Advertisement
After the Supreme Court upheld part of Arizona’s law, in retaliation, President Obama has suspended Arizona from federal confirmation on illegals.
What kind of president protects illegals over legal citizens?
Gloria Mack
Pinehurst
Advertisement
Advertisement
Today Currently 68° Overcast |  |
Language arts teacher Lisa Elliott had her head shaved by hairstylist Nichole Jenkins during an after-school event at Crains Creek Middle School May 3. Elliott promised students she would shave her head if they helped her raise money to participate in the Disney Half Marathon, which raises funds for St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital. Students and the school community held Elliott to her promise and helped her raise more than $4,000. Enlarge
Advertisement
Comments
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
The good thing for Arizona is if it has the balls..it can invoke its sovereignty and just truck them out themselves.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Obama is not "protecting" illegals; he's simply failing to actively persecute them. The notion that illegal immigrants are some sort of hostile force is complete bunk. They're ordinary working people, and they improve this country markedly.
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew the problem is that they are here illegally. If you or i break the law we go to jail. Allowing illegal action by one group but not another negates the law
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
If it's an unjust and/or meaningless law, it shouldn't be enforced. Do you ever j-walk? Would you argue that we should aggressively persecute j-walkers? A just society cannot obey unjust laws. Of course, we should change the immigration laws, but until then there's no moral justification for enforcing them.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Indeed, this country was founded on the notion that unjust laws should be broken. Or did you think firing on soldiers of the British Army was legal in colonial America?
Bentpan 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew the protection of a countrys' sovereignty is not unjust, just as evicting a stranger from your kitchen eating food from your pantry isn't unjust. But I'll tell you what why don't you go down to the Rio Grand, swim across see how Mexico treats you as an Illegal, their government has a zero tolerance policy, For some odd reason they object to outsiders stealing from their pantry, go figure.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Immigration restrictions do not "protect a country's sovereignty." The vast majority of illegal immigrants are not stealing from anyone; they're peacefully taking jobs, working hard, and contributing to society. Illegal immigrants who kill, rape, and steal should be jailed or deported, but the vast majority who live peaceful, civil lives should be left alone.
The fact that Mexico has immigration restrictions does not make it right. What matters is whether immigration restrictions are just and fair, not whether other countries have them. THink of it this way: Switzerland didn't give women the right to vote until 1971. Should the rest of the world have waited until then to give women the franchise?
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew my example may have been over simplified, however, being a son from an immigrant Irish family who went from the poorest of poor during the depression to Vice Presidents and CEO's of major and minor corporations and who entered this country legally through Ellis Island, I feel that I have a decent perspective on this.
I have no issue with LEGAL immigration. If you want to know the difference between what you get for the 2 let me tell you.
Illegals bring disease, take away jobs from legal citizens(this can not be disputed) drain tax dollars and housing them when they commit crimes, giving them health care(a hospital in america can not turn away a sick person) and a list of others.
What is the solution then? Amnesty?
The solution is to fence in the southern boarder, place "ellis island" type structures at key immigration points in Florida, Texas, Arizona and California. And revamp immigration policies that actually worked.
Its a simple approach that would save us billions of dollars. As to the ones here. If they end up in jail. ship um off.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
@Bentpan: American independence is again a good example. Colonists' firing on British soldiers was a far greater threat to British sovereignty than crossing a border without papers. Would you have instructed the colonists to not fire?
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
@ Andrew, Ann Coulter argues that womens sufferage created the downfall of the modern world.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
@The_AnonymusProfit: "Illegals bring disease" So does everyone who enters a country. Should we outlaw tourism? I suspect a lot more disease are spread by the millions who enter and leave the US every year than by the people who come here once and stay
"Take away jobs from legal citizens(this can not be disputed)" Yes it can! They absolutely do not take jobs from American citizens! That would imply that the American citizens somehow have a right to those jobs, which they don't. No business is obligated to give you a job; businesses have a right to employ whoever will do the best job for the lowest price. If that is an illegal immigrant, so be it. Besides, immigrants create jobs as well. Someone has to sell them cars, clothes, and groceries. Having more people living in a country does not increase unemployment; yes, there are more people do do jobs, but there is also more demand for them.
"drain tax dollars and housing them when they commit crimes" Again, illegal immigrants who commit real crimes should be deported. But the vast majority of them have done nothing wrong, and should be left alone.
"giving them health care(a hospital in america can not turn away a sick person)" Then change that law! The whole "welfare state" argument against illegal immigration is missing a very obvious point: just stop the government spending! The problem isn't illegals using government services; the problem is the government services!
Closing the borders would cost far more than it would save. Not only would the government have to spend enormous sums of money to do so, but the economy would lose hundreds of billions replacing and training their workforces. Open borders is the only rational solution.
"womens sufferage created the downfall of the modern world" You can't be serious. Don't let me be so disillusioned with you as to think you believe that!
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
andrew the ann coulter part was a joke
skylinefirepest 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew...I don't know where you get this stuff but I'd like some information. Do you own a home and do you have a spare bedroom with a tv and a comfy bed?? Do you keep your kitchen well stocked and do you or your wife have a talent for cooking? Just asking, for right now, you understand. I'd hate to move in and not be comfortable.
The point is that it IS an invasion...peaceable or not. They can go through the proper channels to become citizens and I don't have a problem with that. But they are ILLEGAL. And our immigration laws are not "bad or unjust law". I don't know of any country on the face of the planet where Andrew Soboeiro can just cross over the border, find a place to live, and start taking work from the locals. Just ain't gonna happen, boy and most of the time A.S. would end up in the pokey OR WORSE!!
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Skyline is correct on this. And Andrew illegals do take jobs from Americans. Construction jobs being one of the biggest areas affected by illegal immigration.
skylinefirepest 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Incidentally, Andrew, the border is supposed to be closed for a very valid reason. Since 9-11 it's been estimated that over fifteen million illegal aliens have crossed into the United States from both our borders. Unfortunately Homeland Security estimates that approximately ten to fifteen percent of this number are from countries not friendly to the United States. Homeland Security will tell you that we know they are here, we know they have access to weapons and explosives, and we simply don't know why they haven't already attacked us. Look at the absolute havoc that two "non-trained" shooters created in the Washington area a few years back with just a rifle, no explosives, no automatic weapons, and no support group. You give me ( depending on the size and population of the state ) just about ten shooters per state and I can put the country into a hard panic. Would they be tracked down eventually? Yes, but they will die for their "peaceful religion" and go for the seventy two virgins. They want to kill the infidels and are very willing to do so.
buskwon 10 months, 2 weeks ago
skylinefirepest, you nailed it and are absolutely right , Not all illegals crossing the border are here peacefully, many are here to do harm , AndrewSoboeiro how many times does your wife have to be raped and your kids killed before you understand why they are illegal. They are called illegal immigrants because they are just that ILLEGAL. We should not wait for them to commit a crime to consider them illegal. The fact that they are here illegally should be enough to send them back. If a person wants to become an Americen citizen they should go through the correct channels and I an not talking about the Rio Grande . Having an open border to Mexico is A slap in the face to everyone who has come here legally.
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Guys to be fair to andrew, he is the learning stages. For the most part what he says is good, but to understand illegal immigration, or should i say to see first hand what it does, you have to be out of college and in the job market.
Pappy 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew, a Mother has gone to run some errands. She talks to one of her daughters and they plan a shopping trip and dinner that evening with the other sister and their families. They never follow through plans that evening because the Illegal rounds the curve and hits the Mother head on and kills her.
That happened in Raleigh a few years ago, I heard the interview on AM 680, the Bill LuMaye show with her daughters.
What if this was your family, would you still continue to support your ideas on illegals ?? If the illegal was not here this would have never happened.
I know you are a young man and seem to be a bright person, but the question stands...what part of illegal can't you understand ???
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
"the ann coulter part was a joke" Just checking.
As far as the bit about illegal immigrants raping and murdering people, yes, some of them do that, and they should be stopped. But the vast majority of illegal immigrants are perfectly civil people. They have broken one unjust law: crossing the border. Those who have broken more laws must be dealt with; the vast majority that have not should be left alone.
Of course, the stories about illegal immigrants killing and raping in disproportionate numbers are almost certainly exaggerations. Over the past thirty years, illegal immigration has skyrocketed while violent crime rates have gone through the floor. But even if the stories were true, it still wouldn't justify deporting the vast majority of illegals who haven't harmed anyone.
Again, the fact that other countries have similar or stricter immigration laws is completely irrelevant. Almost all other countries have government-run healthcare; does that mean we should adopt it?
Again, illegal immigrants do not "take" jobs from Americans because no American citizen deserves a job who can't bargain for it. No construction company owes you a job; it has the right to give that job to whoever will do the best work and/or work for the lowest wage. If that happens to be an illegal immigrant, the immigrant has just as much right to the job as anyone else.
The notion that anyone is "owed" a job, a living, or any service, and that the government needs to intervene to secure it for him or her, is the mark of a society of entitlement. We need to abandon this mentality if we are ever to make progress.
buskwon 10 months, 2 weeks ago
AndrewSoboeiro, you said (As far as the bit about illegal immigrants raping and murdering people, yes, some of them do that, and they should be stopped. But the vast majority of illegal immigrants are perfectly civil people. They have broken one unjust law: crossing the border. ) . Well Andrew how do you know who is going to rape or murder someone before the crime is commited? . If they are ILLEGAL they should be treated as such .The vast majority of illegal immigrants might be civil people but they are still ILLEGAL. There is a huge difference between immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants.
NocOwl 10 months, 2 weeks ago
No offense Andrew, but you sound like you haven't ever lived anywhere but here. Try living in or even near a border town for some perspective on illegal immigration. I guarantee it would change your point of view on many of your unsupported arguments.
Your argument about businesses having a right to hire whoever they want is a bit flawed, it is against the law to hire illegals. Uncle Sam wants his percent of everyone's pay, illegals get paid under the table and don't pay taxes. There are also issues with many employers who do hire them paying substandard wages, subjecting them to unfair labor practices, and unsafe working conditions. We have labor laws for a reason, and unscrupulous employers will try to bypass those laws with this demographic because they can get away with it. Illegals often have no recourse when treated unfairly, they won't go to authorities for fear of getting caught and deported. Most live in poverty and don't go shopping for clothes and cars, it's all they can do to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, and many still try to send money to family over the border. However, they still have access to schools, government programs, and healthcare, so it's preferrable to living in their country where the government doesn't help them. I do agree with your "welfare state" assessment, the government needs to put more restrictions on welfare and stop spending. Some tighter oversight to help prevent fraud would save lots too.
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Good post nocowl.
smblack 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Thank you Andrew. There is hope for the next generation with such thoughtful understanding.
teufelhunden 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Very naive. Idealistic but not realistic. Rose colored glasses are mere deception.
Courseaire 10 months, 2 weeks ago
On this week during the celebration of our Independence, let us Celebrate Freedom: http://www.hslda.org/LandingPages/celebratefreedom.asp
fugitiveguy 10 months, 2 weeks ago
When ones logic is that those here illegally have just as much right to a job as legal citizens is there any hope of a reasoned exchange? Andrew, do you know what percentage of those in federal prisons are illegal immigrants? Also, you say serious criminals should be deported. What good does it do to deport someone across an unguarded border? Much of what you say completely fails the test of common sense. This administration has been unprecedented in its hostility to our border states trying to protect their citizens. For that alone they should be tossed out on their rearends in the next election.
Bentpan 10 months, 2 weeks ago
AndrewSoboeiro 13 hours, 49 minutes ago @Bentpan: "American independence is again a good example." Sir In 1776 the British had every right to protect their interests but they lost and America was born, Today this country belongs to Americans, not the world, those that came before paid for it in full with their blood and sacrifice, a shame you're willing to give away freely what was so dearly paid for. Neither you, Obama or anyone else has the right to give away what belongs to all Americans without the consent of us all ie through an act passed by congress then the senate and only then by the president. What this president has done is show his contempt for all of us and the laws of the country he swore an oath to uphold yet AGAIN.
skylinefirepest 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Hey Andrew! Just a friendly reminder...you haven't answered my questions about the spare room and board yet!! Come on...won't take you but a second. By the way, what exactly is unjust about protecting our sovereign border?? And another reminder...you haven't bothered to answer my comment about the number of possible terrorists coming across our borders unhindered. Not everybody coming into OUR country is a Happy Jose!!
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
I didn’t answer your question about the “spare room and board” because it’s irrelevant. Opening the border has nothing to do with property rights. We still have the right to own property and to keep other people off it. The difference is that the government does NOT own the United States, and has no right to keep people out unless those people threaten it. If property owners across the border allow illegal immigrants to move across their land (and many do), property rights are intact. It’s not unjust to “protect the border;” it’s unjust to keep people out who haven’t done anything wrong. Of course, people with records of violent crime and terrorism should be kept out, or evicted if they get in, but the point is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are NOT violent criminals or terrorists, and do not deserve to be evicted for crimes they have not committed. I never said there should be an unguarded border; the border should still be guarded. There can still be a rigorous customs process, but we should let everyone in who doesn’t have a history of terrorism or violent crime. As far as the notion that potential terrorists might get in through a looser immigration system: perhaps, but so what? The same is true of tourism: again, millions of people get in and out of the US every year through perfectly legal means. Should we outlaw tourism? At some point, you have to agree to take risks with security for the sake of saving social and economic liberty. In the long run, open borders will reduce terrorism and war. If you have families split between the two countries, people sending money from the US back to their original countries, that will create bonds between nations and reduce the desire for violence. How many people would bomb the US if their relatives were living there?
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
People have this idea that if you don’t have a job, the government needs to go get you one. For liberals, this means demanding that the government spend taxpayers’ money on inane projects—essentially laundering money to workers for a service no one wanted. For conservatives, this means petitioning the government to get rid of the people who might compete with you for the job. Liberals and conservatives are in this sense alike: they agree on the ends, differing only on the means. Both groups are willing to negate human liberty for personal gain. Understand this: no one, citizen or illegal, educated or uneducated, deserves a job. If someone else can do the job better than you, or will work for less money, that person has every right to take that job, even if he or she is an illegal immigrant. The notion that “native born” citizens deserve jobs more than illegal immigrants is just entitlement bunk.
fugitiveguy 10 months, 2 weeks ago
At what point in your life did you develop the opinion as outlined in the last sentence in your previous post. If someone came into your house (maybe your parents house in your case) without the permission of any of the "legal" residents of the home would they have just as much right to the food in the refrigerator as the legal residents and if not, then why not based on your above position.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
No, they would not have any right to the food or even to enter my house. What you're missing is the difference between borders and property. Property is homesteaded; it belongs to people because they have mixed their labor with it, or bought it from others who have done so. Borders, on the other hand, are arbitrary lines policed by governments; they are justified by nothing but military force. Thus, I have a right to kick people off my property, but the government does not have a right to kick people out of the country unless those people are actually threatening anyone.
fugitiveguy 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew, are their any countries in the world that practice this open border system that you wish to see? Also, what is to keep a deported convicted murderer, rapist, repeat drunk driving killer, drug trafficker from coming right back in to the US and getting right back in business. Are their victims just collateral damage?
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Whether other countries practice it is irrelevant; the question is whether it's right. Are there other countries that don't have government-run healthcare? Does that mean we should have it here?
Simple: keep the same customs process, but let everyone in who doesn't have a history of violent crime, terrorism, drunk driving, and so forth. Yes, we should protect against violent immigrants, but the vast majority of immigrants, legal or illegal, are civil people.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
I'm tired of answering the same objections over and over. Read my previous comments before you post anything. Odds are I've already answered it.
Bflat 10 months, 2 weeks ago
AS, you will soon find out that it is wrong to encourage laws to be broken based on flawed logic of it being "unjust." Also, because some people are "peaceful or civil" does not give an illegal any "rights" to occupy a country, any more than the violent criminals. People crossing that border illegally have done it wrongfully and willfully and it is irrelevant whether someone allowed them to do it. The law has been broken, whether you want to accept that. However, according to you it is fine and dandy for laws to be broken and illegal immigrants to come on in here anyway without their even trying to do it legally. Illegal immigrants are costing our government and taxpayers billions of dollars in "free services" and it must stop. Oh, but the law is unjust you say...and you probably think it's ok for me to pay for all those lawbreakers. There are 2 kinds of people and the illegals are the "Takers" from those that have worked and earned what is already here.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Again, this country was founded on breaking unjust laws. The colonists broke the laws and attacked British sovereignty when they fired on British soldiers; does that mean they shouldn't have done so? Maybe we should just reinstate the British Empire, since independence movements throughout that empire almost inevitably involved breaking laws.
If you object to paying taxes for illegal immigrants to use public services, get rid of those public services. Government will continue to expand regardless of whether there are illegal immigrants in the country. The problem is unchecked government power, not immigration.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
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?
OldSpook 10 months, 2 weeks ago
So using this logic, if I believe taxes are an "unjust" law I shouldn't be required to follow the federal law about paying taxes?
teufelhunden 10 months, 2 weeks ago
AS-What is your take on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
teufelhunden 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Does one side consider the other to be invaders?
teufelhunden 10 months, 2 weeks ago
AS-"Obama is not "protecting" illegals; he's simply failing to actively persecute them."
That's rich.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
"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.
"That's rich." What does this comment mean? Clearly you disagree with me, but this doesn't give me any information. What, exactly, makes my contention "rich?"
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew, Im sorry to say but your stance on Illegal immigration is orwellian at best. Americans own America and there fore by proxy the US Government owns America. The entirety of the 48 continental states, Alaska, Hawaii, and the properties of the US including Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam etc are property of the citizens of the United States.
Much like Highways are correctly called the Peoples Highways because we the people from our tax dollars pay for their creation and upkeep, so to do we pay for the upkeep of the country. All property in America is owned either by private citizens, private corporations, or local, state, and federal governments which would be considered public property even though it may be off limits in certain areas to the public, IE military installations.
Again I refer to an earlier post. If I can break 1 law, why cant I break another? Your example of J walking, If I jay walk I am breaking the law. It may be a stupid law but it is there for a reason, to protect you from oncoming traffic that you may or may not be able to see. If I can cross a border illegally why cant I murder my neighbor for borrowing my lawn mower for to long? Seems like a unrealistic comparison? The problem is that when we decide that laws are only there for some it begins seeds on anarchy.
As to your comments on what other countries do being irrelevent. What other countries do is most certainly relevant. We as a country constantly tell other countries what they can and can not do based on our own moral and ethical standards. As do other countries. As a whole we as people of the world realize that certain things such as the sovereignty of ones boarders are paramount to the ability to coexist peacefully. Some countries such as Iran, Iraq, Zimbabwe, choose not to follow these rules of society and are punished by what one could refer to as the western world but which I refer to as civilized society.
Only Anarchists believe that they should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want. Saying that boarders, arbitrary lines drawn in the sand are irrelevent shows not only a lack of understanding of how governments, countries and people work. But also does an extreme disservice to the over 1.6 million men and women who have died for those "arbitrary boarders". It is because of those men and women who died for this country that you even have the ability to go to college and have the ideas you have.
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
As to your tax strike. The government has every right to tax its citizens for the services it provides. We may feel at this current moment that we are over taxed or that our government provides to many services, this depends on what side of the line you are on. However this does not negate the fact that the government is with in its power to tax its citizens. A tax strike accomplishes nothing other then getting you a nice visit to club fed. If you want taxes reduced or services cut then vote for conservative and libertarian candidates who will do this.
In the end Andrew, an idea of flung open boarders may happen one day, but Captain Kirk has not yet taken flight in the Enterprise, until that day arrives, it is the duty of this country to prevent people from entering it who do not enter through the proper channels.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
"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.
ninesyspup 10 months, 2 weeks ago
AndrewSoboeiro.
What really burns me up is that our government allows dishonest people enter this country and stay who do not even have the moral courage to fight for what they get here in there own country.
Here they can break our laws and not worry about prosecution by an an administration pandering for votes. 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?
But why should they have to?
Luby Hester
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
"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.
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew do you understand what public land is? there is only 2 type of land, public and private. Private is your "homestead" or land owned by a private corporation such as the property that wal mart sits on.
Public land is everything that is left. Which is owned by the various governments. This land is OWNED by anyone who pays taxes on it, such as the public park in down town southern pines. I by paying taxes own that land, and while I can not build on it and must have permits to do certain things it is still owned by me and all the tax payers of southern pines.
This is how public land works.
And yes the government is the people. The government is elected by the people to serve for the people. If the government no longer serves the people then it is the right of the people to abolish that government and institute a new one. This is the founding principle on which our country was founded. And while the government may not be perfect, neither are people. But Let me make a distinction, the government is OF the people, For the people, and By the people.
Many things have changed over the years. The extreme libertarian model of how the world should operate would lead to anarchy. People left to their own devices are evil and duplicitous. This is why we have governments.
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
As again to your jay walking comment, how is a jay walking law unjust? would you say it was unjust if the person who broke the law happened to be a friend of yours and during the breaking of said law was plowed down by a motorist? And this would be the fault not of the motorist but of the person breaking the jay walking law.
As to your comment on Regan, Regan was a great president who did many great things.
As to your comment on the Soviet Union. 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 and would fall into the Iran Iraq Zimbabwe category.
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
And Andrew, Im glad you have an opinion, and Im glad that its in the general right direction. But these opinions that you have will change 100 times before you leave college and 100 more times in the years after and 1000 times by the time your 50.
You will change alot of your opinions once you enter the work force and begin competing for jobs and start to raise a family and buy a house etc etc. There is a reason that Barak Obama and Ron Paul have overwhelming support from young people. Ron Paul lets you do whatever you want and Barak Obama gives you everything for free.
skylinefirepest 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew your idea about "your" home and being able to prevent me from homesteading in your spare bedroom is absolutely correct. The point I'm trying to make is this is "OUR" country in the same way it's "your" house! If we don't invite them in they should not come strolling over our borders bringing low paid workers, some talented workers, and a whole lot of crime, drugs, alcohol, etc. problems to boot. If I remember correctly the NCSHP will tell you that the top six gangs currently operating in the U.S. are Latino. And while we're at it...since you think that we should allow anyone into our country with the only requirement being that we "might" be able to prove that they were law abiding....You need to rethink your spare bedroom because by your standards I am not a law breaker, I'm somewhat not foul mouthed especially in mixed company and I can either keep to myself ( you could even provide my meals in my room, if that was your choice. ) or be an active participant in most well versed conversations! I would think you'd be glad to have me around and I'd even sweep the floor and make the bed occasionally! Geez, what's there not to like about that deal?? I have to say, though, Andrew that if you're a diehard product of UNC then I'm starting to really, really like DOOK!!!
ninesyspup 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew Soboeiro
I guess you are worse than them. You do not have the moral courage to encourage them to go back and demand their rights. You can cry about how immoral our laws are, but you did that there you would probably end up in some deep dark dungeon.
Take your criminal element home were they belong.
Luby Hester
Bflat 10 months, 2 weeks ago
AS, just when do you plan to influence and change our government with a big tax strike? Just how are you going to "fix the US?"
Illegals certain are the "Takers" because they are here illegally and they chose to break the law while grabbing all the free stuff that "We, the people.." have paid for. They didn't earn it and it makes no difference how much, how hard or how little they work, they have broken the law by coming here illegally.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
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?"
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
@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).
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
@ninesyspup: 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.
@Bflat: 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.
buskwon 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Mr. Sombrero, This is America The USA , We should have immigration restrictions to keep OUR country safe , If someone crosses the border illegally then they have broken the law and need to be arrested and sent back , we have laws for a reason , if you do not like the laws that's to bad , It is the LAW . If we do not stop the continuous flow of ILLEGAL immigrants into our country then it's just a matter of time before we have another 911 or something worse. You can keep living with your head in the sand singing Kumbaya while the rest of us true Americans continue to protect our great Country.
buskwon 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Mr.Sombrero, you said (Illegals are not, by and large, "grabbing free stuff." They get jobs, work hard, and draw wages) Yes they might work hard and draw wages but they are not paying taxes on those wages they do not have bank accounts and do not pay taxes , So YES they are (grabbing free stuff) wake up and smell the "el café".
bustedfriend 10 months, 2 weeks ago
I have been reading the posts and trying to stay out of it. But it is just impossible for someone to read all these posts and not saying anything.AS you are not alone in this battle. Across the country there are much more support and agreement that our Immigration system is broken.Something must be done.These children that are brought here illegally by their parents are not criminals.They are just children.They like to play at the parks, they like ice creams, they like cartoons. They are inocent people that has no idea how can people look them diferent just because the color of their skin, and the pronunciation with accent.As I read all these comments my heart aches for those children.We as a Christian nation should have mora compassion with these children.And as it was mentioned here not all of those people that cross the border are bad people.Some are parents that they would rather prefer to put their own lives in danger (to cross the border it is not easy, and it is dangerous) to cross a river, to live in the shadows so their children would at least have a better life.And let's not forget that the people that cause so much pain to our nation in 09/11/2001 were in this country LEGAL.Andrew do not silence your voice, there are many people that need it.
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
@buskwon: 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.).
@bustedfriend: 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!
AndrewSoboeiro 10 months, 2 weeks ago
And with that, I must bring my participation in this lovely little debate to a close, as I will be leaving town tomorrow and won't have internet access for two weeks. It's been a pleasure debating with some of you, and I hope to face of with those of you again soon.
bustedfriend 10 months, 2 weeks ago
AS you forgot to say that most of them do have bank accounts too. Have a safe trip.
isabelle 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew, it seems I've have caught you on your way out,. In any case, the gist of your argument is that we should leave all peaceful aliens alone and send the ones who break the law back. Andrew, are you aware that the minute they cross the US border they've become criminals? Whether they've come here with the best of intentions, or not, they've broken the law the moment they enter this country ILLEGALLY. There is a process that one must follow to enter this country to work, study, live (peaceably or otherwise), and when one, anyone from any country, fails to follow that process, they are breaking the law. The financial ramifications of the influx of Mexican citizens crossing into the US to live here illegally have been devastating to states and the communities wherein they settle in large numbers. In some areas, hospitals have closed because of their inability to afford to care for these uninsured 'guests'. In some areas, American tradesmen have been put out of work completely because of these 'guests' being hired by uncaring and disloyal, not to mention unscrupulous contractors who are looking to profit on cheap labor. Crime rates have increased in many of these areas with those who've crossed the border making up a large proportion of illegal drug sales and manufacturing.
And so the cookie crumbles, leaving the crumbs of unemployment, foreclosure, and such. Perhaps you didn't know this, but the beginning of whole housing crisis of 2009 can partially be tied to banks such as BOA handing out sub-prime loans to illegal 'guests' who found themselves in over their heads.Banks like BOA didn't care these 'guests' couldn't pay for the loans they provided; all they cared about were the profits they could make from these loans, and trust me, sub-prime loans were very profitable at one time, and they were handed out like candy to anyone who wanted one. Andrew, assuming you work and are taxed, you and yours will footing the bill these 'guests' have created.
That past and present administrations have completely failed to maintain and uphold our standing immigration laws completely floors me. That 'we the people' haven't taken action to insist they do so completely disheartens me.
Bflat 10 months, 2 weeks ago
And, if Soboeiro is his real name, be advised he's a staff writer for the newspaper.
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew your opinions are yours. But facts are facts. There is public land, this is not a lie its fact, wether you want to acknowledge it or not. Regan was a great president though this is an opinion it is one held by both reps and dems. Illegals are illegal and ahould be deported. Jay walking is a crime and the law is not u just. The government is the people. Companiea are not. Now im done the convo was nice but is now old and wore out.
geoffcutler 10 months, 2 weeks ago
I suppose we have our public schools to thank for this. God help us!
teufelhunden 10 months, 2 weeks ago
"That's rich" - meaning AUDACITY - there you go ya whipper snapper now run along...
JohnANagy 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Andrew is a summer intern for the paper. His opinions, like all of yours, are his own.
Bflat 10 months, 2 weeks ago
We know that , John, and the opinions he expressed is based on a bunch of jabberwocky.
honesty2 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Chomskey? Really? That explains a lot.
fatboy 10 months, 2 weeks ago
I suppose we have our public schools to thank for this. God help us! Too funny, Geoff. I thought that I had a comprehension lapse for a minute. It's good to know that there are still a few of us who paid attention in school.
geoffcutler 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Immigration laws are on the books. The Imperial president and the youthful intern don't believe it is necessary to follow those laws. These are not questions requiring their opinions. Immigration law, passed by Congress, is being broken by Executive Order.
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Amen Geoff. How hard is that to understand?
Thatcher 10 months, 2 weeks ago
While I disagree with many of Andrew's points/arguments, I must say that this young man expressed his views without rancor and without calling other people names...a rarity on this site. And he's a summer intern, on his way back to college. To me, that's pretty impressive. And as far as Noam Chomsky, my guess is that Andrew is smart enough to soon realize that Chomsky's a left-wing radical admired soley by left-wing college professors. Regardless, Andrew is obviously a very bright young man with a great future ahead of him. I wish him well.
The_AnonymusProfit 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Most definetly Thatch. I just hope he sees the light sooner then later.
geoffcutler 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Clearly, Andrew's approach is commendable. His ability to discuss political topics on here without rancor, pettiness, name-calling and down right childishness is impressive. What is worrisome is that his opinions appear to be the result of educational indoctrination. He is one of millions who likely believe like him, and that portends ill for our nation's future.
Thatcher 10 months, 2 weeks ago
geoff-- I share your concerns about indoctrination. I was forced in undergrad to study Chomsky. But here's the silver lining: conservatives have always outnumbered liberals almost 2-1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx. I learned the Chomsky nonsense long ago, as did all of my undergrad classmates. Still, by 2-1, today we are conservative (I was a conservative back then, too...suprise!). I think the explanation is that most folks, when they have to earn a living and support their family, come to understand quickly that nothing is free. They have to manage money in the real world, and know that spending more than you have will result in disaster. There is hope yet, my friend. And I believe you will see that genuine hope on November 6th. Cheers!
geoffcutler 10 months, 2 weeks ago
I hope for the country on Nov. 6 too, T, but that's hope. The facts are that Obama just circumnavigated federal law on immigration and with a willing Chief justice of our Supreme Court, outmaneuvered our Constitution. Our children, indoctrinated in our public schools to think that these happenstance are perfectly just, is worrisome. Us oldsters will only carry the day till we die. I fear for my children.
Thatcher 10 months, 2 weeks ago
As do I geoff. We all fear for our children. I just believe in the decency of the American people...we don't always get it right, but we're usually quick to correct our mistakes. Americans got it wrong with Carter, and we reversed course with Reagan. I'm confident that the same will happen in November. Romney is not in Reagan's league. But, sadly, Obama's not even in Carter's league. Stay positive, my friend. Cheers!
greentara13 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Thank you all, really enjoyed the civil discourse and the different points of view eloquently expressed. This is what I love about our country, lot of different people hammering out what it means to live here. Cheers!
Thatcher 10 months, 2 weeks ago
And to geoff and any other conservative friends (as well as open-minded liberals)-- In June, we added a mere 80,000 jobs. http://www.businessinsider.com/june-nonfarm-payrolls-report-2012-7. This is worse than bad. Yet in the same month (June), an additional 85,000 Americans went on disability. http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-climbs-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm. This is not the 3rd consecutive "Summer of Recovery." This is dangerous. And it is completely unnecessary. Give it some thought, folks. Thanks.
Thatcher 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Which is why I believe November will go our way.
geoffcutler 10 months, 2 weeks ago
T...Your optimism is inspiring. I've lost a lot of bets lately. All I can say is I hope you're right.
Thatcher 10 months, 2 weeks ago
I believe I am right, Geoff, as strongly as I believed Obama was wrong when he told us if we just spent $1 trillion on stimulus in 2009 (the Recovery Act), unemployment would never exceed 8% (we've been over 8% for over forty straight months). In fact, and as a reminder to all the liberals here who believe in Keynes and that "top economists" (liberal) are never wrong, here's Obama's 2009 prediction, shared then with the press in graph form:http://economics21.org/blog/revisiting-unemployment-predictions. We spent $1 trillion and unemployment still exceeded what these Obama "economists" predicted would never occur if we had spent zero. Forty months later, we're still over 8%, when these "experts" said if we spent the stimulus, we'd be at 5.6% unemployment today. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/june-jobs-swoon-americas-labor-market-depression-continues/. Keep this in mind, folks, when they tell you that healthcare is free. Thanks.