The Amnesty Fraud-Part Duex

[Sage of Seattle]

Hey John!

I'm not going to cut and paste to respond to any of your points because we're in perfect agreement on this issue.

Contrary to what it seems, I do tend to think very deeply on the subjects on THR like this one; just when it comes time to write all of it down, I....hey look! Something shiny!

 

[JWarren]

Hiya Sage

just when it comes time to write all of it down, I....hey look! Something shiny!

Ahh....the story of my life.


It sucks to be fascinated by small, shiny objects.


-- John

 

[freakazoid]

just when it comes time to write all of it down, I....hey look! Something shiny!

lol, I know what you mean,

See? That is the problem with this type of application with the term liberty. The idea is that EVERYONE has the liberty to do exactly what THEY want to do-- except you if you try to exert your liberty to privacy, security, self-interest, and interest in your community.

It's not about doing anything that you want to do. It's about being ablr to do what you want to do without stepping on someone elses liberty.

You fail to grasp the notion that Liberty is not a blank check to take anything you want

I know this, but I fail to see how this relates to that post.

More theoretical garbage. This is an attempt to pervert the founding fathers' intent by applying your Anarchy spin to it. The founding fathers NEVER worked from a notion of absolute liberty for everyone in the world-- unless they wanted to take it themselves by their own hands. Their idea is that they would found their own country and worry about their OWN issues.

It isn't an attempt to pervert it. What they worked from is the notion that ALL mean are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

If the founding fathers were interested in developing your anarchy, why did it take so long to ratify a Constitution?

Becase they still believed that a government was necessary.

Why did they FIGHT a WAR to toss England's butt out of the colonies?

For freedom?

Seems that it was very anti-liberty to not let King George run his little colony.

Nope, they did it for liberty.

Bottom line: If you are placing the interests of any other country and its citizenship OVER that of your own country and its citizens, well you sit in the company of the Rosenbergs.

I am not placing the interests of another country over this one. What I believe is that ALL people have equal rights. Who is Rosenberg?

 

[Glock Glockler]

Becase they still believed that a government was necessary

At the end of the day the overwhelming majority of the people on this board actually believe in having govt, it might be minimalist govt with a few basic functions but it's still govt. You, OTOH, don't believe in having any govt at all, we're simply not going to agree.

You can quote the Declaration all you want but where the rubber meets the road is whether or not something actually works in the real world that preserves the maximum amount of liberty. You obviously want open immigration, which is the no govt involvment in migration, but you ignore the fact that there is a plethora of other govt nonsense that unfortunately exists which means that when someone crosses that border and needs medical care I am going to have to foot the bill for it. So how is that NOT stepping on my liberty?

If we could get rid of all those doles this would be a very different conversation, but until that point is reached I am not interested in your theoretical idealism.

 

[freakazoid]

At the end of the day the overwhelming majority of the people on this board actually believe in having govt, it might be minimalist govt with a few basic functions but it's still govt. You, OTOH, don't believe in having any govt at all, we're simply not going to agree.

Yup. Although don't get me wrong, I think that what the majority of the people heres version of what a government should be like is something worth fighting for, I used to call myself a libertarian before I became an anarchist.

You obviously want open immigration, which is the no govt involvment in migration, but you ignore the fact that there is a plethora of other govt nonsense

Which is why we need to ditch what this government has become and start over.

and needs medical care I am going to have to foot the bill for it.

You have to foot the bill for legal immigrants and native born citizens, what is the difference if they get here "illegally"?

 

[Glock Glockler]

Which is why we need to ditch what this government has become and start over

I agree that we need at least a return to the original intent of the Constitution, personally I'd even make some improvements to that but we can all agree that govt has gotten out of control and needs to be reigned in.

You have to foot the bill for legal immigrants and native born citizens, what is the difference if they get here "illegally"?

There are many reasons but the biggest one is that we already have a certain percentage of our population that is low income and govt dependant, and will therefore vote for more govt doles. Capitalism, if given time to do it's thing, will actually raise those people out of poverty (Walter Williams has a great article on this called "The Vanishing Poor") but the key is that capitalism has to be able to do it's thing.

If we import more and more low skill/low wage people into the country we will be increasing the percentage of people who will vote for more doles, and thus make it harder and harder to get rid of them and start over like we'd all like to. We'd simply have a slow decline/collapse into a welfare state that has a big % of people that want the fruits of the minority who is actually producing it. That's like taking 1 step forward and then taking 5 steps back, no good.

What many libertarians/anarchists don't realize is that how govt has been built up over time has resulted in a very complicated web were that govt has to be very carefully dismantled. Simply shooting from the hip at removing any govt in any place at any time can very easily result in a net gain of govt. In an algebraic equation you have an order of operations that must be maintained in order to get a correct result, the same is true of dismantling govt.

Before you open the floodgates to let people in the system must be set up so that poor people coming in cannot leach of those wealthier then them, this is why immigration in the 1800's was less of a problem, if an immigrant didn't want to work they'd simply starve, problem solved, but today the plethora of govt doles don't allow that to happen.

Intelligent policy would be geared towards the long term goal of sucessfully reducing govt intrusion into our lives, and that is the mindset we should have when discussing issues.

 

[Owens]

I don't mean to siderail the conversation but all that I've read here makes one consider things.

Before we had the system of government we call the United States, there was a little immigration that took place many years ago. At the time, there were no immigration laws, no citizenship requirements. Jamestown.

I am not proposing a solution. Although elements of previous posts do in one way or another make an attempt at a solution, I don't know if there are any step 1,2,3 solutions. The sheer numbers of people involved are staggering.

Each has it's own merits and detractors. Let me say this... I don't think amnesty is the solution. Also, I don't know what the solution is.

Amnesty flaunts insult in the face of those that are going through the legal process of residence/naturalization in the US. It insults the American way.

Let us not forget that we are all (with a few exceptions - American Indian) sprouts from immigrants. America was the place to be. Something to be desired. Opportunity. Freedom. Those things we hold high. I won't begrudge anyone the opportunity to become a citizen, but PLEASE... do it the legal way. Just like all the others before you.

If that means going to the back of the line and waiting your turn, then so be it. Fair is fair. Right is right and wrong is wrong. That however, would mean a massive effort to locate, deport (hold?) all the illegals, someone to process the avalanche of paper, etc., etc., etc.

I am not offering this as a solution, just something to ponder.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Who is Rosenberg?

The Rosenbergs were Americans who were convicted of spycraft during world war II and executed.

I used to call myself a libertarian before I became an anarchist.

I can respect that. How is anarchy better than libertarianism, however?

You have to foot the bill for legal immigrants and native born citizens, what is the difference if they get here "illegally"?

I would say that it really doesn't matter, EXCEPT for the fact that our redistribution of wealth system makes it matter. Two hundred years ago, I can very well see that the addition of several dozen million new people arriving in the United States (or whatever percentage of the total population that would have been) wouldn't have been an overall drain on the system as I see it now being.

There are many reasons but the biggest one is that we already have a certain percentage of our population that is low income and govt dependant, and will therefore vote for more govt doles.

Glockler, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I'm on the government dole (Social Security Disability) and I sure don't vote for those pandering to my needs. In fact, from my informal knowledge, I don't think the vast majority of people on government assistance even vote in the first place.

Capitalism, if given time to do it's thing, will actually raise those people out of poverty (Walter Williams has a great article on this called "The Vanishing Poor") but the key is that capitalism has to be able to do it's thing.

I think I can agree with this notion. For me to get my $700 a month, I am required to have less than $2,000 in cash or other liquid assets. A car under a certain value and a home (don't know the specifics) are exempt but that's it. When I called my government (the state of Washington in this case) and complained, they said that they had a program where they'd match funds in a savings account, but that program was discontinued.

It's my opinion that the truly poor in this country don't vote for anything and the actual welfare fraud is from wealthy companies and individuals who can afford to buy the votes and influence needed to gain even more wealth.

Just my $.02 (provided by you taxpayers! )

 

[slow944]

Sage how many Americans are contributing to the pool that makes up Social Security? Is it not the majority of Baby Boomers? What happens when all those have retired in another 25-30yrs and that pool not only drops in $$$ but also contributers? Will all the new Americans make up the difference for those of us in this catagory? From What I've seen on the NumbersUSA site the newest immigrants will cost the tax payers $300,000 in benefits each over the next 30yrs in hospital stays, medicaid, welfare and other government programs. Anyone besides me think that the USA will no longer exist as the Great Nation we know and love in another 50yrs.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Sage how many Americans are contributing to the pool that makes up Social Security?

All of them?

But I think I get your point about the overall number of contributors versus the number of recipients and I agree that the whole Ponzi scheme of Social Security will collapse relatively soon, especially considering the sudden influx of illegals and the financial stresses that they will place on the economy.

We aren't just being bled dry financially, but our monetary jugular has been opened up, what with the war on terror and war on drugs. We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars that WE'LL NEVER SEE BACK IN THIS COUNTRY.

Anyone besides me think that the USA will no longer exist as the Great Nation we know and love in another 50yrs.

I feel the same as you. I have a daughter who is 11 now and I occasionally feel sorry for her to have to grow up trying to deal with the messes that her grandparents' and parents' generations have made.

 

[gc70]

Before we had the system of government we call the United States, there was a little immigration that took place many years ago. At the time, there were no immigration laws, no citizenship requirements. Jamestown.

Jamestown colony was financed and organized by the Virginia Company of London under a charter granted by King James I of England. It is doubtful that the European monarchs who claimed North and South America looked favorably on free-lance colonization of "their" lands. It is very clear that once the Native Americans realized what was happening, they were very opposed to uncontrolled immigration.