ABC News w/ Jonathan Karl | November 19, 2012
His language is so different than his dad's.
What's all the crap about growing the party and generating more revenue? He sounds like everyone else.
a TEMPORARY amnesty program for illegals who were brought here as children provided security is ramped up at the border during that temporary time to make sure more don't come so their children can get in on it. None of them should be given citizenship automatically, regardless of college enrollment or military service. But, those brought here as minors who don't have a violent, criminal record should be allowed permanent residence here and THEN if they want to apply for citizenship they can after the mandatory (What is it? 5 years?) time it takes to be living here as legal immigrants from the time of their legalization.
Fiction or fact, Rand will be nominated for the GOP in 2016 and Mitt Romney will be his running mate for VP -- Romney will lose again!
We're simple beasts, no? Filled with hope and forgiveness.
Listening to this interview, there is no doubt in my mind, this is Dr. Paul's boy, I can trust him on the important issues despite everything, and...I'm in
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Had crawled on a Parage Garage floor for 5 1/2 hr at County Convention - for Crocker. THEN, without expecting to draw the black bean yet again at State, there that CROCKER man was again...pulling the same stunts he did at County.
Drug myself back to my room to hear Rand endorse...Romney. And I wondered what the heck I was doing there... WHY had I fought so hard to be involved in MY PARTY'S CONVENTIONS?
And THEN, here ole CROCKER came again at Natl...pulling the same TOP-DOWN MALARKEY I'd already experienced.
So, I believe I'll have to do a little studying on this matter. I'm so far from endorsing someone for 2016, it's actually foolish for me to even be commenting here.
Susie 4 Liberty
When Rand endorsed Romney on Hannity (no less), Ron Paul's campaign had reached plurality.. and MSM was not saying. Supporters were tapped.. moneybombs were failing. For all those folled stadium, and for whatever reason, Ron Paul was not translating into primany wins. There was a delegate statigy in the works, and it was becomming obvious, delegates were so busy fighting the GOP, the GOP was setting Ron Paul folks up to take them down, and one of the ways they were doing that was through loyalty oaths.
The loyalty oaths were a big WTF, because many of us, especially those like me who had been Independents before joining the GOP to become delegates, were very inspired by Ron Paul who didn't walk or talk like he signed a loyalty oath.. but we were, and we were handed GOP by-laws, platform, resolutions, inniatives and expected to know them.. plus all the stiff were we going through in each state and county..
When Rand endorsed Romney.. that's when I woke up to my own loyalty oath.. and simular to Rand, Iexplained why I would vote for Romney IF Ron Paul failed to get the nomination.
So for me.. there are those in the GOP and working within the system, and there are those who are not. When those who are not, refuse to even try to understand what we are going through.. I think it's very interesting that many of us who were affected are still fighting.. My GOP is taking a break.. but Ron Paul RepubliCANs are not, and Rand is who we are preparing to vet.
To me, a fool, or being foolish is not learning from one's mistakes. Ron Paul rEVOLution is a huge learning curve that you have to practice to grow. When I first came into this, I never thought I would be a Republican, least of all an establisghed one.. and I didn't agree with Ron Paul as much as I do now.. so change is enivitable and hopefully we do that by learning.
Now this Crocker charactor.. seems you have 4 years to work on him?
...I respect the people who still do not want to support him but... mark my words you will join later on and we will be in this together. That is why we might as well start now.
We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016
Just because someone does not want to support Rand does not mean I will respect them depending on their reasons. I'm sure there are those who I could respect, for example, I can respect Obama for not wanting to support Rand, because I expect Obama to want to enslave us more in the FRB and more debt. That does not mean I agree with someone I respect. I can agree to disagree, respectively.
Ron Paul picked the GOP, none of what I am doing was my idea, but it's a damn good idea.. the best I've seen in my life. So I'm on the GOP bus and to me, Rand is our best shot, and we need folks to be preparing to run for offices.
If someone wants to take Ron Paul's message to another party.. good luck with that. If someone wants to not do anything just learn about politics.. I'm fine with that too.
...LOL, it even fits his ideology of only attacking when being attacked. Walk away when being left alone.
Could have fooled me.
No NEW Taxes. The reason Bush wanted illegal immigration from mexico was they came here and worked. They could not and can not get out of social security tax. They can however get out of state and federal taxes by claiming 10 or more dependents. I never hired a mexican imigrant that did not have a green card and did not claim less than 10 dependents. But I did withhold social security taxes on all of them.
I feel that many of you are thinking of this immigration thing in a holdout neoconservative way instead of of applying true libertarian principles to the question.
In a true libertarian society, with no few if any involuntary safety nets, people aren't flocking in for a free ride. They come because of the promise of liberty and opportunity in exchange for hard work, talent and determination. In a true libertarian society, freedom of travel, both in and out is guaranteed. The government has no more authority to prevent you from buying land, settling somewhere, starting a business and being a productive member of society just because of who your parents were or where your mother went into labor.
The legitimate function of government in this case is to keep legitimate criminals and warmongers out, since a good defense prevents war and crime.
Of course, we don't have an ideal libertarian government now. Which is why wholesale elimination of immigration regulations is a bad idea right now. But how is it a bad idea to loosen immigration requirements for those immigrants that are productive, starting jobs or doing jobs that have demand for good workers, paying taxes, etc, and whose only crime is letting their visa expire or having the wrong visa (most "illegal immigrants" are visa overstays)? By all means, don't offer amnesty/citizenship to those who are a drain in the system, are criminals, etc. But it enhances the principle of freedom and promotes a free economy to allow all those who are participating in the economy to take a more active role, regardless of nationality.
And think of how it affects the liberty of american citizens, as well. Just like the TSA, the Customs and Immigration checkpoints are another place where US citizens and legal residents are harassed because of pointless rules. I've had several American, born and bred (white, european surnames for those prone to stereotype), harrased by passport control asking for a second form of identification other than passport -- the requirement for a state ID cannot be enforced by the federal government, in other words, trying to deny US citizens legitimate entry into the country. It is a crime to record, photograph or do anything of that sort during passport control and customs, another way which citizens are not allowed to avoid abuses while undergoing normal travel. Additionally, ever have a friendly "chat" with one of those officers in customs? They are recording everything you say, even if it has nothing to do with import duties, or your legal right to be in the country -- it is an excuse to ask you anything they want, with the threat of denying you entrance into your country of residence. Not to mention the fingerprinting and photographing of all legal permanent residents, and the RFID identification US citizens need to carry around as a result (I wouldn't be surprised if US citizens were fingerprinted as well, soon).
Some measures are necessary, sure, to avoid terrorism and what not. But do we really need to have such a state of treating citizens like criminals to deal with ordinary people traveling and living in the US?
It seems like the level of federal control over the whole system is counter to a libertarian philosophy. I agree thus with Sen. Rand Paul in: have legitimate border patrol and immigration controls to keep violence out of the system. But make it easier for everyone else, citizens included, to live and conduct business in the US, as the free market demands.
Illegal aliens given amnesty will not be won over to liberty.
Maybe give them a fine or other non-deportation punishment. Why get rid of people that would be good candidates for legal residency if not for mistakes made early on in the process?
Enhance border security and reform legal immigration in the meantime to cut down on future illegal immigrants.
Safety nets aren't going to disappear before immigration reform is brought up.
But there are lots of illegal immigrants that don't use safety nets and aren't here for them. Some of them might even be creating jobs or helping businesses that might collapse without them. Many are paying taxes and into SS and Medicare without being entitled to most of the benefits at all. If they were legal residents, even more would pay taxes, it would be easier to keep track of criminals, and potential citizenship can be held out as a carrot for good behavior, acculturation and productivity.
include your back yard?
Brother Winston Smith
The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.
That is why we have roads and whatnot. Although I don't think it would be legal for someone to buy land around me to prevent me from leaving my home without trespassing. Real estate has laws regarding that, normally with a shared walkway or whatnot.
Don't apply principles that belong to individuals to the state. The land of the US is not directly analogous to the "backyard" of the federal government, if that is where you are going with this. Think of how much they could limit the freedom of citizens if that were the case.
If America and its citizens value private property rights, then the effects of "illegal" immigration is a moot point. You are using a straw man argument.
liberty lover in Nor Cal!
Immigration law PROTECTS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
No hay hombre de paja.
Why do you think it does. It places limits on how two people conduct their private business. This may be justifiable, or not, but immigration law does nothing to protect private property, and instead it allows federal government greater access to your property, privacy and finances.
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
I've always wondered what the logic was behind the idea that imaginary lines drawn on a map constitute some kind of mystical "stargate" that is capable of changing how the world works.
I mean, come on, people!!! What super advanced technology is contained in those "borders"?!?!?!
Does it seperate good from evil?
rational from irational?
intellegent from the dull?
the wise from the ignorant?
Does crossing it give you a high?
make you rich or poor?
success or a failure?
Man, I'm starting to think that the "border" thing is just some more B.S. resulting from deadly stupid and irrational ideas such as patriotism, nationalism, protectionism, and even merchantilism.
The right to move ones body and property in an unrestricted manner is one of the oldest human rights we have, dating all the way back to the Magna Carta, at least.
Notice I said HUMAN rights, not American rights. Aren't mexicans simply HUMANS deserving the EXACT SAME freedoms as Americans, and every other human on the face of the earth?
....And if it is their inalienable, god-given RIGHT to cross the invisible line for any reason they wish, they can't possibly be ILLEGAL aliens. In fact, any law that restricts this basic, indeniable right, is itself ILLEGAL!!!
There's no such thing as "border economics". There is only good economics and bad economics. Those of you wanting to stop people from crossing the border(in either direction) are practicing BAD economics.
"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
citizen then yes, there is no reason to enforce a border. We could let a billion people in, put them on welfare and allow them to vote, let our taxes pay for their education, healthcare and internet.
Yes, in a free world borders are restrictions on freedom, but this is not a free world and borders, like laws, protect our freedoms. The question is how to promote the greatest amount of liberty. Our current laws and policies do not do that.
The debate is not about property rights, as everyone here understands, respects and recognizes ownership as an extension of liberty. The difference is between the nationalist viewpoint and the one that rejects the State.
Winston has sided with nationalism. D-man12 has rejected it. If we're to be honest with one another while debating, at least let us put out there where we're coming from. So from now on, when we let Winston's arguments sink in, know that he is coming from an American (nationalist) position, and D-man from a stateless (individualist) position.
"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."
This man gets it.
Btw, I'm all for individuals that comprise the State staying within their borders. Free individuals should be just that: free
We have legal documents that are over 800 years old, along with tons of backup throughout theyears that say plainly that crossing borders is not legal... and that trying to stop them is, indeed legal.
... into your back yard. Cool?
You were called out on your strawman above, so I'll take another angle.... or 3
1.The entire state of texas is not your back yard, lol.
2. If there were mexicans, or americans, in your back yard, you'd be talking to Badges-N-Guns, Inc. Instead of posting on the DP.
3. If you meant "backyard" figuratively, then mexico would be closer to your back yard than, say,nebraska. Got any of those "illegal aliens from nebraska causing problems? Of course not. I guess the northern borders have lost their supernatural "charge, lmao!
So, a few guys with badges and guns draw a line in the dirt, and we're supposed to magically be afraid of everything on the other side. Get real! Badges-N-Guns, Inc. Rob me every day. I'm not skeert of a mexican trying to live the "american dream".
Ill fix grammar when I'm not on my phone.
No, you ATTEMPTED to FALSELY describe a strawman.
GIBBERISH (NOT FUNNY):
"The entire state of texas is not your back yard, lol"
An individual's borders are AS A COMMUNITY'S BORDERS, a town's, a city's, a States and A NATION'S BORDERS. You CANNOT (I repeat) CANNOT simultaneously philosophically dissolve one border, while preserving another.
"If there were mexicans, or americans, in your back yard, you'd be talking to Badges-N-Guns, Inc. Instead of posting on the DP."
BINGO!!!!!! Yes, you're describing LAW ENFORCEMENT!!!!
AN ACTUAL STRAWMAN ARGUMENT:
"If you meant "backyard" figuratively, then mexico would be closer to your back yard than, say,nebraska. Got any of those "illegal aliens from nebraska causing problems? Of course not. I guess the northern borders have lost their supernatural "charge, lmao!"
Illegal aliens DO NOT "come to" California, Nebraska, Idaho, etc, etc. THEY COME TO AMERICA TO EXPLOIT WHAT SHE WILL ALLOW. One American moving to another State is a very transparently desperate "argument," that simply does not apply.
"So, a few guys with badges and guns draw a line in the dirt, and we're supposed to magically be afraid of everything on the other side."
The badges and guns ENFORCE the borders, again, same as your front door (that locks, I'll wager).
"Badges-N-Guns, Inc. Rob me every day."
Lawless politicians rob you.
"I'm not skeert of a mexican trying to live the "american dream"."
Based on the IRREFUTABLE facts, awareness would be wise. Illegal aliens are NOT "trying to live the "american dream." This is a phrase they are taught for cameras. No, they are EXPLOITING America. Very successfully. I cannot help but recall Tony Montana's assessment: "Dis town... like a great big ***** juz waitn to get ******."
Grammar's fine, friend. It's the arguments that are flawed.