Xenophobe police chief in New Ipswitch?

[mvpel]

Some Reconquista/Aztlan/MEChA/La Raza type lawyer has probably taken the case.


"Capitalism is the root of domination. Racism and sexism exist because capitalism requires it."

[CNHT]

The chief is an idiot.? He's not hurting anyone by being here.? Open the borders.

Wow, that's really very destructive. Are you sure you're not a leftist? Don't forget that the 911 terrorists were illegals Chamberlain is someone who is doing his job. We will interview him next week.

[FTL_Ian]

I'm a principled Libertarian, my lady.? If you believe in freedom, therefore you:

1.? Support ending welfare entirely
2.? Support open borders

Did our immigration policies stop the "terrorists"?? Need I remind you that it was our interventionist foreign policy that brought terrorists here in the first place?

Oh, and the SS was just "doing their job" too, during WWII.

[CNHT]

I'm a principled Libertarian, my lady.? If you believe in freedom, therefore you:

1.? Support ending welfare entirely
2.? Support open borders

This is rather naive. These two things are incongruous. The more illegals you have, the more welfare you will need, or have you not noticed?

Did our immigration policies stop the "terrorists"?? Need I remind you that it was our interventionist foreign policy that brought terrorists here in the first place?

Oh, and the SS was just "doing their job" too, during WWII.

Nothing to do with the SS my friend. Please don't play that card or you will sound like a liberal. Our immigration policy is NOT being enforced and that is the problem.
If we are interventionists, how is it that Bush supports open borders? (For which I think he is wrong)
Try to go from US to set up residency in any another prosperous European country and see how far you get....

[AlanM]

 Welfare was continuously expanded until, finally the rolls grew and the costs soared. It was then, and only then, that welfare was cut back. (unfortunately, not eliminated) If the borders are opened, the rolls will sky-rocket, and perhaps this time welfare will be eliminated.

[CNHT]

Welfare was continuously expanded until, finally the rolls grew and the costs soared. It was then, and only then, that welfare was cut back. (unfortunately, not eliminated) If the borders are opened, the rolls will sky-rocket, and perhaps this time welfare will be eliminated.

Well that's an interesting theory but I rather think it would just balkanize the rich and poor to the point where we will be in gated ghettos like in the Phillipines. And I KNOW libertarians would not want that and neither would I. But I would like to end welfare just as much as anyone.

Sure this fellow in NI probably came here to work, but many come here because they know they can live off the rest of us. Is this what you want? My family were ALL immigrants, some very recent, and all had to have sponsors and real jobs before they could set foot in the US. They were welcome but it was made sure that they would CONTRIBUTE to their own support and self-sufficiency not feed at the public trough. And they did not demand that their children receive instruction in foreign languages or have special exceptions made for them in any other way. The learned English and became Americans.

Chamberlain should be on our May12th show. Stay tuned. Perhaps some of you who believe in open borders could IM your challenges to his actions and see what he says other than he is enforcing the laws which are there to protect US citizens. It would make for a very interesting show.

[AlanM]

My grand-father came to this country from Canada. It was in the days of open borders. There was no state welfare then, or fed welfare. You are right in saying that part of the problem is the draw of welfare, i. e. free money. However, the fact that the public is stupid enough to pay people for nothing shouldn't prohibit free movement of people. That's like saying we can't have oranges today because levis are in short supply.

[CNHT]

My grand-father came to this country from Canada. It was in the days of open borders. There was no state welfare then, or fed welfare. You are right in saying that part of the problem is the draw of welfare, i. e. free money. However, the fact that the public is stupid enough to pay people for nothing shouldn't prohibit free movement of people. That's like saying we can't have oranges today because levis are in short supply.

Well if you are for 'free movement of people' how 'bout I set up shop in your house and you can feed me, indefinitely?
I'm absolutely no trouble at all, I just want to be 'free' from the taxes I have to pay on my own property. After all, your house should not be off limits to me just because you own it, should it?

[AlanM]

 I was referencing emmigration of people, not infringing on private property rights. The important thing here is to not deprive people of rights because of something else. The problem here is welfare, not the ability of people to live where they choose. The two issues are separate. If you combine them, it is much the same as saying guns kill, therefore, eliminate guns. People kill, using a gun, or a knife, or a plane flying into a sky-scraper.

[CNHT]

I was referencing emmigration of people, not infringing on private property rights.

Sometimes one causes the other.

The important thing here is to not deprive people of rights because of something else.

The more welfare, the higher my taxes.

The problem here is welfare, not the ability of people to live where they choose. The two issues are separate. If you combine them, it is much the same as saying guns kill, therefore, eliminate guns. People kill, using a gun, or a knife, or a plane flying into a sky-scraper.

Not really. Why can't I choose to move in with you? Because you are the owner of your home and have the perfect right to keep anyone you wish from trespassing, or to tell me I must wipe my feet if I want to come in for a visit. So does the US, especially with regard to keeping its citizens safe and free from the burden of excess taxation caused by the demands of others. Otherwise we have socialism.

I know that libertarians and generally responsible people follow a lot of unwritten laws but many will not.

[FTL_Ian]

This is rather naive. These two things are incongruous. The more illegals you have, the more welfare you will need, or have you not noticed?

Perhaps I miscommunicated.  End welfare completely.  Then open the borders.  If there is no "free ride", then we will not attract that type of immigrant.  What's wrong with that?

Try to go from US to set up residency in any another prosperous European country and see how far you get....

Why would I want to go to Europe?  I'm more free here.

[AlanM]

I was referencing emmigration of people, not infringing on private property rights.

Sometimes one causes the other.

Immigration does NOT cause infringement of property rights. Immigration is merely the act of moving into a place. Lack of respect for property rights causes infringement.

The important thing here is to not deprive people of rights because of something else.

The more welfare, the higher my taxes.

Then work to eliminate welfare. The effort spent on fighting immigration is better spent on that which is really bothering you.

The problem here is welfare, not the ability of people to live where they choose. The two issues are separate. If you combine them, it is much the same as saying guns kill, therefore, eliminate guns. People kill, using a gun, or a knife, or a plane flying into a sky-scraper.

Not really. Why can't I choose to move in with you? Because you are the owner of your home and have the perfect right to keep anyone you wish from trespassing, or to tell me I must wipe my feet if I want to come in for a visit. So does the US, especially with regard to keeping its citizens safe and free from the burden of excess taxation caused by the demands of others. Otherwise we have socialism.

I know that libertarians and generally responsible people follow a lot of unwritten laws but many will not.

This is the crux of the matter. Shall government force be used for an end result that some thing is desirable? IMO, NO!!!

[CNHT]

Perhaps I miscommunicated.? End welfare completely.? Then open the borders.? If there is no "free ride", then we will not attract that type of immigrant.? What's wrong with that?

No miscommunication at all....Nothing wrong with ending welfare completely, that would be my goal as well! But you have to do that FIRST.?Then you can talk about open borders. Sadlly I don't see it happening, ending welfare, anytime soon. Therefore, we must proceed on reality, not what we wish to be.

Why would I want to go to Europe?? I'm more free here.

I don't know either. But I do know many people who wish to live in Europe and have European citizenry for whatever reason.

[CNHT]

This is the crux of the matter. Shall government force be used for an end result that some 'thing' is desirable? IMO, NO!!!

Hmm, interesting blanket statement. The US Constitution allows for force to be used when it comes to protecting my right of personal property and keeping the US as a country safe from outside attack. Those 'end results' are quite a desirable 'thing'.

It also does no good for people like us to waste time arguing about these things when we have other things with which we are in total agreement.






"Late last night I thought I heard the screen door slam. A big yellow taxi took away my old man. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got 'til it's gone..." 

[AlanM]

It also does no good for people like us to waste time arguing about these things when we have other things with which we are in total agreement.

I agree, up to a point. If you are advocating something I oppose, I will promote my position.
It is great to find things we agree on, however.