Direct Action for Open Borders

[Braddogg]

And I still do not know where I am willing to use the violence of the government, or any violence and really resent that remark.

Sure; maybe I'm being overdramatic, it's certainly possible.  Perhaps you could tell me what you want to do about illegal immigration?  And if I've overstated my case, I will certainly apologize humbly.

[Brock]

It would also be helpful to explain which law they've broken to make them "illegal".

[CNHT]

It would also be helpful to explain which law they've broken to make them "illegal".

Since we're arguing from two different basic premises (I say we have a country that requires permission to enter and you say we somehow don't...) there can be no conclusion.

To answer someone else's question, what does for example Canada or Mexico do to prevent us from migrating there? They simply would not allow us to work or access social services that's all. Again, this involves LAWS and if you think the country should not even have the most basic of laws then there will be no conclusion.

The only other people I've heard have this view are these folks here who think we owe it to them to share the fruits of our labor no matter where they come from:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=immigrantrights

[Caleb]

To answer someone else's question, what does for example Canada or Mexico do to prevent us from migrating there? They simply would not allow us to work or access social services that's all.

Your proposal is actually, then, a two part proposal:

a) deny illegal immigrants welfare

b) forbid them to work

I would argue that proposal a should be implemented with regard to everyone, illegal immigrant or not, because it is an aggression against Jane to point a gun at her head and demand that she pay somebody else's way.

But as for proposal b ... How, exactly, do you plan to keep them from working?  It all goes back to the individual businesses, because they are the ones who hire the immigrants:  Essentially, you'd have to order each business owner to verify the legal status of all of his workers, and then hold the business responsible for any violations. If the business owner isn't given this "duty", then "illegal" immigrants will be able to find work. But if you do assign this "duty" to the business owner, you have in essence impressed him into the service of the State, forcing him to act as an Immigration enforcement officer. By what right do you impress a business owner into this task, since "involuntary servitude" is prohibited by the Constitution that you adore?

Caleb

[Brock]

It would also be helpful to explain which law they've broken to make them "illegal".

Since we're arguing from two different basic premises (I say we have a country that requires permission to enter and you say we somehow don't...) there can be no conclusion.

There can be a conclusion.  Just tell us which law that these so-called "illegals" have broken.  Be sure to show how they have to obey that law without actually, you know, being in the country in the first place.

[Braddogg]

To answer someone else's question, what does for example Canada or Mexico do to prevent us from migrating there? They simply would not allow us to work or access social services that's all. Again, this involves LAWS and if you think the country should not even have the most basic of laws then there will be no conclusion.

That wasn't a clear answer, so I want to make sure I understand.  This is Canada or Mexico's solution; is it the one you would endorse?  You would not support deportation?

What would you do to an employer who didn't want to file the paperwork with ICE?

[CNHT]

Look, I'm not going to argue with those who hold such an extreme view and might i add the socialist view.

Same for HB 184 taking away the parents right to know in favor of the state, just like socialists want, a collective of people to raise their children.

I think that's the only case where I WOULD justify the use of force, and it wouldn't be with taxation....it would be with my fists...

[Caleb]

That wasn't much of an answer.

Do you, or do you not, believe that business owners should be impressed into the service of the State as Immigration Enforcement Officers?

Caleb

[Brock]

Look, I'm not going to argue with those who hold such an extreme view and might i add the socialist view.

The dictionary according to Jane:

Socialist:

1) A person who respects private property rights.

2) A person who questions law as Jane applies it.

[Braddogg]

Look, I'm not going to argue with those who hold such an extreme view and might i add the socialist view.

Same for HB 184 taking away the parents right to know in favor of the state, just like socialists want, a collective of people to raise their children.

I think that's the only case where I WOULD justify the use of force, and it wouldn't be with taxation....it would be with my fists...

DAH!  We were so close!

[CNHT]

That wasn't much of an answer.

Do you, or do you not, believe that business owners should be impressed into the service of the State as Immigration Enforcement Officers?

Caleb

What if they DON'T want to hire them? Are you going to force them to? It's a catch-22.

Emnployers don't have to be pressed into any service. I don't remember having to prove anything that said I was a citizen except to check it off on the application.
There is tons of other paperwork, like deducting taxes, and background checks if you are working with children, and degrees or other qualifications they might check, that they still would have to do...so I don't see that it has been a problem.

[CNHT]

Heck, if you want to go out in the street and protest for more socialism with the Che Guevarians, be my guest. Do I look like I'd be bothered to stop you?

You're entitled to your opinion of what it 'means' and I'm entitled to mine and I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

[Brock]

You're entitled to your opinion of what it 'means' and I'm entitled to mine and I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

Since you are determined to use the guns of state to prevent people from contracting with the people they see fit, it really isn't.   

[Braddogg]

Heck, if you want to go out in the street and protest for more socialism with the Che Guevarians, be my guest. Do I look like I'd be bothered to stop you?

[Caleb]

What if they DON'T want to hire them? Are you going to force them to? It's a catch-22.

Not a catch-22 at all:  If the employers WANT to run a background check, and choose to hire only proven US citizens, that is the business owner's prerogative. I am opposed to *forcing* him to do so.

Emnployers don't have to be pressed into any service. I don't remember having to prove anything that said I was a citizen except to check it off on the application.
There is tons of other paperwork, like deducting taxes, and background checks if you are working with children, and degrees or other qualifications they might check, that they still would have to do...so I don't see that it has been a problem.

Well, it is a problem. Like you say, the employer has already been impressed into service as an agent of the State in the form of a Revenue Collection Officer. That is an atrocity, and now he's supposed to also serve as an Immigration Enforcement Officer.

What if I want to hire someone, pay them in cash, and say "fuck off" to the IRS and ICE?

Heck, if you want to go out in the street and protest for more socialism with the Che Guevarians, be my guest. Do I look like I'd be bothered to stop you?

You caught me! How did you know about the new group I joined, "Pacifists for a Che Gueverra-style Revolution"?