Illegal Immigration

[Braddogg]

In a truly free state shouldnt we be against illegal immigration?

Sure -- by making it legal 

So you are not worried about overpopulation, environmental effects, creating a whole new underclass and dramatically changing cultural demographics where the rich get richer off of cheap labour that someone 20 years ago would be making at least $10 more per hour with benefits in the same position? Remember a wise man once said a nation without borders is no longer a nation but an empire. Wether that be a neocon, un globalist, or free trade empire!

If immigration was legal, the immigrants would be able to compete on the open market, which would make them subject to minimum wage laws, social security, income tax withholding, healthcare plans, etc., etc.  All of that would serve to ameliorate the underclass problem.  Similar arguments were made surrounding ending slavery in the secession debate in South Carolina (and everywhere in the South).  They were also made during every phase of immigration, whether they be from Ireland, Eastern Europe, Italy, China, or Mexico.  And somehow, society survived emancipation and survived immigration.

[umbcpaleoconservative]

My point exactly, with unrestrained immigration your bringing those problems here.

So you are not worried about overpopulation, environmental effects, creating a whole new underclass and dramatically changing cultural demographics where the rich get richer off of cheap labour that someone 20 years ago would be making at least $10 more per hour with benefits in the same position?

I'm not worried about immigration causing those things. They already exist, in the places where the immigrants come from!

[umbcpaleoconservative]

First off our country wasnt founded on immigration it was founded on settlement. The women who wrote that poem Emma Lazarus give me "your tired, your poor, etc" was an avowed socialist who wanted america to become a melting pot which would make it a trademark of its former self. Second, immigration policy are not just stupid laws that somebody created, go try to immigrate to china, mexico, or india and the first question they ask is do you have chinese, mexican or indian heritage? America needs a 10 year moratorium on immigration with only allowing in 50,000 per year, in other words a third great lull. I encourage you to read peter brimelow's alien nation, it was wrote in the mid 90's, but the words of what it predicted are very prophetic. 

Remember the only thing that makes any immigration illegal, is a stupid law somewhere..

Our country was founded on immigration, why make it illegal.

Immigration only helps a economy in a free economy, the issue isn't the immigration, its welfare and government that are the issue. They attract low life welfare suckers, if we didn't have welfare and the government supporting these loosers we would not be attracting the "bad" immigrants that want a free lunch and only the hard working immigrants would be coming into this country, to make a better life for them selfs.  Thus the way this country came about. People came to the new world to get away from government oppression.

Every body looks at the effects and no one looks at the causes.. every outcome has a cause, to solve the problem you have to look at the cause otherwise your only patching the problem with a band-aid fix.

Unless your 100% American Indian, remember your ancestors came over here looking for a free place to live without government oppression.. thus why your here..

look for the cause and you'll find the solution..  Remember algebra, x-2=10.. what is X?

E-ville

[CNHT]

If immigration was legal, the immigrants would be able to compete on the open market, which would make them subject to minimum wage laws, social security, income tax withholding, healthcare plans, etc., etc.  All of that would serve to ameliorate the underclass problem.

All of which would just promote more socialism. When my ancestors came SS did not exist.

People who want open borders in spite of the fact no other country anywhere does, want chaos, the end of sovereignty, and will ultimately get a socialist police state faster than they are getting it now.

[KBCraig]

So you are not worried about overpopulation, environmental effects, creating a whole new underclass and dramatically changing cultural demographics where the rich get richer off of cheap labour that someone 20 years ago would be making at least $10 more per hour with benefits in the same position?

I'm not worried about immigration causing those things. They already exist, in the places where the immigrants come from!

My point exactly, with unrestrained immigration your bringing those problems here.

Those things are created by the government where they come from, not by the people escaping those places.

[umbcpaleoconservative]

The libertarian profreedom position would be to be against illegal immigration for exactly that reason. They take 8 times more than they put in. The schoolbook libertarian version of open borders plus no welfare state combination wouldnt deter illegals from leaving as they are already here in the 10's of millions. It would only incite them to a full blown ethnic war against americans. Face it, deporting illegals and sealing the southern border and THEN dismantling the welfare state is the right solution.

If immigration was legal, the immigrants would be able to compete on the open market, which would ma

ke them subject to minimum wage laws, social security, income tax withholding, healthcare plans, etc., etc.  All of that would serve to ameliorate the underclass problem.

All of which would just promote more socialism. When my ancestors came SS did not exist.

People who want open borders in spite of the fact no other country anywhere does, want chaos, the end of sovereignty, and will ultimately get a socialist police state faster than they are getting it now.

[umbcpaleoconservative]

Wrong again, if its all the govt's fought how come nations like Iceland and Japan who have practice economic nationalism, cultural pride and have big govt in many ways(who let next to no immigration in) have clean roads, clean environment, stable population and are 2 of the wealthiest countries on the planet. While a place like per se Haiti(except a 50 cent minimum wage) where theres hardly any govt control is the second poorest in the world, despite the fact thats its markets are open and free and the people could be exploited easily if major corporations decided to move in?

So you are not worried about overpopulation, environmental effects, creating a whole new underclass and dramatically changing cultural demographics where the rich get richer off of cheap labour that someone 20 years ago would be making at least $10 more per hour with benefits in the same position?

I'm not worried about immigration causing those things. They already exist, in the places where the immigrants come from!

My point exactly, with unrestrained immigration your bringing those problems here.

Those things are created by the government where they come from, not by the people escaping those places.

[Henry]

If immigration was legal, the immigrants would be able to compete on the open market, which would make them subject to minimum wage laws, social security, income tax withholding, healthcare plans, etc., etc.  All of that would serve to ameliorate the underclass problem.

All of which would just promote more socialism. When my ancestors came SS did not exist.

People who want open borders in spite of the fact no other country anywhere does, want chaos, the end of sovereignty, and will ultimately get a socialist police state faster than they are getting it now.

Yes on all points, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with hating or disliking people. Looking at the media and campaigns here in California its obvious through the coverage and the glossy graphic-designed signage at marches that the state itself and BIG money forces are behind removing borders. They're filling the police and military as quickly as possible with non-citizens. On FTL recently there was the question of if the military would open fire on citizens here. Well, with projections of a military in the near future with over 50% foreign born persons who were never exposed to nor socialized with any sort of Bill of Rights culture, the outlook is not very good. They definitely aren't being taught in the military that they can't infringe on gun ownership, need 'probable cause,' right to travel issues, posse commitatus, all of it.

[CNHT]

Yes on all points, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with hating or disliking people. Looking at the media and campaigns here in California its obvious through the coverage and the glossy graphic-designed signage at marches that the state itself and BIG money forces are behind removing borders.

They are funded by the Rockefellers, Ford Foundation, Maldef Society, etc, as I've said before. Look up and see who donates to that cause. It's all to benefit them, not the poor people who want to come here. It's an excuse to have the few elite rule, as they have said they think is best, many many times. Creating chaos is to their benefit.

[Braddogg]

If immigration was legal, the immigrants would be able to compete on the open market, which would make them subject to minimum wage laws, social security, income tax withholding, healthcare plans, etc., etc.  All of that would serve to ameliorate the underclass problem.

All of which would just promote more socialism. When my ancestors came SS did not exist.

People who want open borders in spite of the fact no other country anywhere does, want chaos, the end of sovereignty, and will ultimately get a socialist police state faster than they are getting it now.

Jane, I'm a little sick of you saying I want to promote socialism.  It's an ad hominem attack you keep falling back on.  You use it against Caleb and me all too often when discussing this sort of stuff -- and Caleb and I are anarchists, for Christ's sake! (well, he's an anarchist for Christ's sake, I am for logic's sake.)

And your other totally specious argument that drives me totally insane is when you start talking about what other countries do, as if that has ANYTHING to do with what's right!  I really can't discuss this stuff with you any more, because your lack of logic is driving me nuts.  I'm done talking about this stuff with you, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try and respond to my posts on the immigration stuff.

[CNHT]

Jane, I'm a little sick of you saying I want to promote socialism.  It's an ad hominem attack you keep falling back on.

Brad, calling people a racist is ad hominem. Saying the result of this would be more socialism has nothing to do with you, it's an observation of what I think would happen politically as a result. I did not call YOU a socialist, but even if I had, that's a political category and I'm sure socialists don't think of it as ad hominem because they don't view it as anything negative. The same could be said about being called a capitalist -- we would not object but some socialist might not like being called a capitalist. Still, it's not considered 'ad hominem' because it's just a system of beliefs.

So, nothing is or has been an attack on you, and my opinion about the result is my opinion and you are not required to agree with it.

People should be able to discuss freely what they think things would mean and if you can't handle it not my fault.

[Brock]

The libertarian profreedom position would be to be against illegal immigration for exactly that reason. They take 8 times more than they put in.

You know what doesn't help your argument?  Pulling numbers out of your rectal database.

[KBCraig]

Wrong again, if its all the govt's fought how come nations like Iceland and Japan who have practice economic nationalism, cultural pride and have big govt in many ways(who let next to no immigration in) have clean roads, clean environment, stable population and are 2 of the wealthiest countries on the planet. While a place like per se Haiti(except a 50 cent minimum wage) where theres hardly any govt control is the second poorest in the world, despite the fact thats its markets are open and free and the people could be exploited easily if major corporations decided to move in?

Observation 1: Top-posting is the surest sign of someone who isn't interested in dialog, but who prefers to spout off rather than debate points.

Observation 2: WTF were you attempting to say? ???

[CNHT]

I think they are trying to demonstrate that people who group together in countries with common political goals (i.e. not socialism) get better results.

[Russell Kanning]

So if Haiti had a few more laws and more cultural pride they could be rich?