J. Casey. Casey was a prominent Wall Street attorney who had served in the OSS and later became CIA Director under Ronald Reagan.
Hunt pointed out that Regnery was subsidized by the CIA during its early years.
At this time James Burnham, who had maintained many of his former leftist connections, was active in the CIA sponsored front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was secretly funding left-wing, anti-Soviet scholars and publications networks. When later, at Burnham’s urging, Buckley created National Review magazine, the premier “Conservative” publication of the past fifty years, joining him in the endeavor as principal editors were Kendall, Burnham, and his sister Priscilla, all of whom had been employed by the CIA.
William J. Casey drew up the incorporation papers for National Review, and served as its long-time legal counsel.
The mysterious early funding of this “non-profit” publication has long been an enigma to researchers.
One hoped that Hunt (and Buckley) would finally shed light on this subject, for in one of the most fascinating, if incomplete, chapters in Hunt’s memoir, “The Great Propaganda Machine,” he describes some of his activities in the CIA’s on-going efforts to manipulate, subsidize, and influence the news media and, through it, American public opinion.
The great unanswered question remains: What was Hunt’s role in assisting his old colleague in creating the CIA’s synthetic “Conservative movement?” Buckley’s National Review editorial colleague Frank Meyer (and his good friend, National Review former contributor Murray Rothbard) believed that the magazine was a CIA operation run by Burnham as Buckley’s control. And Hunt does detail in the book how the CIA was engaged in many clandestine operations of covert front groups and foundations using media manipulation and propaganda to project American imperial power and hegemony throughout the world.
Buckley and Hunt are dead.
Why not come clean about National Review?
Buckley remained close to Hunt and, as he relates in the memoir, helping him through some trying post-Watergate legal difficulties after the mysterious airline death of his wife Dorothy.
Years later, Buckley was outted as a CIA operative by former CIA agent William Sloane Coffin (Skull and Bones 1949). Coffin was a long-time colleague of George H. W. Bush (Skull and Bones 1948) when they both attended Phillips Andover Academy and later Yale together.
Former CIA Director Bush later presented Buckley the Presidential Medal of Freedom, something Hunt never got for his years of clandestine service. Buckley subsequently created his famous fictional character of CIA agent Blackford Oakes, as Hunt had done earlier in his own series of eight spy novels (under the pseudonym of David St. John) featuring CIA agent ‘Peter Ward.’
But it is not Hunt with whom Buckley should be compared but author Mary Shelley.
Buckley’s entire life as America’s premier “conservative” public intellectual was sheer fiction based on lies and deception. And so has been the Frankenstein movement he created for his intelligence community masters.
7:11 pm on November 24, 2014

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-phony-legacy-of-william-f-buckley-jr/

 

[TheTexan]

What you do have a requirement to do is to allow me to let anyone in. If I choose to, you have no right to stop me. You are free to keep them off of your own property, but you have no right to keep them off anyone else's. The whole swath of land that the regime in Washington, DC, claims to have under its jurisdiction is not actually owned by them or anyone else. And it shouldn't be treated that way.

This land was made for you and me (and not the mexicans)

 

[timosman]

And murder wouldn't be murder, if it was legalized too.

 

[LibertyEagle]

But murder is wrong. Legalizing it wouldn't change that, and I would hate it regardless if it were legal. See how that works?

So, when you say that the only reason you're against illegal immigration is that it happens to be illegal, and that you're not against the immigration itself, you're lying.

Lying is another thing that's wrong.

That's not what I said, actually. Our borders have been INVADED. It is beyond stupid to allow that, because then there is no chance that they will be assimilated into our culture. In fact, such large numbers will insure that they will change the culture that exists.

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

Perhaps the issue you are having is that you don't want a nation at all.