The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Doesn't change the fact:

(See in situ)

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."