2 votes

Seems like many here are split on Immigration - Requesting answers from YOU (ALL) *UPDATED*

**I am updating this post because some here, specifically some of those that have refused to answer some of these questions, have whined about this being a "BAIT" piece. Really? Is that the best you got at evading the questions? Can't answer a few questions, huh? Did these particular questions strike a nerve that make it too uncomfortable for you to answer honestly? For those of you that fall into that category, you may want to ask yourselves if perhaps the real reason you're avoiding those questions, while getting so extremely defensive about them, doesn't have to do with something more than you're willing to admit. Sometimes we don't like to be confronted with the ugly truth do we? For some, it's obviously just too much to handle.**:

For those of you that would like to answer objectively, without assumptions and suspicions, by all means.....


Original Post begins now:

Aside from the comments left on this post: http://www.dailypaul.com/280997/anonymous-vs-israel-it-is-on... aside as recent COUNTLESS others;

I have a few questions for some here that oppose "illegal" immigration.

Do you support and abide by tax laws ONLY out of fear of repercussions and penalties?
Do you support the drug laws since drugs are "illegal" by "law"?
Do you support the Constitution and reject Un-Constitutional laws?
Is there a place anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that speaks on "LEGAL" immigration? "The Right To Travel" comes to mind. Think about that one for a second.

Lastly, regardless of whether you support a "law" or not, will you still abide by it due to it being Un-Constitutional? Or does this ONLY apply to the 2nd Amendment with you "Liberty" guys here?

I'm sure some here will most likely argue that the Constitution ONLY applies to Americans. Yet it's those SAME PEOPLE that will many times argue that they are GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, and that they can NOT be infringed on by a government. So which is it?

The point of this post is to possibly help bring us together(even a little), and to help me understand why some here denounce and reject certain laws while supporting certain other laws. Seems hypocritical to me. My fear is that it is only because it affects you personally.

Looking forward to those answers and arguments, with emphasis on certain members here as well that always seem to post/reply on "immigration issues".


What do those of you who oppose immigration want to see happed? Should we not allow anyone to immigrate to the US?
Are you familiar with our current immigration policy and how difficult (nearly impossible) it is for people who are latino and have no higher education to come here?

Also, what do you think should be done about the millions of illegal immigrants who are already here?

Also added is this article by Judge Andrew Napolitano:

Comment viewing options

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

Excuse me, but Mexicans are only subject to the same

restrictions that everybody else is. If I want to go live and work in Mexico, I must first get a work visa from the Mexican government and renew it every year or so. The same goes for every other country and nationality. You cannot go live and work in Mexico, Canada, or any country in Europe or Asia without that country's permission.

And you do not have any right--inalienable or otherwise--to go wherever you want for whatever reason you want whenever or however you want.

There are infinite examples I could give of things you might want to do that would be impossible, illegal, immoral or all three. You cannot jump off a building and expect to be able to fly like a bird, for example.

There was a young man in Greece long ago who, like you, also thought he should be able to do whatever he wanted. His name was Icarus.

I whole-heartedly disagree,

I whole-heartedly disagree, my friend.

I DO have the right to personal liberty, along with every other human on the face of the earth. This right is mentioned in every founding document of every state in this country. The right to liberty doesn't disappear just because prejudicial individuals and the gov't doesn't want to recognize it.

BTW, Icarus DID do whatever he wanted, and was personally responsible for the consequences.

I can use the Icarus analogy from where I'm sitting, though. Icarus wanted to do something that was obviously a bad idea. Anti-immigration nuts want to deny humans their right to liberty, even though it's obvious that denying people their rights creates misery. Icarus let his desires override his reason. You guys let your prejudice override your reason.

There's nothing wrong with being prejudice towards people that are outside of your "collective". There is something wrong with trying to equate the idea to anything liberty oriented.

... No, wait!!! There IS something wrong with being prejudice!!! There's also something wrong with screwing the rest of the world over for the sake of your "collective" as well. Horribly wrong, I might add.

"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."

Racist huh?

I don't appreciate you putting those words in our mouths. Disgusting.

Ummm... kinda weird that you

Ummm... kinda weird that you picked that SPECIFIC "ism" among all the others I listed......

.... But I don't really care what "ism" a person uses to establish a distinction between themselves and others, whatever "others" we are talking about. IT'S ALL PREJUDICE!!!

Come On!!! Is your individual liberty the highest cause.....or is there something even higher on your value scale.....like PREJUDICE?!?!?!

There are only 3 ways to view the situation:

1.People on both sides have a right to personal liberty
2. Neither side has their right to liberty recognized
3. All of the humans are already on one side, the other side contains ???

As can be seen #1 is what we want, #2 is what the gov't wants. #3 is just friggin rediculous, but it is the stance that an anti-immigration pro-liberty person holds. Either that or they believe in polylogism, LMAO!!!

"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."

A true conservative, as well as a true liberal, is respectful

of others' property, home, fences and boundaries. He or she similarly respects each nation's borders. Within your own home, and within the borders of your own country, you have as much liberty as your own house rules or country laws permit. When you are a guest, your actions must be more restricted and circumspect.

A true conservative, by

A true conservative, by definition, has an abnormally high fear of the unknown. Conservatives have always been supporters of restricting peoples' liberty to address this fear. The crowning achievement of conservatism was mercantilism for god's sake!!!!

Look at the words!!! Define your terms, otherwise they mean whatever you want them to mean.

conservative- Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.

liberal- Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

So, according to you, liberty isn't limited by the EQUAL liberty of others, but by insane ramblings of sociopaths, otherwise known as "laws". Fair enough. I just disagree wholeheartedly, and remain in support of EQUAL rights, not privileges granted by sociopaths. I simply disagree on a foundational level.

"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."

Doesn't change the fact:

Doesn't change the fact: anti-immigration MUST be supported by some kind of collectivist prejudice, plainly because it a)is an idea that involves restricting an individual human's unalienable right, b) for the sake of "the greater good".

If there are people here that support that idea, then fine. There are many more that agree with you. Just don't try to equate anti-immigration with anything related to liberty or economic well-being. It's foundation is elsewhere, namely PREJUDICE.

Just look at the word, itself:

-anti- wishing to stop something, holding a contrary view of something

-im- referring to the interior, inside

-migration- moving from one spot to another, traveling, movement

So, you think the idea of people being able to exercise their right to freedom of movement inside YOUR country is dangerous to your well-being, and want the gov't to use violence to attack those that attempt to exercise this right, BUT ONLY IF THEY CROSS THE IMAGINARY LINE? If you're inside the line, your clear, if your outside of the line, your clear, but DON'T GO NEAR THE LINE?

.... and I'm sure that you probably include "permission from sycophants" as an exception. I think you guys call it the "legal path to citizenship" or ""get in line" or something like that.

Of course, restricting a person's freedom of movement should never be "legal", and I don't understand the morality of forcing a person to "stand in line".

"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."

Personal liberty is only to be found within the confines of

personal discipline. National liberty can only be established, preserved and enhanced in the framework of the rule of law and the protection of civil rights, some of which rights, such as voting, belong exclusively to citizens.

Do you want your neighbor deciding how you spend your salary? Or do you want to be in charge of that yourself. You staying in charge of your own money means saying no to your neighbor who would like the use of your hard-earned funds to better his own life.

The line representing the border is not imaginary just because there is no physical fence. It represents a system of laws, their jurisdiction, a unified culture and language, and a social contract.

If Mexicans were coming to homestead on open, undeveloped land apart from any established society, perhaps it would be different. But they are demanding to be included in an established nation and deciding in advance not to respect our laws or borders. I find that immoral and completely unacceptable.

National liberty? what's

National liberty? what's that? Is that where you pretend that the collective known as "the nation" has individual human rights?

Voting is not a right. Restricting that action to only certain people proves that it is a gov't granted privilege. IOW, it is illegal to vote without, first, obtaining the permission of the sociopaths who call themselves gov't.

The next paragraph exhibits a nice execution of a straw man. Of course no one wants their neighbor to spend their check. However, you didn't include the explanation of how acknowledging the rights of humans on the other side of the imaginary line would lead to you being robbed. No one has suggested that Mexicans should be allowed to rob other humans, so I guess you made that one up?

On to the third.... Ummm, when something doesn't exist in the physical world, but only exists in the minds of humans, it meets the very definition of imaginary. The line is, indeed, imaginary. Our system of laws contradict themselves. Which half do you support, lol? There is no unified culture in America, only in your specific neighborhood. As a southerner who lives in WI, I can tell that there is no unified language. When I first arrived, I didn't understand the white people, the white people didn't understand me, and I still can't identify the words that the Chicago runaways use as English.

Social contract? You must be joking!!!!! How many times does the supreme court have to tell you that that you owe no obligation to the gov't, and the gov't has no obligation to you, before you believe them? DAYUM!!!

Lastly, I don't respect your laws..... cuz, ironically enough, they are are immoral and completely unacceptable. THe fact that we have more slaves imprisoned here that ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD proves that Americans don't respect your laws. Which brings us back to the word I skipped, jurisdiction. There is no lawful jurisdiction over a human right. The gov't not having jurisdiction/power/authority over an action is what MAKES IT A RIGHT. Anything inferior to the gov't is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

All of this comes to the one moral conclusion that is available. There is no justification for the anti-immigration view that can hold up to logical, economical, or moral scrutiny. It is an idea founded upon prejudice and collectivist "ism"s.

"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."

Throwing words around

Call me what you wish. The use of the words "racism" and "prejudice" are an easy way to corner an argument. Use logic instead of hiding behind these words.

LOL, the logical deductions were within the part you ignored???

ha, i did that above, but in case you missed it:

There are only 3 logical choices:
1. The right to liberty is acknowledged on BOTH SIDES
2. The right to liberty is denied on BOTH SIDES
3. The only humans on earth are already inside the line, screw the animals on the other side

Pick your stance and defend it!!! I chose #1, and I am defending it using plain, basic logic. #2 is defended by the power hungry using propaganda and conservatives' particularly extreme fear of the unknown. Hegel and hobbs can be used to defend #2. #3 is obviously untrue, so it MUST be founded on emotional prejudice, not by anything that could be confused with reason. All other choices and justifications have been shown to be flawed, arbitrary, economically unsound, violent, and prejudicial in one way or another.

... OR, one of you mexican haters can offer an argument against the right of personal liberty that ISN'T an appeal to emotion and prejudice. This thread is several pages long. I know I've offered a few very solid arguments in favor of personal liberty, and I've revealed the flaws in a few of the opposing arguments. Bout time for the other side to offer a logical argument in defense of their prejudices. Whatchya got???

"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."

"Of liberty I would say that,

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. 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."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

"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 the "equal rights of others" include

the equal rights of Americans to collectively say no to Mexicans wishing to live in our country.

...and the equal right of the

...and the equal right of the mexicans to say "go pound sand". Yes, freedom of speech is a human right.

"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."

As ridiculous as it sounds

It is "the" reason for the post. I would argue that among ALL of us on the DP, this is the issue that DIVIDES us the most. Am I wrong? I think abortion would be second, but that's for another thread altogether. There are A LOT of pages now on this thread, and you'd actually be surprised at what I've had to deal with. Out of all those people that the original questions were "DIRECTED TOWARDS", none have chosen to actually answer them.

Believe me, the post shines a spotlight on a problem we're facing that TPTB want us to keep having, and hopefully be part of our demise as the Liberty movement.

The vast majority of even

The vast majority of even illegal immigrants come to this country because of its prosperity. They aren't sucking on the government teat, they are working for below-to-minimum wage and working very hard.

Until Mexico/South America shapes up, this is always going to be an issue. Of course there are those that will blame our trade agreements as to why farming can't take off in those regions, but in any case, until your average illegal immigrant can make a decent living in his home country vs. America, he's going to come over here.

After all, think about immigration from WWII and on. It wasn't Hispanics, who were quite content living in Mexico and SA despite America's propserity. It was people fleeing from the 2nd-world, where conditions were terrible and have now improved.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

@Dr. No: Very true

It would be great if we could change trade agreements and otherwise support Latin America in becoming more prosperous. That would solve many of our immigration-related problems and help us to become more prosperous and stable as well.

>they are working for below-to-minimum wage and working very har

I fail to see the advantage with people that are working for below-to-minimum wage if they have 5 kids in school - even if they are working very hard. How much does that schooling cost and who will be plundered to pay for it? Some investors? So that they cannot invest in the production and the wages goes down? How many of these people is it possible to pay for?

I don't see any split.

It just so happens that this site has been frequented recently by a number of left-libertarians and democrats.
Or maybe even covert establishment republicans, in an attempt to see how much backlash they'll get for voting for amnesty.

Go back to primary season and see how sharp the divide is.

Let me see

"truth please":

Member For 1 year 9 months 23 days


Member For 5 years 5 months 10 days

Who is the long time member and who is "frequenting" this site? I do not accuse you of being a "neoconservative", so why do you accuse me of being a "left-libertarian" or a "Democrat"? I would have more reason to accuse you of being a "Infiltrator" than you accusing me as your posts are blatantly anti liberty, anti free market, pro big government. The fact is, freedom of migration is a cornerstone of the free market. It is YOU proposing increased government power, not I.

Accoring to Ron Paul and other libertarians,

we don't have a true free market. So how is it that we have such high migration/immigration? It seems to be more associated with a globally unfree market.

We have neither a free market nor open borders

and, if you would pay attention, net immigration into this country has nearly declined to zero because of the poor economic conditions. As I said elsewhere, those who dislike immigrants should just love Barack Obama and the current regime, as they have nearly eliminated immigration by destroying the economy.

Legal restrictions on immigration may not be

"left-wing", however, it is absolutely socialist. Respect for the free market and property rights demands support of freedom of migration. Considering how often I am accused of being "right wing", I guess I can laugh off being called "left-libertarian." Oh well, people who consistently support liberty and the free market get blasted from all sides.

Given the fact that most

Given the fact that most illegal immigrants are a natural constituency of the Democratic Party and actually radical political movements, why would anyone want to bring millions of these people into our nation?

Finally, why do proponents of illegal immigration or amnesty ignore the FACT that no deportations are necessary? Just enforce fines on employers and the labor market would dry up and force them back home.

In an ideal libertarian world, I would have no problem with open borders, but we aren't there yet.

These new immigrants are an invading force whose legalization would dramatically change the political landscape, and not in favor of libertarianism.

An answer for 'why'.

A clue to the answer for your first question was reported by the BBC.

From the viewpoint of a UN Migration Minister: "The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said." It was for the good of the EU economy of course "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".

He wasn't speaking about the US but maybe this is a partial explanation for why our own borders have been allowed to be so porous. Economically, it is not as good for US or EU workers as it is for the 1% who can manage a cheaper labor market.

I also referred to multiculturalism in comments

'Multiculturalism' was proposed in the UN's Our Common Future, aka The Bruntland Report, the same crappy proposal that gave us 'sustainable development'.
'Nationalism' is the greatest sin out there next to patriotism, dontcha know? /sarc
The Open Border Troika (ecard, mwstroberg, nowornever) would have us living the UN dream!

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

Perhaps you might be considerate enough

to change the post heading here. Eliminate the "Requesting answers from you (ALL) with... Requesting answers from those that agree with me and my followers. Look below for the treatment of any who thought they were responding to an open forum but did not fall into your agenda. Hey, nothing wrong with dictating the content of your post but don't lure in individuals who thought this was a place for open discourse.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Here's what is written just under the title

"I have a few questions for some here that oppose "illegal" immigration."

A little Reading Comprehension never hurt anyone.