With all the talk about "immigration" I think a look at the Barbary Pirates is valid

[Superfluous Man]

money laundering, falsified documents, human trafficking, all tied to mexican activity across the border...HMM YES keep acting like it doesnt happen

Sure it happens. And those actual crimes (although, I can't see why money laundering and falsified documents should be objectionable to you) can and should be prosecuted when they occur. That doesn't need to involve any restriction of travel on the parts of noncriminals.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Sure it happens. And those actual crimes (although, I can't see why money laundering and falsified documents should be objectionable to you) can and should be prosecuted when they occur. That doesn't need to involve any restriction of travel on the parts of noncriminals.

you do realize there is a big difference between Expatriation , citizen, and non-citizen,and illegal immigrant?

 

[Superfluous Man]

you do realize there is a big difference between Expatriation , citizen, and non-citizen,and illegal immigrant?

A difference based on statutes that corrupt politicians made up out of thin air having nothing to do with actual right and wrong.

Yes.

So? Are we not supposed to criticize politicians who burden us with unjust laws like those?

A crime is something with a victim. But an unjust law is no law at all.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

A difference based on statutes that corrupt politicians made up out of thin air having nothing to do with actual right and wrong.

Yes.

So? Are we not supposed to criticize politicians who burden us with unjust laws like those?

A crime is something with a victim. But an unjust law is no law at all.

we are not just speaking of crime,we are speaking of national security.the u.s. constitution has ALWAYS had this in mind. If the founders and states of the republic did not believe in borders they would have NEVER made borders to begin with nationally.

 

[Superfluous Man]

we are not just speaking of crime,we are speaking of national security.the u.s. constitution has ALWAYS had this in mind. If the founders and states of the republic did not believe in borders they would have NEVER made borders to begin with nationally.

I have never said anything about no borders. But just because you have borders doesn't mean you have to restrict movement across them. The Constitution makes no provision for the federal government to do that, and the federal government never did do it until about a century ago.

And no, this is not a matter of national security.

If you want to be able to stop an invading army (which I don't think we have to worry about anyway), you don't have to prevent people coming here to work or for any other peaceful reason. The reason this is such a big issue is precisely because of people who DO want to restrict immigrants from being able to come here for work.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I have never said anything about no borders. But just because you have borders doesn't mean you have to restrict movement across them. The Constitution makes no provision for the federal government to do that, and the federal government never did do it until about a century ago.

And no, this is not a matter of national security.

If you want to be able to stop an invading army (which I don't think we have to worry about anyway), you don't have to prevent people coming here to work or for any other peaceful reason. The reason this is such a big issue is precisely because of people who DO want to restrict immigrants from being able to come here for work.

restrict immigrants from coming here to work?Uh you mean Indians from india who are forced into near slave contracts to hold a visa? get real,.............this has to do with a war in Syria that amounts to over 1 million deaths.....mostly to do with MUSLIM radicals overthrowing entire regions. I have been pretty relaxed on my view of muslim countries in the past, but taking a look at the war in Syria and there being no end..just like Iraq, Im sorry but those radicals are savages. Not every muslim is a radical, but whos going to know ? So by your logic, we should just usher in 10,000 + . Sorry but we disagree. I do not believe it is wise at this point to do what Germany tried doing and bring in a bunch of people from war zones , key words :WITHOUT figuring out who they are and if they participated in killing people. I guess those acts of violence in Germany in December were just made up right?Just fake news....i suppose.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I have never said anything about no borders. But just because you have borders doesn't mean you have to restrict movement across them. The Constitution makes no provision for the federal government to do that, and the federal government never did do it until about a century ago.

And no, this is not a matter of national security.

If you want to be able to stop an invading army (which I don't think we have to worry about anyway), you don't have to prevent people coming here to work or for any other peaceful reason. The reason this is such a big issue is precisely because of people who DO want to restrict immigrants from being able to come here for work.

"Authorities said a 27-year-old Syrian man tried to enter an outdoor concert in southern Germany and then blew himself up, injuring 15 people, in what appeared to be this country’s first suicide bombing in years." http://graphics.wsj.com/what-we-know-about-the-attacks-in-germany/ just some fake news for you.

 

[Superfluous Man]

So by your logic, we should just usher in 10,000 + .

Of course. Why not? That's not even a large number.

Some kind of pre-crime law enforcement, where you punish people for what you predict they will do in the future, not based on anything they're actually guilty of, but just because, by the accident of birth, they happen to have some irrelevant thing in common with some other criminal, is utterly immoral.

People who are actual guilty criminals, and can be proven guilty by due process, like the people you're worried about (or at least should be), we can punish. But not innocent people.

 

[timosman]

Of course. Why not? That's not even a large number.

Some kind of pre-crime law enforcement, where you punish people for what you predict they will do in the future, not based on anything they're actually guilty of, but just because, by the accident of birth, they happen to have some irrelevant thing in common with some other criminal, is utterly immoral.

People who are actual guilty criminals, and can be proven guilty by due process, like the people you're worried about (or at least should be), we can punish. But not innocent people.

Do you think this is the best forum for airing these idiotic thoughts?

 

[Superfluous Man]

Do you think this is the best forum for airing these idiotic thoughts?

Ron Paul isn't an idiot.

And yes, this forum is probably the very best on all the internet for airing libertarian thoughts.

You might want to consult the site mission before you go too far in your insults of those of us who agree with it.

 

[oyarde]

By 1795 1/6th of the US budget was used to pay ransom . At that point the only reasonable action would be to raise an Army large enough to exterminate those entire states and burn them to the ground .

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Of course. Why not? That's not even a large number.

Some kind of pre-crime law enforcement, where you punish people for what you predict they will do in the future, not based on anything they're actually guilty of, but just because, by the accident of birth, they happen to have some irrelevant thing in common with some other criminal, is utterly immoral.

People who are actual guilty criminals, and can be proven guilty by due process, like the people you're worried about (or at least should be), we can punish. But not innocent people.

ridiculous.This is not "thought crime".....having borders with borders being guarded is not the same as "thought crime" .

 

[CaptainAmerica]

By 1795 1/6th of the US budget was used to pay ransom . At that point the only reasonable action would be to raise an Army large enough to exterminate those entire states and burn them to the ground .

stop talking about history, some people here don't like it very much, its so offensive ...

 

[Superfluous Man]

ridiculous.This is not "thought crime".....having borders with borders being guarded is not the same as "thought crime" .

I didn't say thought crime, I said pre-crime.

Punishing people for a crime for which you have no evidence that they're guilty, but you just think they're going to commit it in the future.

And again, stop with these euphemisms about having borders. There's nothing about having borders, and guarding them, that requires that you limit peaceful people's ability to move across them.

 

[CaptUSA]

<sigh>

Some people just never understood the message.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are a great way to deal with terrorism - I don't think anyone suggested differently - but to try to correlate it with this immigration fiasco?! Come on.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I didn't say thought crime, I said pre-crime.

Punishing people for a crime for which you have no evidence that they're guilty, but you just think they're going to commit it in the future.

And again, stop with these euphemisms about having borders. There's nothing about having borders, and guarding them, that requires that you limit peaceful people's ability to move across them.

you do realize that non citizens don't have the same rights as us ?They have unalienable rights...thats it.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

you do realize that non citizens don't have the same rights as us ?They have unalienable rights...thats it.

You should study the case of Yick Wo v Hopkins... There's some great stuff in there!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins

[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/118/356



[/URL]