Illegal aliens might be lawbreakers but they are not “criminals” in the usual sense of the word. Bank robbers are criminals. Tax cheats and welfare cheats are not criminals.
As you know.
From the entire world. If this country gets to the point where we round up all the “illegals”, put them in camps, and ultimately deport them, our nearest neighbors will not longer trust us for the forseeable future.
First of all, nonsense. You’re saying that other countries won’t “trust” us, whatever that means, if we enforce our own laws. Second of all, who cares if they “trust” us or not, they’ll still trade with us. Third, who said anything about keeping them in camps? If they’re from Canada or Mexico, push 'em over the border, other than that, put 'em on the next plane back to wherever they’re supposed to be. It’s not that hard folks, and if lettuce suddenly costs $.50/head more and all the restaurants in Manhattan close for lack of kitchen staff, well, it’ll be a small price to pay. Finally, yes, they are criminals. Their very first act in this country was to break the law. I know all of the linguistic gymnastics you like to engage in BG, trying to pretend that they are not, but they are criminals (as are tax cheats and welfare cheats. As YOU well know). They may not be violent criminals or dangerous criminals (although some of them are), but they are criminals.
Except for his Mideast-policy, which AFAIK is Israel-neutral & not anti-Israel, I have no idea why Stormfront & their ilk would give him any support. They aren’t exactly in favor of weak government- at least not if they were in charge.
I would certainly vote for Ron Paul for Congress or State Legislature- that’s where libertarians are most needed & provide a good counterbalance, maybe also for State Governor, but sure not for President.
I used to agree with him about the U.N. (when I was more of a Bircher, which I think Ron also is). Now I think we need to be in the U.N. just to keep our eye on the scurvy bunch- just keep our financial involvement in it lean & mean.
It is very hard, and not only for the business interests, as will be clear to you if you really think about the necessary procedures and consequences for five minutes. If you can.
Remember when the immigrants went on strike last year? You don’t want to live with that every day.
But they’re not in charge, therefore they understandably are opposed to practically anything American government might want to do under present or foreseeable circumstances.
Well, start at post 88 in this thread and browse a bit. I think there are a few reasons that racists might support him.
And, let’s face facts, a number of people in this country who are either anti-Israel or don’t believe we should support Israel are off their freakin’ rockers. Real paranoid, conspiracy addled fruitcakes. Just listen to one of 'em rambling on about how those who view America foreign policy differently than they do are are really traitors who harbor dual loyalty and part of a nefarious Israel First movement, how AIPAC (despite all evidence to the contrary) is an evil monster that has set up a ZOG and controls our media, how anybody who points out certain Iranian threats to the US is really trying to sell US blood for Israeli security… and you can understand how racists might view someone who opposes that as some sort of hero. It doesn’t matter that all of that is a fever dream of paranoid cranks. By standing up to the evil Zionist quisling government-media/controlling Israel Firsters, Paul is striking a blow for freedom. Or something.
Or as one of the wackjobs said:
“Not standing up for Ron Paul against the un-American Jewish media and neo-cons who will do anything to stop his nomination is like not standing up to the efforts to force integration, to encourage mass non-White immigration, or to the attack on the USS Liberty.”
Do Paul supporters really buy into this bit about the “NAFTA Highway”?
Again, bullshit it’s hard. It’s different, that’s for sure, and it’ll raise some havoc as the labor market adjusts to paying market wages instead of slave wages, but I really don’t understand what you think is so hard about it. Toughen up the laws we have against employing illegal aliens so they have real teeth against businesses who hire illegals, AND ENFORCE THEM, and the job pool will dry up. That right there will solve a big part of the problem, without jobs, many illegals can’t/won’t stay, they’ll drift back home on their own. Everyone who is arrested or stopped by the cops gets their residency status checked; if they aren’t legal, back they go. Every hospital admission, same thing, if they’re not legal, stabilize them and send them home. Ditto for all government services. It’s won’t solve the problem overnight, but fairly quickly it will. I ask you again, what is so hard about that, other than the will to do it?
This story on last night’s Pub debate is headlined, “Romney and Giuliani Clash on Immigration Issues,” but the way I read it, they weren’t clashing on the issue at all, they were just attacking each other’s records, each accusing the other of having been insufficiently vigilant in keeping illegals out of his state/city.
So it goes. Paul’s not really distinguishing himself from the others here. There will be no intra-party dissent on this issue; to the contrary, each Pub candidate will try to appear more anti-immigrant than the others. And if one of them becomes POTUS, he will approach the issue pretty much the way W has: Whatever is good for the labor-hungry businesses is good for the country.
Please consider how much money all that would cost; how many law-enforcement man-hours it would take that could be put to better use; how prices and general convenience of daily life would be affected by a sudden labor shortage; and, more importantly than any of those, how many more or less innocent lives it would disrupt as people who may have been living here for many years and made good lives for themselves and made friends and formed ties to communities, and children who have grown up knowing no other country or culture, are uprooted and kicked out.
Now please explain why any or all of that should be done – giving some reason other than “It’s the law!” – and why exactly it would be socially beneficial enough to justify the cost and trouble and disruption.
Not much. I’m not talking about sending squads of cops around to bang on doors rousting illegals in the middle of the night, the biggest additional expense would be in the enforcement of new laws aimed at employers. Everything else is in place. When someone who is illegal intersects any official services, their status is checked and, if they do not have the right to be here, they are sent back where they belong. I suppose the cost of confining and transporting the illegals back to where they belong would need to be considered, but that shouldn’t be much.
Actually, it would be a gradual labor shortage, a sudden labor shortage would be sending the squads around to round people up.
“Most important”? What are you smoking, that should be no consideration at all. A bunch of criminals are being denied the opportunity to proffit from their crimes, boo-fucking-hoo, cry me a river. These people are not entitled to all of those things you mentioned. They came here and took them illegally. If they wanted all of that stuff for themselves and their families, then they should have emigrated legally, at which point they could have them, and I would defend vehemently their right to them. By your logic, I could move into a house that you own, and when you find out and try to kick me out, my saying “hey, I’m a ll settled in here, my stuff’s unpacked, I should be able to just have the house” would be considered a valid argument.
Why should we get rid of a population of 10-12 million people who artificially distort the labor market, thus costing citizens jobs, who use a huge amount of resources and services that they aren’t entitled to, resources and services that citizens pay for, people who are themselves exploited because they do not have legal standing in the community? I’ll put it to you quite bluntly BG dear: They are thieves, taking what they are not entitled to. I don’t deny that they have contributed to our society too, but I don’t care how nice the thief next door keeps his property, I want him arrested. Those same contributions can be made by legal immigrants.
Then they will avoid using official services if they can, so we will have the roads filled with untested and unlicensed and uninsured drivers, raising children who do not go to school, solving their own crime problems with vigilante justice, etc., etc. I hope you can see that any savings in tax dollars there would not be worth anything near the trouble it would cause, and there probably would not be a net savings in tax dollars anyway.
You know, most of us (white) Americans are descended from immigrants who would have been illegal if there had been any immigration law at all at the time, and who started voting shortly after they stepped off the boat. Just to put the whole thing in perspective.
That is a valid argument under Anglo-American law; it’s called the law of adverse possession, a/k/a “squatter’s rights.”
:rolleyes: Oh, what horseshit. Illegal immigrants are not thieves. X job on the market does not belong to you by right, so you can’t call anyone else a thief for taking it. As for public services, anyone, even a career criminal, is equally entitled to them just by being present in the relevant jurisdiction. Illegal immigrants contribute to the economy. Illegal immigrants pay taxes – not all of them work off the books; and those who do still pay sales taxes when they buy anything and property taxes when they pay rent to the landlord.
The ancient Anglo-Saxon legal category of an outlaw – a person with no rights and beyond the law’s protection – is thankfully unknown to American law. You seem to want to revive it and to include all lawbreakers, great and small, in that category. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t become an outlaw, in that sense, by breaking the law.
And, beyond some incoherent seething and ranting, you still haven’t explained how our society would be better off without them.
More on that here. Huckabee, of all people, actually seems to be a lone voice of reason here.
Hijack: Say, how come Giuliani never even seems to get mentioned in connection with the Iowa Caucus? He is on the ballot (or whatever you call it in a caucus) there, isn’t he?
BG, I believe i a society of laws. A society of men or aristocrats or anything else will always favor the powerful; a society of laws will sometimes favor the weak. They broke the laws, and as a point of fact, I consider tax cheats and welfare frauds to be worse than bank robbers. A bank robber, however much he steals, attacks the laws openly and can be dealt with. A cheat or a fraud is nothing mroe than a vile leach who hides his or her crime while eroding the foundation of society.
Now, having democractically decided that only so much immigration ought to be allowed, I cannot tolerate those who sneak into the country illegally. It must be stopped, regardless of the immigrants and their origins.
That said, I have little problem with increased immigration, and favor high allowances. While some libertarians suggest no limits, our country does probably have a limit to how many new immigrants we can accomodate in a given year. I do, however, think this number ought to be set comfortably above a million.
In fact, the immigration issue isn’t about immigration for many, poerhaps most, conservatives. It’s about the laws and responsibility. When we see our representatives ignoring the law and their duty because they just don’t feel like it, we will pressure them to act and/or refuse to vote for them.
Having paid some attention to the politics and the rhetoric on the issue, I find that very, very hard to believe.
And having paid some attention to conservatives’ voting behavior over the past twenty or thirty years, I find that even harder to believe.
See, e.g., here.
Or lurk in one of the frequent immigration threads in Free Republic. (Unless you don’t consider the FReepers True Scotsmen.)
Jobs and public services belong to citizens and legal residents of the United States. Anyone else who uses them is a thief, period, end of discussion. You can try and put another face on it, excuse it away as not so bad, whine about how somebody needs to think of the precious children for God’s sake, but you can’t change the basic fact that illegal aliens are here, taking things that do not belong to them and that they are not entitled to: they are thieves. I’m a huge proponent of immigration, that’s what this country was built on, hell, I married an immigrant. Legal immigration.
That is not the law. Nor is it right.
Sorry, you’re wrong. Jobs in this country are reserved to those legally entitled to hold them - citizens, nationals and legal aliens. Working outside of this system is illegal employment, and is a precarious position for employer and employee both.
Likewise, many public benefits are also reserved for the same citizens, nationals and legal aliens previously mentioned. I’m sure you can come up with cases where illegal immigrants are afforded many benefits and protections, but as a general legal principle they aren’t owed anything but humane treatment during their deportation.
Now, I certainly don’t favor deporting them all, but let’s not kid ourselves - what they’re entitled to by law isn’t much, and anything we give them above and beyond that is due to our own generosity and public policy needs. I personally favor quite generous treatment of these folks, but they have to understand that it is a decision that Americans through our political process will control. In the fullness of time, when and if they have a vote, they can participate in the discussion on an equal footing. Until then their political activity must be limited, and their opportunities here may be as well.