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.

You're actually punishing them by singling them out while

at the same time not going after the others that are "just as" guilty, and who arguably have it better, because many in America look at this as an "Hispanic" issue. All the other NON-Hispanics sit quietly on the sidelines because it's so much easier for them to blend in. I don't blame them, but it doesn't make it right. It's a form of stereotyping with the added criminal consequences tied in.

What you're saying is that it's okay to go after one group and ignore the other, for now at least. So what then? In the meantime the other groups get a free pass simply because of the color of their skin or the fact that maybe they speak English rather well?

I've heard a lot of good ideas, but I can't agree with racial profiling. Now, if Hispanics were the ONLY "illegal" aliens, then I can see the logic in it. But as it stands, there are also millions of other nationalities that are "illegally" here, committing "illegal" criminal acts(Russian prostitution and enslavement comes to mind) that do not get the MSM "spotlight".

or simply do a search for "Russian prostitution rings U.S."

There are literally not

There are literally not millions of nationalities. There are only a few hundred countries, and even fewer races. If they spoke English so well, then why is everything now also in Spanish? People put way too much importance and pride in their skin color and cultural lineage. All I think about myself is that I'm a human and it's April 10, 2013.

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

You're correct ramicio

In my haste, what I meant to say was that there are millions of illegal aliens from other countries as well. I'm sorry you didn't "get that", as what I wrote about there being "millions of nationalities" was ridiculous at best.

According to this: http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0... as of 2008, Mexicans made up 61% of illegal aliens in the U.S.
If that is true, then surely there are millions of illegal aliens here from "other" countries other than Mexico, no?
Also according to various different sources, Mexicans have been returning to Mexico in droves(self deportation), due to the economy. Feel free to look that up.

Now that we're clear on that, I think the REAL reason that MSM, the government, and "hate" groups, have shown a spotlight on "Mexicans" is because they ARE indeed the "MAJORITY" of illegal aliens.

A.) Sole reason that Mexicans are the majority compared to the rest of the world is that we share a HUGE land border with Mexico.

B.) Sole reason that Mexicans are the majority as opposed to Canadians is clearly economical.

C.) I also think that part of the reason that they have been "spotlighted" and "targeted" by MSM, the government, and "hate" groups, has also to do with the fact that they are gaining a lot of political and economic power in the states. Much in the same fashion that "WE", the liberty movement have been demonized and called "terrorists" and "racists", by MSM, Homeland Security(the government), and "hate"(black) groups.

D.) Many Mexicans do drain the system, but so do MANY other illegals that come from the rest of the world yet don't have to suffer the pointing of fingers from society.

E.) That's not to say that Mexicans also don't put in to the system, and pay taxes as it benefits BOTH them and the Government to do so. The FACT that MOST pay taxes goes widely unreported by MSM(sound familiar). We may want to ask ourselves why that is?

I couldn't agree with you more on your last two sentences.

I consider people who are

I consider people who are citizens here Americans, so every Mexican is the problem :) Mexicans who became Americans are usually very respectable people.

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

All groups with high rates of

illegal immigration should be profiled and pursued. That includes Chinese, Africans, Hispanics, Israelis and others.

OMG - I'm about to have a heart attack

For a second there, I actually thought we found common ground and agreed on something!

"Every illegal immigrant should be pursued. That includes Chinese, Africans, Hispanics, Israelis and others."

There! Fixed it for ya! : )

Personally, I would throw open the borders, IF...

Congress would implement Article 3, Section 2, limiting the courts from identifying "persons" to include non-citizens. Those illegals living here would also be required to sponsor someone emigrating from Mexico as a condition of citizenship. Finally, we should bill Mexico for the costs associated with their citizens living here, to be paid in oil. If we had such an "open borders" policy, we would eliminate a huge amount of the cost associated with immigration. We would still be free to deport those holding dual citizenry for felonies, just as we did with some of the Mafioso.

Of course, this will never happen because it makes too much sense.

LOL - I was about to say that your suggestion made a lot of

sense until I got to the last sentence.

Someone else, either in this thread, or an article I read somewhere, suggested using the tax dollars collected from "illegal" aliens to help subsidize the south western borders since they bear the brunt of it. Not saying it's a solution, but something to consider.

A whole lot of suggesting and "ranting" going on in this thread

That's fine. But aside from that, is there any particular reason why only one person has bothered to answer the questions while the rest have remained silent?

I'm getting the feeling that many are intentionally avoiding the questions for fear of answering truthfully. Are you afraid that you'll be judged for your responses. Are you afraid that your replies actually contradict your stance solely when it comes to immigration/"illegal" crossing of the border? Or do you just not have time to be bothered by them yet do have the time to rant(over and over again)? Which is it? If I'm wrong, go ahead and tell me.

I thought we were all here to learn, share ideas, and hopefully progress and come together. We DON'T have to agree, but maybe at least we can find some common ground, no? I'm starting to see how Rand feels trying to pull in both parties.

We all agree on most things except for immigration and some religious issues. But I think immigration is the main one that's keeping from uniting us even more, as usual due to disinformation and fear.

Are you going to let the fear of cognitive dissonance control you? Or do we now get to cherry pick? I thought we were better than that. Go ahead, answer some questions. So far the silence has been deafening to me.

ecard71, your post is...

nonsensical because it suggests that citizens who reject some laws as unconstitutional are hypocrites if they don't reject all laws.

The solution is to enforce existing immigration law and provide no path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. This is a compassionate solution because the hope of amnesty has caused thousands to die crossing deserts and oceans, and millions to enter the U.S. illegally only to live in legal limbo. Therefore amnesty is an immoral incentive that not only harms those entering illegally, but undermines U.S. sovereignty and law. For more info check out my post on immigration at:

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

That's your opinion, Mark.

And that's fine. But what do you make of the Christians that call abortion murder, yet are constantly beating the war drums and have no problem with the deaths that have occurred overseas(including American deaths)? Are they hypocrites? You may think it's foolish, I think you're being dismissive. Much in the same fashion Ron Paul and his supporters have been treated in the past.

I remember years ago when Black people were denouncing so called "Black on Black" crime. Why didn't they just denounce crime/murder period? Isn't that hypocritical as well?

Mark, I can't thank you for your answers since you didn't bother, but I will thank you for your opinion even though I can't agree with it : )

The basis of my position is...

the protection of national sovereignty based on the rule of law. Being we don't agree on this fundamental premise, any further debate would be a waste of our time.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)


So are you saying that there's no point in trying to debate, hopefully learn something, even if what we actually learn is "common ground", and from there push for actual change as more of a unified group?

Frankly, I think this topic is what separates us the most. Don't you think that TPTB want to look at our weakest point, and try to divide us even further? They already see us as a threat, and their greatest desire and usual goal would be to divide us. We're already there. So just chalk that up as a loss you say?

Your position on immigration is...

almost identical to the TPTB, so I conclude that your post is just a lame attempt to create artificial divisions.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

It is truly frustrating how short sighted

these anti-immigrant folk can be. Like it or not, immigrants and their families could someday be a voting plurality in this country. If advocates of "liberty" were as vocal in defending their rights as they are in defending the rights of gun owners, medical marijuana patients, and home schoolers, we'd have a self sustaining constituency for liberty that would make even hard core liberals reconsider the philosophy of liberty.

Some polls suggest that Ron Paul, had he been nominated, would have drawn more of the vote of immigrant Americans and their families than Barack Obama. Not that Paul was perfectly consistent on this issue, but he never once denigrated or insulted immigrants, and has often described them as "scapegoats" for the problems caused by the welfare state. And there is something contagious about talking about liberty, as it appeals to the best in us, including those of us who weren't born in the USA.

Xenophobia has no appeal to the open minded, to those who seek the truth. It can appeal to the fearful, or those who are not in favor of an open society. We're all God's children. We should begin acting like it.

@mwstroberg: "Like it or not"? Are you suggesting that

the American people have no say in our own destiny and we should role over and give in to the demands of sponging foreigners and corrupt, self-serving politicians? I don't think so. Your way is the path to Hell even if paved with good intentions.

"sponging foreigners"

I am worried more about "Sponging Goldman-Sachs" than "sponging foreigners." However we can put a halt to both, if you'll join with us libertarians in abolishing the welfare state. Maybe you have made your peace with Big Government, I have not.

You obviously don't want to have...

an honest dialogue about immigration because you refer to anyone who disagrees with you as "anti-immigrant". The fact is, we live in a world with finite resources so unlimited immigration is not good for immigrants or citizens. Therefore, limiting immigration to that which the national resource base can handle is looking out for the best interests of immigrants and citizens.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Oh yes, Mark,....Obviously.

I've told you before that simply because you don't "understand" something, doesn't necessarily make it what you assume it to be. You seem to have a habit of doing that. Once you lose that bad habit, you'll be open to learning a lot more. Key word being "open" as in open mind. "Waking up" is a process, and from your replies, it seems like you have a ways to go.

Simply admitting that you don't understand, or simply stating that you don't agree for certain reasons is fine. You're constant incorrect assumptions however.....

I know, but don't let it get you down

I feel it too, but whenever I think that my words may be benefiting someone, or that the person I'm replying to may actually be an infiltrator of some sort with ulterior motives, then those feelings tend to dissipate. You can only lead a horse to water, you know?

Some of us are still learning. Instead take comfort in the fact that you've done what you can. I'm sure others have read things that now, somehow, makes a little bit more sense. "People cannot unhear what they've heard", and "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" are two of my (many) favorite Ron Paul quotes. I'm sure Jesus would strongly agree with that last one as well.

It's obvious that some have let fear "control" them, instead of the contrary and they have resorted to petty attacks - grain of salt. Take heart in that you've done what you can to try to better society. I know your conscience is clear. I've followed this thread's comments and a few of you have made invaluable contributions. You've really "kicked ass" in a number of your comments. May you keep fighting the good fight.

It is the laws prohibiting free migration

that have led to the deaths of those crossing deserts and oceans, not any kind of liberty. If these laws did not exist, the danger of crossing the US-Mexican border would be on the same level as the danger of crossing the California-Nevada border. Please, analyze the situation using reason, not muddled thinking based on hostility to immigrants.

Speaking of muddled thinking...

do you open up your home to unlimited numbers of homeless people and allow them to stay without following any rules? I didn't think so, and yet this same kind of "reason" you use to support your position on immigration. But like most anarchists your "reason" equates to muddled thinking.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

You know what Mark?

"If" I was infinitely wealthy, I would. I was telling my wife the other day, that I wish I had the money to buy a homeless shelter for those out on the street and lacking food, specially our veterans. I'm a little biased there, see. Same goes for the large number of feral cats that live in my neighborhood. I'm an animal lover as well. So yes, if I had Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg kind of money, I could see myself helping quite a few people out.

Why is it "muddled thinking" simply because you can't grasp its context? Once again, you're being dismissive and now somewhat insulting. You could have simply asked to have them clarify it for you, no? Is that so hard? Really.

I see mwstroberg has been kind enough to clarify it for you already.

Your thinking is muddled because...

you're unwilling to accept the natural limits that exist in the absence of "unlimited wealth". These natural limits exist in relation to immigration, helping the homeless, and public/private charity in general.

I believe you are fully aware of the natural limits I refer to, so it seems your nonsensical post is a lame attempt to promote division.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I once had a problem with feral cats

and discovered that no matter what size they were you couldn't fit more than three dead ones in a spackle bucket. This was after numerous neighbors were bitten by these disease ridden creatures. Ever go through a series of rabies shots? I love dogs, hence my name, I raise Chesapeake's and love them more than people but if a group of dogs went feral I'd treat them in the same way I did the cats. Feral animals have no natural fear of humans and should be treated accordingly.

If not us than who?

I love dogs as well

Unlike your experience though, neither I nor any of my neighbors in 4 different states that I've lived have ever been bitten. When any animal bites, it's usually due to it having been provoked. And yes, I do know what rabies shots entail. I also know what burning feels like, which is why I don't go sticking my hand in fire.

I didn't say or imply that I had been bitten

and the attempt to belittle me as someone who might be is ridiculous You obviously have never seen or experienced what a pack of domesticated dogs are capable of once they cut loose. I've seen fields of sheep decimated by packs as small as twelve dogs. Dogs much as pigs revert back to their genetic roots very quickly and both are equally dangerous.

If not us than who?


What's with your reading comprehension problem. Or is it purely an assumption problem? This is what I wrote WORD FOR WORD:

"Unlike your experience though, neither I nor any of my neighbors in 4 different states that I've lived have ever been bitten."

What that means is that "you've experienced your neighbors get bitten", and I merely added that aside from my neighbors, neither have I. Stop trying to find the negative in things and just maybe you'll see it with a different perspective. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, and if it wasn't well written, you should afford me the benefit of the doubt and not jump to conclusions.

I know you don't realize it, but part of the problem with the Anti-immigrants/illegals/undocumented democrats/whatever you all choose to call them here, is exactly that. Stop with the assumptions and you'll get farther. This applies to all else in life. Your choice, but if you choose to accept it, you'll thank me for it later.

Just trying to pass on a word of advice, your choice.

@ecard: And yet you play with fire

when you advocate in favor of open borders and high immigration.