Jump to content
Yes, because 9/11 totally happened as a result of illegal immigration. It wasn't Islamic extremism or backlash against American imperialism; it was totally illegal immigration. Look here: immigration, legal or illegal, reduces international violence because it makes different countries socially and economically dependent on each other. How many people do you think would attack the United States if they had relatives living here?
They do pay taxes: sales, payroll, and property taxes all hit them. Plus you have to account for the indirect taxes they pay when they generate economic growth (i.e.- the businesses they work for and the owners of those businesses, etc.).
While I must take exception to the notion of a "Christian nation," I do appreciate your support. Thank you, and keep fighting the good fight!
No, I simply accept that there are different solutions for different individuals. Some, who are good at activism, should stay in their home countries; others, who are not so good, should go somewhere better. Immigrants can actually play an important role in changing their original countries. By coming to new countries, getting jobs, and sending back remittances, they encourage economic development in those countries, which contributes to liberty and increased quality of life. Thus it is essential that some people stay and fight and other people leave and make money.
By definition a strike is not something one man can do, so I can't tell you when it will happen. All I can do is encourage other people, and hopefully someday it'll be a reality.
Illegals are not, by and large, "grabbing free stuff." They get jobs, work hard, and draw wages. Indeed, they generally work a lot harder than the rest of us, and for lower wages. They most certainly are makers, not takers.
@skylinefirepest: But that's the point: "the American people" do not own that land. No one owns that land; the land is either homesteaded or unowned. The government controls that land because it's most powerful, but it doesn't have any moral right to it.
You do not have a right to move into my house because that is my property. Illegal immigrants have a moral right to enter this country as long as they don't violate any individual's property (which many of them have not done).
It's not a question of whether laws against j-walking are just; it's a question of whether you would actively persecute those who j-walk. Again, are you calling for laws to get tough on j-walkers? When you see j-walkers, do you call the police or make citizens' arrests? Surely you will admit that there are some laws which simply aren't worth enforcing, even if you agree with them in spirit.
Reagan was a liar and a hypocrite. He promised liberty and then delivered more tyranny. It's a damned shame anyone remembers Reagan with anything but embarrassment.
"the people that died for mother russia when mother russia was fighting to rid the world of the nazis died for a good cause. When Mother Russia became an opressive dictatorship that not longer walked the line that civilized societies must then its identity changed"
But that's the point: the USSR was ALREADY an oppressive dictatorship, and yet 26 million Russians still died to preserve it. You claim that I should respect the USA because 1.6 million Americans died to protect her. By that logic, I should have a little respect for the USA, and loads of respect for the USSR!
The "your young; your opinions will change" canard is not an argument. It doesn't defeat the logic or evidence that I've already been arguing. Perhaps in 20 years I will support immigration restrictions, but that wouldn't mean immigration restrictions are right; all it would mean is that after 20 years, I've become so self-interested that I'm willing to demand the government suppress other people's liberty so that I can get a job. Immigration restrictions would still be wrong, regardless of whether I still had any integrity.
No, there is no such thing as public land. That's a lie the government made up to justify giving free land to its cronies. There is land that is owned, and there is land that is unowned. The government doesn't have any right to the unowned land; it belongs to whoever is the first person to homestead it. If illegal immigrants walk across it, they violate no one's rights.
"the government is the people. The government is elected by the people to serve for the people"
And Wal-Mart is elected by the people when they choose to shop there; does that make Wal-Mart "the people?" Again, businesses are ipso facto far more democratic than governments, yet we do not consider them "us." The notion that the government is "the people" is more bunk.
"People left to their own devices are evil and duplicitous. This is why we have governments."
Tell me, if human beings are evil and duplicitous, then what about those people who control governments? Are they magically less evil than anyone else?
The "human nature" argument falls for a very simple reason: those people who run governments are just as evil as those government seeks to control. Government cannot protect us from ourselves when it suffers from the same problem. To paraphrase Petronicus, "who will watch the watchers?"
"Why do you not do all this talking in their countries and get them what they deserve there?
Why do you not talk about the immoral condions that they feel forced them to to come here and break our laws?"
To paraphrase Chomsky, I'll focus on the government that I have the most chance to influence. Obviously, living in the United States, I have more ability to influence the actions of the United States than those of Canada, Mexico, or wherever else. I could, of course, move to those countries, but I have no reason to, as I'm happy within this society. People who want to stay in North Korea can fix North Korea; I'll stay in the US and fix the US.
"also does an extreme disservice to the over 1.6 million men and women who have died for those 'arbitrary boarders.'"
The fact that people have died to protect an institution does not justify that institution's existence. By that logic, you must be a huge fan of the Soviet Union! After all, 26 million people died to protect the Soviet Union from the Germans!
A tax strike is the only method that will accomplish anything. Voting in conservative and libertarian politicians will be ineffective; they tried that with Reagan, and he only made government larger. The solution is to deny the government the means to carry out its absurd plans. A tax strike, coupled with experiments with alternative currencies to avoid the Fed (thanks for reminding me of that), will do this; voting in new politicians will only produce more of the same.
The “people of the United States” do not own the land. Land is owned by the people who homesteaded it, or by those who have bought it from the homesteaders. I have no claim whatsoever to the land in Alaska, and neither do you; neither does anyone or anything except for the actual proprietors.
And no, the government is not the people. I know you’ve read my column on this subject; if you disagree with me, explain to me why, don’t just assert that I’m wrong. The government is not the people, emphatically is not the people, any more than Wal-Mart is the people. Indeed, corporations like Wal-Mart are far more representative of the people than any government; does that mean Wal-Mart owns this country?
Perhaps you don’t approve of J-walking, but would you actively persecute it? When you see J-walkers, do you call the cops? Or do you contend, as any rational person would, that because it is an unjust and inane law, there is no need to fight for its enforcement?
Laws should be subservient to morality. It’s morally wrong for me to murder my neighbor, and for that reason those laws should be enforced. It is not morally wrong for someone to cross a border, even if he or she does so without papers.
I must ask you again, would you impugn the Founding Fathers? They blatantly disregarded their government’s laws and actually killed people in the process. Would you argue that we should reinstate the British Empire? Because that’s the logical conclusion of what you’ve been saying.
If other countries pass unjust laws, that is not a reason for us to pass them. Again, I ask, would you argue we should have government-run healthcare? Because there are almost no countries in the world that don’t have that. What matters is what’s right, not what everyone else is doing.
"if I believe taxes are an "unjust" law I shouldn't be required to follow the federal law about paying taxes?"
Right you are. Taxes are unjust, and the citizenry would do well to organize a tax strike. Only by denying the government the means to carry out its designs can we reign it in.
I haven't studied the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in detail, but my understanding is that the Palestinians consider the Jews to be invaders, with some reason. I would, of course, not deny the Jews the right to live there, but nor would I give them power over the Palestinians. A solution should be found that allows the two to live beside each other without one ruling over the other-- perhaps a two state solution, though again I'm not an expert on the subject.
What does this comment mean? Clearly you disagree with me, but this doesn't give me any information. What, exactly, makes my contention "rich?"
Obviously illegal immigrants aren't "takers," since they're willing to work harder and for less money than American citizens. That's why businesses hire them: they're cheaper! Since when are "takers" people who do more work for less money than most people?
Anniversary Announcement | Birthdays Over 80 | Birthdays Under 12 | Engagement Announcement | Site Feedback | Letter to the Editor | User Submitted Photo | Subscription Request | Vacation Start Stops | Wedding Announcement Subscribe | Advertising | Media Kit | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Search
Physical Address: 145 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Southern Pines, NC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 58, Southern Pines, NC 28388 910-692-7271 Fax: 910-692-9382