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".

*THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS by user AngieDfromAL*:
http://www.dailypaul.com/281025/seems-like-many-here-are-spl...

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:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/immigration-and-freedom




Comment viewing options

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

I say

Deport 3000 a day until the problem goes away. ;)

solving the illegal alien problem

and it is illegal alien, not immigrant,

here is what needs to be done
1. end birthright citizenship of non-citizen parents
2. end all government subsidies, welfare, and special priviledges (for everyone but we can start with non-citizens)
3. get government and the fed out of the economy and end the wage and price manipulation and disconnect. also means no minimum wage, benefit requirements, unemployment payments, etc. This will cause a great deal of pain since our wages and price are so out of wack from where they would naturally be if we never had the fed or government interference in the economy and markets.
4. allow more work visas, but limit availability of citizenship to only those we want to keep. sorry we don't need more communists being able to vote, just self sufficient freedom lovers please. But you can work here, just no voting rights or other rights of citizens

well that's a start anyway. it won't be easy since the biggest issue is number 3 and that will be pain that nobody wants to admit or deal with. sorry, but no pain no gain.

Excellent!

+1

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

i really don't know much about immigration laws

Where I work, the company is owned by a company in Germany. There are a few people that come over every so often on visas. The previous two CEO's were brought over from Germany on 1 year visas, and there are a few other people that had stayed longer. Somehow they were able to use another persons visa. One of them somehow was able to do this multiple times.

By no means though do I think that we should just give amnesty to 11 million people. Because the second that happens and they announce they are going to do it we are going to see a huge influx of people trying to come into the country for a free pass to citizenship.

Then are these people going to be going to work? Or are they going to be flooding into states like California because they can get a free ride through school and free healthcare on top of that. Now is not the time to even be considering immigration reform with our present economy.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

What happened with amnesty back in the 80's?

Some would argue that the economy thrived because of it. Personally, I think it sends the wrong message and only serves to encourage more crossings and overstays. As you said, we can't afford them if all they are going to do is become part of the welfare state. On the other hand, if part of their condition is to remain employed and produce revenue, well who knows? Realistically, I don't see us being able to send them back, so they're here, now what? How can we now turn this in to a positive?

unfortunately

I feel to really answer that I need to know more about the present immigration laws. I'm 26 so I also don't know much about what happened with it during the 80's lol.

Where I work there are these brothers who came over completely legally from Cuba. They came over the last time that Castro allowed people to legally leave in the 60's I think it was. They're both very republican. Both are really into politics.
I asked them awhile ago what they thought about immigration and they said that, even though they had been through a lot with Castro in Cuba they both did it the way it is supposed to be done to be here legally and that is how it should be. Through a lot of hard work they both made it over to be here legally.

But there is no easy answer to it that's for sure. Giving amnesty to the people who haven't tried to come over the legal way just sets a precedent that you can come over breaking the law and get a pass just makes it so that more will do the same and wait it out until they get another free pass.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

Cent, not sure if you were interested or not, but I came

across the following articles regarding the 1986 Amnesty. As I wrote someone else here, since it was just an argument I had heard several times and one I really didn't care for without "proof", it was just hearsay in my opinion. In a recent reply to someone else here though, I came across the following articles which seem to support that theory:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/amnesty-for-...

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/wilson120809.html

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/analysis-economic-i...

You can take them for what it's worth. I'm also curious to know if you ever discussed the immigration process with those Cuban brothers?

Cent, I agree with 99% of your reply

Here's my problem. ANY and ALL Cubans that set foot on U.S. soil, have AUTOMATIC U.S. Residency and a fast track to Citizenship. No if's and's, or buts about it. Even if they have a CRIMINAL record. What do I mean by fast track? They WON'T get denied citizenship, period. It's in the United States best interest for them to become citizens than to remain Residents.

You can read more about it here.

http://immigration.about.com/od/immigrationlawandpolicy/a/U-...

BTW, some other poster here bragged that he knew MANY Cubans and Puerto Ricans and that they didn't have ANY problems going through the Immigration process. Guess what? Puerto Ricans are born U.S. Citizens.

So if you happen to know any Cubans or Puerto Ricans, now you know why they didn't have such a "hard" time through the Immigration process. Go ahead, ask them.

As for what happened in the 80's, President Reagan granted Amnesty to millions that were illegaly present in the U.S. One VERY important requirement had to be met though. Those illegally here, had to PROVE that they had been physically present in the U.S. for a number of years. A way to prove this was through bank records and tax records. YES, tax records! Please see:
http://www.dailypaul.com/281025/seems-like-many-here-are-spl...

and

http://www.dailypaul.com/281025/seems-like-many-here-are-spl...

Let me know if I can help answer anything else.

Are there any figures handy to support the statement:

"Some would argue that the economy thrived because of it." ?

Just curious as to whether or not this has been tracked over the years in some way or another.

What would the Founders do?

When I initially replied to you, I hadn't bothered "researching"

since it was just an argument I had heard several times and one I really didn't care for without "proof". It was just hearsay in my opinion. In a recent reply to someone else here though, I came across the following articles which seem to support that theory:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/amnesty-for-...

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/wilson120809.html

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/analysis-economic-i...

You can take them for what it's worth.

Right on! Thanks for the follow-up.

Will check 'em out.

What would the Founders do?

I don't know. I've certainly heard the argument though.

And when you study U.S. economic history, we had a slump in the 70's with the gas crisis, then in the 80's and 90's we had an economic boom (couldn't tell you what it was attributed to), I remember there being ONE day throughout that era called "Black Monday", other than that, stocks soared and people were buying left and right. I'm curious now as well, but I'm sure that it also depends on who you ask. I always like to consider the "source" instead of going by rumors, or as I've seen a lot of on this thread, going by MSM propaganda, or "hate" sites.

Close the borders 1st, then

stop giving all free medical, educational, housing, food, financial aide and employment. They will go back home.

. . . . . . _ . . . _ _ .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .

this post is right out of LaRaza

and Latinonation.com.

It's basically the total erasure of the Constitution as we know it, our system, our way of life, I can go on and on.

LaRaza is a racist group looking to overwhelm the United States by infiltration of millions of poor from south of the border.

The whole goal is for people from LaRaza to infiltrate websites like this, on Republican, Democrat, Green Party etc. and portray themselves a "members" and that if your not an open borders, mass immigration fan - your racists. It's a bunch of crap and the bottom line is a Country has a right to protect its borders and it's people.

If your a freaking globalist you shouldnt be on a site dedicated to Restoring Constitutional Government to the United States.

@Joinmo

Right on and amen!

"Globalism" has more than one meaning

1. Global Government -- Clearly inconsistent with liberty and Constitutional limits on government power.

2. Global Community -- Completely consistent with liberty and Constitutional limits on government power, as well as, I might add, consistent with Christ's admonition to "love others as yourself."

The universality of natural law makes (2) desirable and achievable, as we are all human, and our common humanity makes us all residents of the global community, even as we are citizens of localized nation-states.

Quit confusing (1) and (2), as they are the antithesis of each other.

The downvotes

kind of remind me about Ron Paul, in South Carolina, proposing a "Golden Rule Based" foreign policy and getting soundly booed for it by the "Christians" in the audience.

@mwstroberg (is Stroberg a Jewish name?)

A lot of people misunderstand Christian teachings to the point of thinking it is morally superior to commit suicide -- a perversion of "turning the other cheek". Still others intentionally distort and use Christian teachings to undermine and destroy Christian nations.

Although Anyone of European Ancestry could have some

Jewish genes, as far as I know, I have none. "Stroberg" is a Swedish name. It means (roughly) "Strewn" (or spread out) "Mountains". The name was originally spelled "Ströberg" (with umlaut) (back in the "old country"). My grandfather, his brothers, and their father came to this country over a hundred years ago from Sweden, so I guess, in a way, I am "guilty" of having immigrant ties.

I'm "bigger" than I'd like to be.

I'm a computer programmer and sit at a desk all day long. Bad news as far as the gut is concerned.

LOL - you and me both

We have to "make" time for exercise. Hopefully your diet's in decent shape. C'mon we need you here for a LONGGGG time.

As to the frustration you & I expressed yesterday, I'm actually getting a kick out of replying to these people. I'm having fun and can only hope they keep it up. I think the difference is pointing out how dumb their arguments really are. The other difference being that they've initiated the attacks, so now I have the choice to stoop to their level. I have to admit, sometimes that can be fun. Today, I'm having a blast. That's the "evil" me talking, but sometimes it takes just the right people to bring him out. LOL

At the end of the day, if it's not those I reply to that learn something, hopefully it's some lurker that does.

How much you want to bet I'm

whiter than you and speak English as well as you? I have been active in the liberty movement since I was 19, which was 36 years ago. I am not a "La Raza Infiltrator," rather, I am someone who believes passionately in liberty, and is smart enough and honest enough to know that liberty stands or falls as a whole, that if even one person's rights are not recognized, everyone's enjoyment of their rights suffer. What kind of liberty is liberty only for those born in the USA, but not for Mexicans or Iraqis? Do you believe in bombing Iraqis into submission, the same way you believe it is OK for US immigration policy to cause the death of immigrants whose only crime was seeking a better life for themselves?

First of all

Let's be clear, nobody is whiter than me.

"Do you believe in bombing Iraqis into submission, the same way you believe it is OK for US immigration policy to cause the death of immigrants whose only crime was seeking a better life for themselves?"

Am I really reading this right now? Immigrants whose ONLY crime? I have lived in Southern California my whole life. I'm not trying to make a blanket statement about anyone, but you sir have not a clue what's going on in my neck of the woods.

The US should not be bombing Iraqis and

both Iraqis and Mexicans are free to develop liberty in Iraq and Mexico. Personally, I want to enjoy my liberty among my own people in my own country and to be free of both Iraqis and Mexicans. Mexicans can better their lives in their own country. They do not need to come to mine. US immigration policy does not cause the death of immigrants. They cause their own deaths in the desert by their own stupidity. Moreover, illegal aliens have caused the deaths of many innocent Americans through drunk driving and other criminal acts. They need to return to their own lands.

It is up to the people of

It is up to the people of Iraq and Mexico to demand liberty from their governments. It is not our responsibility to care for all the people of the world or accommodate everyone who wants to share our Country with us . Immigration policy in this Country is supposed to be determined by the enforcement of rules established by Congress. Immigration policy is not supposed to be determined by what foreigners want. Sneaking into the US or overstaying on'e visa are usually just misdemeanors rather than crimes but to answer your question, most other criminals are also "seeking a better life for themselves". That is not a very good legal defense for committing either misdemeanors or crimes.

Quite right, Olafub:

Bank robbers and corrupt politicians also seek a better life for themselves.

How does free immigration...

...have anything to do with globalism?

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

The Main component

of globalism is open borders and unfettered immigration. The next step is the end of Nation States aka USA.

Last is the implementation of corporate or global government, at that point you are a slave.