4 votes

Why all the race baiting flaming illegal immigration post. I don't hate brown people.

I just don't feel strongly that the government can handle deporting 11 million people. It all sounds like it will turn out like the Japanese interment camps. I think our stupid immigration laws caused the problem.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

false claim

It's obnoxious and a complete fabrication. Claims that those who want our immigration laws adhered to means we must in some way be prejuduce is biased in and of itself and is imagined by a pliant mind that catgorizes and collects people into a group.
Illegal aliens are criminals. Anyone who breaks the law is a criminal. Or do you evoke the Orwellian dictum that some criminals are more equal than others and deserve special treatment?

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Can't speak for others, but

Can't speak for others, but my signature lays out my stance quite nicely. Thanks to Thomas J. for the wise words.

"Anyone who breaks the law is a criminal." So, you DO want to hire thugs to roundup people and punish them for crossing an imaginary line after all!!! Fine, but you still stand in direct opposition to a fundamental human right, namely LIBERTY. Hold your stance, but BE HONEST ABOUT IT!!!

PFFFFFTTT!!!! Any "law" that violates a basic, unalienable human right is SUPPOSED to be VOID. not voidable, but VOID. Not starting when the supreme court pulls its head out of its @$$, but FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY IT WAS ENACTED. It is no law, carries no obligation to obey, creates no duty or office.

In Fact, any "law" that directy violates any person's right to life, liberty, or property is not law, and should be treated as non-existant.

As horrible as progressivism may be, it come about because conservatism DIDN'T WORK!!!

"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."

Angry much?

The line is imaginary in your mind only. Try telling the Canadian or Mexican governments there are no borders between them and lets see where they divy up what was once the USofA.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Nice signature. You should

Nice signature. You should read it.

Anyway, resort to Appeal Fallacies much? LOL!!! Can't blame ya. It's all you got.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/a_ap...

So, who,exactly, are the criminals? The people who created our immigration laws, or the people who ignore them? The part that made you think I was expressing anger is actually....... A Supreme court ruling. Whoopsie!!!

"They're criminal cuz they broke the law!!!!but, but, but, THE LAW!!!" So, the opinions of sociopaths, otherwise known as THE LAW, are more important than the rights that THE LAW was created to protect? The means becomes superior to the ends? PFFFFTTTT!!!!

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
"It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution."

"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."

.... And, as far as the

.... And, as far as the immigrants being "criminals" because they didn't follow the "official path to citizenship", we have these words from our wise sevants over at the Supreme Court...

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".

United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. I at 16 (1976)
"It is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice, whose mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the people of the United States, should even appear to be seeking to subvert them by extreme and dubious legal argument."

PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY (DEMONSTRATIONS):
Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights."

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
"No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262
"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."

"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."

Bottom line imo

According to estimates there will be over 80 million illegals in 20 years roughly going by the current pace. If the libertarians are fine with this ...so be it but you think this can be managed?

donvino

"so be it but you think this can be managed?"

Libertarians don't think the government should "manage" anyone.

Strawman?

Who is advocating rounding them up with police forces?

Cut off the bennies, including corporate bennies, and let attrition take its course.

By all means, don't make them citizens where they can be tracked--do you favor registering these people?

Longtime Internet Poster

No.

"Who is advocating rounding them up with police forces?"

Everyone who's in favor of immigration control must be in favor of deportation to some extent (that's the only way immigration control can be enforced after all). Some go so far as to support mass deportations of the entire population of illegal immigrants.

"By all means, don't make them citizens where they can be tracked--do you favor registering these people?"

I don't follow, what do you mean?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

"Everyone" = strawman

Please, again, who is advocating police state "round-ups?" Who is this everyone and some?

Attrition and economic incentives to leave is all I have heard.

--what do I mean?

Amnesty supporters want these people 'registered' right, like Caesar Augustus? That is why the Amnesty supporters side with McCain, Graham, Rubio and the rest of the neocon ilk--the enemy.

Longtime Internet Poster

Q: How is immigration control ENFORCED?

A: By deporting illegal immigrants.

The one entails the other. If you support immigration control, you support deportation.

--what do I mean? Amnesty supporters want these people 'registered' right, like Caesar Augustus?

I don't know what "amnesty supporters" want, or what you mean by "registration," but I do know that free immigration requires no passports, no documents, no government involvement whatsoever. It simply means that people are allowed to travel freely, period.

That is why the Amnesty supporters side with McCain, Graham, Rubio and the rest of the neocon ilk--the enemy.

None of those people are for free immigration. To my knowledge, there is no politician in the world who favors free immigration, they all favor some kind of controls. Quite a shame.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Unlike Ron Paul, I do favor

Unlike Ron Paul, I do favor making E-verify mandatory. That would take away the jobs magnet. It is already against the law for illegal immigrants to collect most forms of public benefits, if those laws were actually enforced that would take away the welfare magnet.

With no jobs and no dole, illegal immigrants would go home. There would be no reason to clog up our courts with millions of deportation cases.

As Hoppe, the leading Rothbard/Mises...

..."celebrity" put it, there would be little immigration in a libertarian society. The state practices forced integration, and massive violations of trespassing.

You chose to focus on one issue--how to get the trespassers out and set up a strawman about police state actions.

Cut off the benefits is the answer.

You are siding, if with some clever plausible denial emotional tactics, with the State, and wish to reduce the political liberty of property holders.

Whatever it is that you want, it's not libertarian.

Longtime Internet Poster

Nope.

You chose to focus on one issue--how to get the trespassers out and set up a strawman about police state actions.

To restrict immigration means precisely for the government to forcibly prevent people from entering the country and/or force them out if they manage to get in. That's the reality, not a strawman.

You are siding, if with some clever plausible denial emotional tactics, with the State, and wish to reduce the political liberty of property holders.

Huh? How does free immigration undermine property rights?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Obviously, you have read Hoppe and reject his argument..

..so why don't you just say where you disagree with Hoppe?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html

Longtime Internet Poster

Hoppe is not the "leading"

Rothbard/Mises celebrity, he is an overhyped crank.

You want to talk property rights? I am a native born American citizen living on the border. I voluntarily hire an "illegal" Mexican immigrant to work in my factory (my property) and rent him an apartment in an apartment complex I own (again, my property). You would have your precious socialist state raid my factory, deport my employee, fine or even jail me, and deny me my freedom of contract and part of my rental income. Do you deny or own up to this? If you are honest enough to admit that that's what you would do, perhaps you would also be honest enough to admit that such actions are totalitarian, and not libertarian at all.

Well said.

...and I agree strongly re Hoppe, by the way. AE is a joke.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I'd wonder why you'd hire an illegal alien over an

out of work American. What do you have against Americans?
And I refuse to label or define myself by any political ideology. I won't be sucked into anyone's mold.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"I'd wonder why you'd hire an illegal alien

over an out of work American."

The whole point of a free society is that, provided you are not aggressing against anyone, you do not have to justify your actions to anyone, including the government. You are free to hire whomever you wish, and at any time and for any reason. Hiring an illegal alien is not the point of my argument, my point is that in a free market, you can hire or fire whomever you wish.

So long as he doesn't use the schools or the hospitals...

...produce children, house welfare state clients, that is you are not socializing the cost of his presence, then there is no problem.

I don't want to "raid" your home--where do get this crazy talk from?

Longtime Internet Poster

deleted

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

What, then, do you

What, then, do you propose.....Cuz he ain't leaving unless you make him!!!

"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."

I don't propose supporting anything from Rubio, McCain et al

That is about all I can say.

European governments have been successful with repatriation bonuses, which in libertarian speak, could be privatized, that is, pay people to leave--of course this will need the encouragement of cutting off welfare state bennies to make the economics work out.

With Affirmative Action as the law, it would be insane to support any "path" to citizenship if you are outside the promoted ethnic group.

There are very real labor issues, but rather than subsidizing cheap foreign labor, I would support doing away with compulsory schooling--a new work force like magic! and a lot cheaper then keeping kids ill suited for 12 years of schooling locked up in a prison where they might be subject to the inhumane.

So long as the franchise and access to government services are denied in the legal framework, it can be worked out.

Longtime Internet Poster

It amazes me...

...that anyone calling himself a libertarian could be in favor of armed government employees rounding up millions of people and forcing them to leave their homes. Or be in favor of the government telling people where they can and cannot travel. Or thinking that the individual rights we all champion don't apply unless you have the right stamps on your government documents.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Borders - the ultimate way to divide and conquer The People.

Borders are used to divvy up the tax slaves. When The People really get their brain around that, the whole immigration issue will become moot.
To quote the eloquent and wise Techn9ne:
"So what you ask from me, you get no tax from me, I got whites, natives, Mexicans and blacks with me."

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Give me your tired, your

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Or just k1 visa guys to take programming jobs and network engineering for 40k a year.

what is the problem?

Have these people not heard of general admission?

If life is a living hell in Mexico due to violence, instability, etc and declared as some emergency zone or whatever the UN and international call it, refugee camps could be set up until the crisis passes and some can be processes for eventual citizenship.

If the people come for purely economic gain they should take a number. Mexico has one of the most stringent immigration laws and their southern border is carefully scrutinized from what I hear.

To come into a country illegally and demand benefits? Are you kidding me? What other country would stand for such a flagrant disregard for its laws unless it was the UK :P

Any other country would immediately deport the person and ban them from their land.

I have been to countries ie tax havens and their immigration controls are very strict and one time I was detained and questioned in the airport for verification of my lodgings for that upcoming week. My friend who resided there legally had to come to the airport and vouch for me to their customs/border agents. Perhaps I looked hung over which did not look good and was wearing some kind of t-shirt advertising a brand of whiskey lol

donvino

Nothing against legal immigrants

Have you ever seen all the hoops a k-1 visa sponsor has to go through?
While the so called undocumented get carte blanche incentives to come here.

Take away all their incentives enforce the law and they will deport themselves all 50 million. no its not 11 million.

Its a joke to think the executive and other branches of government doesn't want them here for their own political objectives.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

I don't have a problem

with brown people either. What I do have a problem with is people breaking into this country then trying to dictate their will on those who came here legally or were born here. Look at the corporations lobbying congress to forgive all those who came here illegally. I cannot go hop a border into Canada or Mexico expecting to get their benefits, why is it okay for others to do that here? I don't care what color the person is who came here illegally. If they want to stay, they better not be caught, as simple as that. And if they are caught, it'd be cheaper to send them back on a greyhound or a plane (depending on where they come from) than to lock them up.

The government really starts to look illegitimate when they cry terrorism, while building a police state infrastructure and limiting citizens' rights, while giving those who we have no clue who they are citizenship. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. It has nothing to do with anyone's "rights." They had no right to come here illegally. And if you think people are against illegal immigration because of their skin color, Mexico has laws on the books in order to keep Mexico's culture a Hispanic majority, that country has a race problem. I am against illegal immigration because they broke the law, while my ancestors had to literally wait in line.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

What benefits are you referring to?