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



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Actual Ron Paul

has a fairly clear record against illegal immigration and anchor babies as well.

However if we weren't a welfare state, a lot of the illegal immigration problem would fix itself, that part he is correct.

Actually, what you're seeing is the belligerent

blathering the loudest. For someone who wants to be seen as a pillar of non-violence, ecard is quite hostile to those who disagree, even complaining no one is answering all the questions ecard posed. The word 'puerile' comes to mind.

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

When the Welfare State exists no more...

you can have open borders and natural immigration. But not before, the two go hand in hand.

The Amnesty and immigration "reform" the politicians are pushing have more to do with building a voter constituency than it does with Free Markets.

+1

I think the new Politically Correct term for illegal aliens is "Undocumented Democrat".

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Whoever offers them amnesty will get most of their vote period.

Whether it's (R),(D), or maybe even third party. I've spoken to many Hispanic obama supporters about what obama's done to our country. I've found that for the "most" part, the older Hispanic voters would still vote for obama - even after all I told them about obama. It was their "main" concern. Why? Because they put family unity above all else. I may not agree with it, but I understood it - begrudgingly(not about family unity-but the vote itself).

On the other hand, I've spoken to many younger generation Hispanics in their 20's & 30's, and most that I've spoken to don't care about amnesty. They're already American citizens, they care more about the state of the nation and how it will affect their children. Why? Because most didn't grow up "over there" and lack those family ties. And it's also because they're feeling it like the rest of us.

So I do notice a difference in the generation gap when it comes to them from personal experience.

No, they won't.

But the Republicans are stupid enough to believe this. The ones that Reagan let in during the 80's voted against McCain and Romney 30 years later. They vote for the one who offers the handouts.

Voted for Obama because he put family unity above all else?? Give me a break!!!

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

I felt they were being completely honest with me

considering that they told me that amnesty was indeed their main priority. I never said obama said, or stood for family unity. I said that's what the older Hispanic voters BELIEVED. Their words not mine, but whatever. I think I made it clear enough the first time.

Did you talk to them about supporting Ron Paul during the

Primaries?

What was their response?

Do they / you not belive that he supports "family unity" and offers a living example?

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Oh they liked Ron Paul specially the idea of ZERO taxes

I even brought up the fact that he didn't believe in borders "per say". Unfortunately, after putting everything on a scale, at the end of the day, amnesty and the Dream Act was "all" that seemed to register. You can't imagine my frustration. That's also EXACTLY how the democrats suckered most Hispanic voters in 2007. The ironic thing is that those that ADMITTED to getting suckered, STILL voted for him on the "hopes" that this 2nd term would be different. I guess they don't have the saying "fool me once" in Mexico.

Here's something I couldn't "morally" argue though;

A few of them told me, they had parents/siblings/cousins, etc, here illegally. Some are getting on in years, and they also have family members that are getting on in years in their native countries. They'd like to see them before they pass on. They'd also like to be able to meet the newest members of the family. Problem is, they can't leave for fear of not being able to return. That's their dilemma. So imagine not seeing a family member for 10 - 40 years. Sure, they broke the law by crossing over illegally, but at what cost? And when you have the democrats talking about amnesty/dream act, that's who they go for.

These people couldn't care less about political party at this point in time. If immigration/amnesty wasn't an issue, it'd be another story.

The younger Hispanic voters weren't too concerned with amnesty. If they're 30 and never met their grandparents or uncles, they don't really have a strong bond with those of their parents country. Many consider themselves American and are looking to the future of America for their children's sake. Many, as most of us, weren't to keen on any candidate, so many times they said they would probably wind up voting for their parent's sake(obama).

I'll tell you something else. It was A LOT easier convincing them that Ron Paul was NOT a racist. I had a hell of a harder time dealing with Black people on this subject than anyone else, and frankly gave up on them from spending way too much time talking to "brick walls". Many didn't want to hear it, or secretly just wanted to keep obama in office. Whatever the reason, it was a frustrating losing battle for me. There's a saying that goes; "It's much, much easier to fool someone, than to convince them that they've been fooled". Has a lot to do with "pride" and believing you couldn't possibly have been fooled. The irony of that was that they are suspicious of the government & MSM to begin with due to Black arrests and incarcerations. Yet "THAT", they "chose" to believe. Whatever, you know? At least I tried with them.

As for my personal feelings towards obama, I'll put this in the nicest possible way I can say it. Fuck obama. I didn't like Bush either, but obama is 10 times worse. I don't trust him whenever he opens his mouth. That's when I know he's lying. Hope that was clear enough for you as far as my feeling towards him are concerned.

Thank you (honesty) for your civil response to my sincere

question. Like you, I had very little sucess convincing ANYONE of the benefits to this country of supporting Ron Paul. Actually, I had ZERO sucess. Unlike your experience, the Hispanics I know who work, are against amnesty, regardless of age. If they do not work (or are politicians), they are for it. Again, regardless of age. In support of the Campaign, all I was able to do was offer some financial assistance to a few Delegates. However (here it comes), although I can understand your concern for those who have left family members behind, maybe some of your own relatives are in this situation, I would expect that they understood the potential consequences of their decisions. Don't you feel that people should be held responsible for their own actions? Mr. Raceboy said it best in another post: "On the one hand liberty stresses the individual ergo it also stresses individual responsibility. So you can't truly believe in liberty if you believe in socializing responsibility of individual actions."
If they are at the point in their life that they are old and ready to pass on, then why bother being concerned with coming back at all? Do you really want more people voting for status-quo candidates as those granted amnesty are just about certain to do?

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Your welcome, although shouldn't this be the kind of

dialogue that we should expect from one another here on the Daily Paul of all places? We're all on the same team/side and our differences are really limited to immigration, abortion, and to an extent religion(believers and atheist. Our big division IMO is immigration, and if we can't agree and come together, then we should at least be able to talk about it civilly and through dialogue/debate, hopefully find some kind of common ground.

I'm really shocked at the responses you got from your co-workers. Were any of them over fifty and did any admit to knowing any illegals? Are they well off financially?

I may sympathize with them, but I definitely agree that one is responsible for their own actions. I've been saying that all along, here, and on other threads. Personal responsibility is why I feel we have a welfare state to begin with. Whether right or wrong, the consequences are clear and they chose them. You have to understand something, and since you have co-workers, maybe you can get their perspectives as well. Say a 55 year old woman is here illegally and wants to see her sick mother in her native country. But she also has her children and grandchildren here. It's not as easy for her to go back at 55 and either live out the remainder of her years over there, nor is it easy for her to cross the desert at that age. Those are border crossers. What about some Indian, same situation, but the difference is that she flew here and just overstayed? She definitely won't be able to return. So they feel like they're stuck in this catch 22 situation and keep their fingers crossed for amnesty. I sympathize with them, if they've been here a while and paid taxes instead of draining the system. They've suffered with not being able to see their families. It's a huge sacrifice. But they also knew what they were getting in to, so if you made your bed.....

I feel the same towards the drug laws. Some people are serving extremely long sentences for non-violent victimless crimes while actual murderers do less time. I don't think the punishment fits the crime in either case(the illegals being away from their families for so long). But if you're aware of the consequences and you can't handle the time, then don't do the crime. I don't have to be cold hearted about it either.

Absolutely not to your last question. Do you?

I really hope you can update me afterwards with your co-workers response. I spoke to a lot of people and they(the older ones) all had amnesty on their minds.

In response to your first question.."although shouldn't this be

the kind of dialogue that we should expect from one another here on the Daily Paul of all places? ", I would respond: One can only hope. On this divisive issues, emotions take over and discussion deteriorates. Much more now than when we first started.
Regarding your second question, first of all, they are not my co-workers, they are my friends. Some are older (60+) and some younger (30-40). The older ones, one woman in particular (not well off by any means and whose parents came here legally), are adamently opposed to any type of amnesty as they see the abuses in gov't programs that happen. They are absolutely sick and tired of working so hard for their paychecks only to have a large portion taken away and given to people who feel that they are owed something by their very existence. The issue of amnesty is one that confuses them. They wonder why the politicians feel they can "buy" their vote by supporting this (McCain in particular). As for the younger ones, in one instance, has 5 sisters who's "job" in life is to produce babies. This was her plan also till she met her husband, my friend from college. She also works very hard and the subject of gov't handouts has really caused a division in her family, as you can imagine (she works hard so her sisters don't have too). They consider her to be a fool, but she does very well financially. Coincidentally, her mother came over illegally. In the case of one woman who works for me, she came here illegally also, got her citizenship some time ago, and although she probably supports the concept of amnesty because of the difficulties she faced, I know for a fact that she does not support any gov't handout programs. My neighbors are another example. They are more hard-assed about the issue than anyone I know (he is about 55, she about 45).

I know that there are probably unique situations which most people would agree that the rules should be bent, the hypotheticals you describe being among them. But charity should be in the hands of privite individuals and organizations. Policies and laws should not be formulated to address emotional situations. Ends up giving the gov't too much power, resulting in turning the Constitution into a "living" document, and thus effectively killing it.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

I don't agree on the first part of your reply

"On this divisive issues, emotions take over and discussion deteriorates. Much more now than when we first started."

This can easily be avoided if we don't let emotions or assumptions get in the way. I saw a lot of jumping to conclusions throughout this thread that was unnecessary. Aren't we better than that? I would expect that kind of immature behavior on other sites, not here. Considering the fact that most of us here are awake and don't swallow the MSM propaganda, I admit that I expect higher standards from my DP brethren.

I also don't understand the hypocrisy of some members here not believing anything the government or MSM tells you, unless it pertains to immigration. Why the double standard? The same goes for the notion that all Mexicans ONLY come to take Americans jobs and receive welfare. I've read "all" and I've read "most". That's a pretty broad stroke, wouldn't you agree?

I agree with your last paragraph.

Free Immigration

The State should have no right to restrict the movement of persons, no more than it should have the right to restrict the movement of goods.

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

Unfortunately

Its not so simple. I wish for the freedom to travel where and when I wish. But, because of the welfare state, there are additional reasons for individuals to immigrate. Because the welfare state exists, I cannot support free migration. When the welfare state completely ends, I will offer my support.

we are all descendants of

we are all descendants of immigrants. Open borders, period.

@Kevro:

Absolutely not.

Not really true

Tbe Roman Empte, Ancient Greece, China, Egypt all had borders, obviously the North American continent had no official borders according to Europeans who settled here, up until countries were formed, but even then they had immigration laws, and rules.

Even the native American Indians had areas they recognized as their own tribal "lands"

If you have open borders you can really never have property rights when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of how individual property rights works. Once your right to property is gone, you might as well be a slave.

That doesn't make sense.

1. A border defines jurisdiction - e.g. on this side of the river government A has jurisdiction, on the other side government B has jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with immigration. The border, as the line between different jurisdictions, does not magically disappear because of free immigration.

2. You wrote: "If you have open borders you can really never have property rights when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of how individual property rights works."

Huh? How so?

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

who most probably entered LEGALLY

Why did you forget that bit?

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

True, even "Native Americans" (American Indians)

immigrated from Asia thousands of years ago.

I am a third generation American, as my Paternal Grandfather was born in Sweden. I am so happy he was permitted to immigrate. I shudder at the thought of how difficult it is for modern immigrants to come here.

Anti-immigrant folk on this site should just adore Barack Obama, as he has so destroyed the economy that net immigration is now zero. I guess I was wrong in saying there is nothing the government can do to stop immigration.

I "abide" by the tax laws

I "abide" by the tax laws because I work a real job and they remove the money from my checks. When I worked under the table I did not pay taxes, but my boss still sent in a 1099. When I finally had a real job the IRS came knocking and just garnished my wages. If I knew how these sovereigns like Alfred Adask got away with not paying any income taxes I would be very happy, but they likely have loads of money to have lawyers keep them clear.

I don't support the drug laws. I don't support any law. It's not difficult to understand right from wrong and only punish people when they wrong someone. I do not believe in obeying man's law until it cross the line of being against God's word. God gives us free will, so who is some elected asshole to do something God won't even do?

I support only the first ten amendments plus the missing original 13th. I do whatever I want and treat people how I would want to be treated. If I could afford it I would have unregistered guns and conceal them without a permit. I would also own full-automatic weapons. I don't believe that speech that can incite riotous behavior is speech that should be limited. I have the right to yell "fire," and it's a moron's fault for instantly panicking instead of assessing the situation.

People can come here to work and not be a citizen. I think the borders could be wide open and if we simply had ZERO welfare. Right now there is a benefit to come here illegally. You get welfare and you don't pay taxes.

For the millions already here illegally, if taking away welfare doesn't work, we need to racially profile them, ask them for their proof of citizenship, then arrest them and deport them. There is no such thing as a latino/latina. Latin is a language and most languages we speak stem from it. They're hispanic.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I agree

Taxes and welfare are definitely at the root. I'd love to get rid of both.

"But we need taxes to help fix the roads", yeah and help pay for welfare, right?

I agree with racial profiling up to a point. Having lived in NYC(melting pot); How do we address the Canadians and Europeans that speak perfect English and look White? (For those that don't know, there are MANY NON Hispanic illegal aliens, that come from Canada, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean and MANY speak very good English.) Or are we only to target the non-Whites? Seems discriminatory, no? There are also "illegal" aliens that were brought here as a child and speak perfect English. So again, how do you racial profile successfully without letting the others that are illegally here get away?

Discriminitory? The term "discriminating" traditionally

described a person of high intelligence and perceptiveness.

Thanks for the lesson

So what does it mean "today", as in the reply I just gave?

Is that really the best you got out of that entire reply?

SMH

I have a friend that has been in the FEMA

detention gulags and he claims that Israelis are the second most common deported 'Alien' next to the Latin Americans. But, I know, that is Anti-Semitic to call them 'Aliens'.

LOL

It's like that saying, if they "want" to find something they'll find it, one way or another.

I love the line about paying

I love the line about paying for infrastructure. The IRS money doesn't go towards any infrastructure. Tariffs on gasoline pay to keep roads maintained.

Oh well if it's discriminatory. The problem has been left alone long enough and they've stolen enough money that the first step needs to be drastic. They did the wrong thing, so they would have ruined it for everyone. Just like one person in a class acting up results in the teacher taking away recess for everyone, a shit-load of hispanics coming here illegally and taking our tax money should result in the discriminatory profiling of people to send them back. If they want to act like children and not come here legally, they should be treated like children with their punishment.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Sorry, but I can't agree with you there

I can't condone punishing only one group while letting another group, or all other groups get away scott free. I'm sure there must be another way that can apply to all, we're just not seeing it yet. But a good start is definitely to cut any benefits that entice or reward that behavior.

It's not punishing them, it's

It's not punishing them, it's profiling. The only other way is total amnesty and a militarized border that still won't work.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.