0 votes

Why do some people on here support the State controlling immigration?

Do you really want a government bureaucracy controlling movement + travel from across a government-dictated line?


I am concerned with people from Mexico coming here and going on welfare, which might cause my taxes to go up.

But giving the government more power to deal with this is dangerous (just like it always is to expand State power) because it reduces freedom . And even if the DHS or whomever was granted this power, do you really think that this government bureaucracy would suddenly work efficiently and achieve its stated objectives?

Furthermore, since when does attacking a problem at the branches (ie. increasing gov't immigration control) work? Doesn't a problem have to be solved at the root level (ie. abolishing State-welfare) ?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

my thoughts

The debate inside Ron Paul circles regarding immigration has largely been between pure libertarians and strict constitutionalists. I share your same concerns. I want this problem solved, and yes, it is a problem. Am I willing to allow the country to be turned into a police state to do it? Hell no! That doesn't leave us very much in the way of options though, but you are on the right track.

I oppose amnesty for 1 simple reason: If we gave blanket citizenship to 20-30 million illegals, we would most likely end up with 19-29 million new "Socialist" voters. The electorate would be so tainted that the damage already done would be permanently irreparable, and all hopes of working within the Republican Party, or building a new party, or whatever, would be fruitless.

The cold hard truth is, we would lose our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and our country.

As it stands, most of the illegals that come here are sympathetic to Hispanic supremacist groups such as La Raza, and Mecha, who believe in something called "La Reqonqista of Aztlan". They work to reconquer the west coast and south west, all the way up to central Washington, to build a new nation. They openly advocate "breeding us out". They also have something called Plan San Diego, which calls for the genocide of all non-hispanic males age 15-60, (I think, unsure on exact ages mentioned.) It's sick stuff, so I don't feel like looking it up again to post links. It's just plain disgusting, but if you scroogle search or youtube search some of those terms, you'll see for yourself.

I believe that all humans were born with the same rights. I believe that the Constitution recognizes that only individuals have rights, with the exception of States (10th Amendment). I believe that Corporations are not supposed to have rights, and that it is wrong that this is recognized as law. It is even codified in the Washington State Constitution I recently found out.

When states, or the nation, is faced with external and internal threats, by people working actively to subvert our Constitution, then the government is obligated to meet that threat. That is 1 of the proper roles of government, and that is one of the reasons we established it so. I do not advocate use of force by government in many things, in fact they are few, but there is a role for them to play on this issue, and they haven't been doing so in any meaningful way.

I have no problem with the individuals who come here wanting to make a better life for themselves, as long as they become "An American", not a hyphenated American. Multiculturalism is not some wonderful idea. It is 1 of many paths intended to lead to the destruction of our individual and national sovereignty. It is but 1 facet of a much larger plan, and it is working.

What do we do for solutions?

1) Immediately stop all illegal border crossings. If the force of government is needed to do that, then so be it, as long as it takes place on the border, and not in the interior of the country where the civil rights of individuals are being abused by thugs. I would take all the border agents off the check points inside the country so they can't beat up and tazer preachers, and put them on the border, and if they needed help, I'd send the national guard to the border.

2) Create incentives for people to want to return home, by stopping all medical care, public school, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, and other payments from any and all state and federal government agencies. Once all that stops, the folks who are not productive and should not be here will want to go home.

3) That will leave only the folks who ARE productive, and should not be here. From that pool of candidates, determine the ones most eligible for U.S. Citizenship, and provide them a path to achieve it. Deport repeat offenders and gang criminals. Make the eligible ones pay a fine, swear an oath, learn English, and U.S. history, and then everyone else, (the rest of us), meaningfully and heart warmingly welcome them among us as fellow Americans!

By doing this, we could avoid the unpleasantness of massive round-ups of people, and we could improve our productivity by welcoming those individuals who are productive. Once we start basing our economy on production instead of consumption, they will really be an added benefit to our American society as a whole.

Because, even if you eliminated all of the

present financial incentives (including free public education), you'd eventually attract people who could be exploited by citizens with no respect for the Constitution. Remember, we're on our third national banking system. We should have driven stakes through the hearts of the operators of the last two as a disincentive to the evil bankers.

Force is always to be respected, if not feared; and the idea was that it is better to have Border Patrol incarcerating illegals than armed citizens shooting or lynching them. Those are pretty much the only choices in the real world.

reply

round up and deport every last one of them

www.alipac.com
www.fairus.org
www.numbersusa.com
www.frostywooldridge.com

My folks have fought in every war

since the Revolutionary War, both sides in the "Civil War". It matters to me that we sweated for America, bled for it, and died for it.
We've got a lot invested in it. To be blunt, I've no desire to share on equal terms with every Tom, Dick, and Jose who snuck across the border last week and will some day be rewarded for breaking the law with citizenship.
Limited, controlled immigration yes, massive invasion no.

We have the right to be a sovereign country...

or nation. Without boundaries, we are nothing. If we don't have boundaries, then what is the use of property rights? We may as well just be global citizens with no ownership rights, so that someone who wants my house more than I do can have it. I like that shirt your wearing, I now claim it, because we are global citizens with no personal property rights. Sounds good huh? NO THANKS!!!!!!

Its not 'to be' a sovereign country, we ARE a sovereign country

and anyone coming here needs to get in the line up at the immigration office just like everyone else and respect our Constitution.

This is not about 'discrimination' or anything else 'globalists' like to argue. Its the law of our land.

I agree with you. If we don't assert our boundaries, it becomes 'squatters rights' and we all lose property rights, which are already under a lot of pressure to these bankers.

reedr3v's picture

atrickpay, thanks for your consistent clear

thinking throughout this thread.

People are being distracted by secondary issues. The primary choice always is freedom or some variant of the opposite. The bigger and more active the federal government, the less freedom all Americans.

Decisions between voluntary individuals is the primary concern. Ethnic balance and concern about cultural changes are concerns for many; but freedom would never provide an unchanging status quo. Only force can achieve that.

I trust people to look out for their own interests by seeing the advantages of peace and open commerce and friendship. The other issues would sort themselves out.

The southwest of this country has been wonderfully influenced by Mexican culture, And those who came here and stayed have been enormously influenced by US culture. It has benefited everyone. Why imagine that suddenly it would turn negative if more freedom prevailed?

The negatives so far have been caused by our government: the drug war, terrible immigration policies leaving desperate people only the option of illegal entry with all its attendant problems; and the whole welfare industry, plus job limits imposed by the gov.

Good Post But,

We talk of freedom as if we're all talking about the same thing. Examples,
1) Freedom from chattel slavery
2) Freedom from the foreigner (not being part of an empire)
3) Freedom from the home grown tyrant.

Many (socialists, communists, neo-cons, even libertarians) ignore #2.
Those who think invading Iraq is bringing freedom dismiss the importance of #2 to the vast majority of the world's people.
Those who dismiss it don't understand the pull of ethnicity, religion, culture. Humans are not interchangeable, differences matter.
In my view when a people have achieved #2, only then does #3 become important.
Around the world peoples are trying to be free of the foreigner. We read the news stories almost daily. America is not immune from these forces in the 21st century.

It is all about territory and which ethnicity gets it.

What you suggest may slow the invasion, but the issues has deeper roots.

Under the best of times people are polite about ethnicity, but everyone has prejudices, in spite of denial.

In the worst of times prejudices can easily degenerate into ethnic cleansing.

I think this is a law of nature, since you see in other species "interracial" wars. Black ants war with red ants, and snakes fight over territory based on the basis of type for example.

In the early days the US was principally invaded by Europeans who took it from the various American Tribes (who themselves had wars over territory) and these invaders adopted a common language and had similar values, plus they exterminated the American Indian Tribes.

The Southwest US has been claimed by various groups, first the American Indians, then the Spanish, then the Mexicans and now the US, but the claims of the Mexicans have not been forgotten and essentially the immigration of Hispanics into the Southwest US is the equivalent of a slow military invasion. The maintenance of separate language and the identity with Mexico makes this an explosive situation and ultimately the Southwest will become a Northern Provence of Mexico as the demographics change. This does affect those on non Hispanic ethnicity in the Southwest because they soon will be a minority and will be in danger of an ethnic cleansing as the population bubble is pricked very soon by the lack of energy to support a 6.7 billion world population.

So the question becomes one of whether or not the US government plans to turn over the Southwest to Mexico, because failure to halt Hispanic immigration and failure to deport illegals will insure that the Southwest becomes part of Mexico.

This is a race issue, and not recognizing it is just burying one's head in the sand.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

reply

Under the best of times people are polite about ethnicity, but everyone has prejudices, in spite of denial.

I think that's true for most people. A ground in evolutionary instinct we tend to have.

The maintenance of separate language and the identity with Mexico makes this an explosive situation and ultimately the Southwest will become a Northern Provence of Mexico as the demographics change.

It might be potentially explosive. But under which scenario would it be worse:
a) a statist society
b) a free fully private-property society?
I definitely say a). Government doesn't work and it tends to always exacerbate problems.

So the question becomes one of whether or not the US government plans to turn over the Southwest to Mexico,

Whoa, the US gov't should not turn over property. The US government is not the current inhabitant! If some Mexicans want to bring forth a claim with the land, it's between them and the current dwellers--not a bunch of criminal politicians.

This is a race issue, and not recognizing it is just burying one's head in the sand.

Race is no doubt a factor. But is it the root of the issue? No, I don't think so. I think the root is clearly private property and freedom.

jesse v on larry king now

----------------
Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
`Wise people, even though all laws were abolished, would still lead the same life'- Aristophanes -

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

SOVEREIGNTY , and private property rights.

Had a ranch about 40 miles from the Rio Bravo between Uvalde and Bracketville. Got plenty of uninvited guest daily trashing my property and sometimes killing my goats to eat. When I go to Mexico I pay for the items I purchase and I don`t tresspass on private property .

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

Here is a hypothetical

Lets say I am of Mexican origin.
But now, I am a Naturalized Citizen of the US, a successful one, to boot.
I've decided I need workers for my factories.
Why not buy Border properties, and set up a sort of Underground railroad?

"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k

reply

Sure, that sounds fine to me!

Gosh why do so many anarchist

Have a problem with me living in thier backyard.I mean really I wont be doing anyone any harm I mean i mght have to take a sqawt or sneak into the kitchen to get something to eat.But even though this is your own private property why should it be so regulated. As matter of fact since anarchy is the perfect answer then why shouldnt I be able take your land by force after all it is survival of the fittest isnt it Shouldnt immigrants be able to come over here and take what they want.I mean why are anarchist so selfish when was the last time you took an illegal immigrant in and let him live at your house.

we need to keep out the

we need to keep out the communists/deviants/criminals. Haven't you read Hoppe?

Ventura 2012

That's where private property borders

can come into play. To exclude someone you don't want.

There are no borders

no state borders and no property borders....what are saying gives you the right to the property? Some deed that's meaningless and unenforceable? Or just the fact that you claim it as yours?

This is the wild west without the sheriff...at least murderers could go to jail.

Also, watch out with the whole natural law thing, you may be accused of homophobia.

The right to property comes from ownership of it

what are saying gives you the right to the property?

The right to property is determined by ownership. a) People own their own bodies. b) People can take ownership of unowned property.

and I can take it by force with no repurcussions

and no deeds etc make it impossible to maintain.

I think I'll play in your fantasy world and proactively claim all federal property today as my own...I'm sure I'll be able to enforce it.

Another strawman

and I can take it by force with no repurcussions

I would have a private defense company that would come after you.

Your strawman

These private defense companies could take over anyone they wanted by force.

I may just elect to kill you for hiring a private defense company...nothing saying it's illegal, correct?

Is this an argument against a free-society?

These private defense companies could take over anyone they wanted by force.

Is this an argument against a free-society? Cause the same thing can be said about a statist society (ie. that the State can just take over anyone by force).

So, the issue seems to me to be which society would handle it better? The statist society has a near monopoly on protection (and that is "paid" for via extortion--taxation). The free society is based on competition and voluntary payment.

I may just elect to kill you for hiring a private defense company...nothing saying it's illegal, correct?

Not "illegal" according to any State, but there would be repercussions--having a State deem something to be "legal" or "illegal" isn't necessary for there to be consequences for harmful actions.

Yes it is.

Is this an argument against a free-society?

Yes it is.

Cause the same thing can be said about a statist society (ie. that the State can just take over anyone by force).

Yup. And for a terrifying example of DRO's gone wild examine the current geopolitical situation. (For a more terrifying example examine the geopolitical situation of the 1940s)

;)

I agree with you, the issue is: "Which society would handle it better?". I do not know to any certainty what the answer is, but I do know that if we had an anarchistic society, a bunch of mad-dog DRO's would certainly be capable of ruining it. As at this juncture in space and time the world is full of around 170 or so such crazed institutions, I would not advocate that our country adopt a purely anarcho-capitalistic society. Perhaps someday we will be in a better position to try out such a system of governance, but as the world exists today I see little opportunity for us to put the theories to the test.

the question is do we want

the question is do we want to sacrifice it all 4 somethinthamight be at best a tradeoff

Ventura 2012

you can only exclude them

you can only exclude them from your house, and then not all that well if they are criminals to begin with. I thought this was a legitimate, current events discussion, not a place for you to whore anarchism ad nauseum. You are by definition living in fantasy.

Ventura 2012

reply

you can only exclude them from your house,

And all other property that you own. And that's good enough for me--I don't have the right to exclude people from property that I don't own.

and then not all that well if they are criminals to begin with.

I don't see that as an argument against a free-society per se--a free society would private protection agencies which would tend to be much more effective that statist protection (ie. "police"). So, if ones think it would be a problem in a free-society, it would tend to be an even bigger problem in a statist society.

I assumed you were talking

I assumed you were talking about the real world where we live in a Republic. There are obviously other issues like voting rights, use of roads, full tax paying, etc that are a problem

I wrote a 30 page paper on the topic of private police, citing Guillory, and consider myself an expert on it. He dreams of a society organized totally into gated communities, where immigration would be incredibly scrutinized.
Unfortunately, a lack of objective definitions of justice through law in such societies leads to the rule of common law. Common law has allowed for all sorts of atrocities throughout history, including human/child sacrifice and slavery.

Ventura 2012

reply

There are obviously other issues like voting rights, use of roads, full tax paying, etc that are a problem

Absolutely. That's why I advocate fixing the problem at the root (getting rid of the majority-rule apparatus) and not focusing on mere symptoms (freedom of travel over government dictated-lines).

I wrote a 30 page paper on the topic of private police, citing Guillory, and consider myself an expert on it.

Cool.

He dreams of a society organized totally into gated communities, where immigration would be incredibly scrutinized.

Yep, there would be much greater control over immigration in a free-society...but it would be done by actual property-owners--not by a band of criminals that is the State.

Unfortunately, a lack of objective definitions of justice through law in such societies leads to the rule of common law.

Historically? I don't recall any Gil Guillory type free-societies ever existing. So, I'm sure how you arrive that assertion.

"Absolutely. That's why I

"Absolutely. That's why I advocate fixing the problem at the root (getting rid of the majority-rule apparatus) and not focusing on mere symptoms (freedom of travel over government dictated-lines)."

Or we could just fix it by policing our borders.

If you read anarchist literature, you should note their differentiation of common(horizontal) and legislated(vertical) law. They tend to brush off most criticisms of lawlessness in anarchies by pointing to the sufficiency of common law.

Ventura 2012