[quote]pushharder wrote:
In fact a political entity with some teeth is absolutely necessary in order to establish and protect libertarianism.
[/quote]
Correct, you need order to have freedom. Sounds weird and like doublespeak, but you need order because man is fallible. We do this naturally.
The idea of a country having truly open boarders becomes less and less a conversation about reality and more and more one of philosophical belief the larger the population and complex the society. [/quote]
The reality is we live in a welfare state and most of the world doesn’t believe in libertarian principles and I recognize that this has real logistical and practical problems when applying theory to reality, especially in the context of immigration. I think I said as much in earlier posts. But its also useful to think about practical ways to increase liberty when its possible to do so and not just let the state off the hook when it claims it can limit freedoms in the name of security and national sovereignty, or turn blind eye and just pretend things like freedom of movement is an illusory or unimportant concept.
I do not believe unrestricted freedom of movement/travel between countries is a fundamental/natural/individual right anymore than I believe unrestricted freedom of movement/travel into your backyard and kitchen and bedroom is a fundamental/natural/individual/human right as per Chushin.
Only the lunatic fringe of libertarians believe in the elimination of all political entities and their requisite borders. In fact a political entity with some teeth is absolutely necessary in order to establish and protect libertarianism.
[/quote]
I agree with you 100% regarding paragraph 2, but disagree that paragraph 2 is the necessary consequence of recognizing a basic right to freedom of movement.
[/quote]
Wow.
Just how would that work?[/quote]
When you are in the United States, do you need to show papers when you cross from California to Nevada? There is a border there, and you are moving from one sovereign state to another, but people are allowed to move freely between them. Nobody claims this is a state of Anarchy.
[/quote]
You’re joking, I hope.
That is only possible BECAUSE the US has protected borders![/quote]
No, its because the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of movement within the 50 states even though the 50 states are separate sovereign political entities and because the Founders viewed freedom of movement as a fundamental right.
[/quote]
OK, if you believe that unrestricteed freedom of movement is tenable in the US without protected borders, then I have to respectfully say that the conversation has moved into fantasy land, and I’m done with it.[/quote]
What do you mean by “protected borders,” exactly? I am not sure we are definitionally on the same page.
Controlled immigration, that’s it, simple. Every other country I’ve been to I had to have a Visa and an invitation/sponsor. Why? Because they want to ensure that the people coming into their country are worthwhile.
I have no problem with hundreds or thousands of Mexicans coming in to the country, if its done legally and fairly, but its not. You have law-breaking people putting strain and stress on law-abiding citizens, and then hoping they get a job and not welfare/EBT/etc.
I shouldn’t have to work for a living so I can pay for squatters of any race what-so-ever. We have enough legally born lazy people, we don’t need any more drains on the system. Mexicans will stay as long as its beneficial and then leave when it isn’t, you’ve made that clear. Many of us are here because our family is here and we will stay, and have to deal with the issues. If you won’t stay and fix the problem, you are part of the problem, and don’t deserve to be here.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Non English speakers can serve on juries.
Keep in mind that Illegals in New Mexico can acquire drivers licences and New Mexico does not require proof of citizenship to serve on juries.
Very likely that a Mexican and NOT a U.S. citizen could decide your fate.[/quote]
Wrong, a Jury of your peers should be the norm. [/quote]
Hmmm…I’d expect that you’d strongly advocate for the same thing if an American were being tried in a Mexican court, right?[/quote]
Nah, it’s a general gripe I have about American courts in general. I watched a kid named Eric Frimpong get nailed for rape, I followed the evidence, story, etc and I don’t see how he was convicted. All white Jury not of the campus convicted him, where the campus is as diverse as most universities around the country, if not more.
If we can put an African man on trial and his peers are all upper class white folks, I don’t see how having a trial by your peers of illegal aliens is any different. My point is more that, how can we bitch about this and that if we can’t even have a trial by our peers?
The independent link has a list of around 9 stories.
So, I think we are in agreement in part on this. I think it starts with letting certain tenets of our legal system go by the wayside. Our legal system is a joke as there is no consistent philosophy of justice which it follows. Without a consistent legal philosophy there is no ultimate source or spirit of justice as a referent, only other broken legal precedents that have been established rightly or wrongly… Once bad precedents are set, we have what we have now. What with lawyers intentionally writing law with loopholes manufactured into them… It’s a friggin business now, and the shit show bugs you guys now why exactly?
If we can put an African man on trial and his peers are all upper class white folks, I don’t see how having a trial by your peers of illegal aliens is any different. My point is more that, how can we bitch about this and that if we can’t even have a trial by our peers?
[/quote]
Ah, so the hypocrite also calls them “illegal.”[/quote]
Look at the forest for the trees. What point was I making Chushin?
Ah…what the heck. I’ll post my suggestions here and see what the reactions are.
Speaking as a Las Vegas resident, I’ve seen my share of hispanics who have crossed the border illegally. Some of them are hard working, relatively law abiding people who just want a better life. On the other side of the spectrum, I’ve seen (or rather, dealt with them in the night) ones who see nothing wrong with planting a homemade bottle bomb that would seriously injure and/or kill the person sleeping inside a trailer, in order to steal from a junkyard.
In addition, there’s the fact that I’ve sat in the same car as a hispanic guy and a Pauite woman, when we were pulled over by a racist cop up in Utah who implied that I ought to feel bad about being in the company of the darkies. And… frankly, when you know someone who lives on a Reservation, you DON’T want to comment about immigrants taking from people who were born on this land. (though they do find it hilariously profitable to sell fireworks every July 4th. Yes, it’s legal to buy fireworks in Nevada. Made on the local reservation).
Basically, the illegal immigrants we’re complaining about fall into two groups. There’s the ones who just want a better life, the decent, honest people who see America as a land of opportunity and for whom harvesting our crops (when the farmers literally can’t find locals to do the work and the food rots in the fields when there aren’t enough migrant workers around). And then there’s the Coyotes, and the cartels…there are parts of Texas the Texas Rangers now refuse to enter, because those guys are THAT nasty. Mexico is embroiled in the kind of crime war that Americans have only seen in movies from the 80s that involve Robocop or the Predator.
So here’s my suggestion. Allow ANYONE to come to this country, provided they’re willing to be implanted with the same kind of tracking microchip that gets put in our pets these days. They don’t have to pay a Coyote, they don’t have to sneak across and risk getting shot by border patrol, and they don’t have to worry about getting caught. Just walk up to the border, say, “Senor! Stick it in me, por favor,” and then go about their business. We can keep tabs on them, we know what they’re up to… IF they get caught committing a crime we can send them back with the chip inside so we’ll know if they try to cross illegally.
After having the chip for seven years, they can have the chip removed… right before taking their oath of citizenship.
Then, since anyone who wants to come here and find lawful employment will know they can simply walk up to the border and be admitted, we’ll know that anyone trying to cross illegally is a criminal and probably dangerous. Then we can afford to take the harsher measures without worrying about shooting some little girl whose parents just wanted a better life.
Also, for this to work, this would have to apply to all our borders. Meaning this should also apply to our Canadian border. One of my favorite online artists, Amber Smith (here’s her webcomic: http://missmab.com/ ) is native to Canada and had to go through an unbelievable ordeal in order to receive permission to live in this country and marry the American born man that she loves. After listening to what she had to go through, you’ll find it a lot more understandable why someone fleeing corruption, oppression, and violence would be willing to hike through the desert for a week just to pick fruit for wages that wouldn’t convince a middle class teenager to do his chores.
If we can put an African man on trial and his peers are all upper class white folks, I don’t see how having a trial by your peers of illegal aliens is any different. My point is more that, how can we bitch about this and that if we can’t even have a trial by our peers?
[/quote]
Ah, so the hypocrite also calls them “illegal.”[/quote]
Look at the forest for the trees. What point was I making Chushin?
[/quote]
Doesn’t change the fact that you bitched and moaned over how the term is racist and should be eliminated earlier.
Or was that only when it comes to Hispanics?
It’s ok though. I’m realizing that “rules” only apply for you when it’s convenient.
*Edited to remove classless comment.[/quote]
Nah, I’d rather the description not be used. But had I used any other description people would point that out too, and I’d be having to defend using that terminology. Do I have the energy for it? Yeah, it’s also something that belongs in this thread, so yeah… I don’t like that the word illegal alien is used to describe anybody, which I have already explained in several threads.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Non English speakers can serve on juries.
Keep in mind that Illegals in New Mexico can acquire drivers licences and New Mexico does not require proof of citizenship to serve on juries.
Very likely that a Mexican and NOT a U.S. citizen could decide your fate.[/quote]
Wrong, a Jury of your peers should be the norm. [/quote]
Hmmm…I’d expect that you’d strongly advocate for the same thing if an American were being tried in a Mexican court, right?[/quote]
Nah, it’s a general gripe I have about American courts in general. I watched a kid named Eric Frimpong get nailed for rape, I followed the evidence, story, etc and I don’t see how he was convicted. All white Jury not of the campus convicted him, where the campus is as diverse as most universities around the country, if not more.
If we can put an African man on trial and his peers are all upper class white folks, I don’t see how having a trial by your peers of illegal aliens is any different. My point is more that, how can we bitch about this and that if we can’t even have a trial by our peers?
The independent link has a list of around 9 stories.
So, I think we are in agreement in part on this. I think it starts with letting certain tenets of our legal system go by the wayside. Our legal system is a joke as there is no consistent philosophy of justice which it follows. Without a consistent legal philosophy there is no ultimate source or spirit of justice as a referent, only other broken legal precedents that have been established rightly or wrongly… Once bad precedents are set, we have what we have now. What with lawyers intentionally writing law with loopholes manufactured into them… It’s a friggin business now, and the shit show bugs you guys now why exactly? [/quote]
I take all this to mean you would NOT strongly advocate for the same thing if an American were being tried in a Mexican court. You want a double standard.
[/quote]
You forget, I’m American. Of the many descendents I’m from, I identify most closely with what would be considered a Mexican American or Chicano culture.
If there were poor Americans fighting to get into Mexico for work, who were the peers of some Mexican dude who was on trial, then then definitely if that is a tenant of the Mexican Legal system/ to be tried by a jury of your peers.
You really think I’m Mexican? I’ll tell you this, Mexicans don’t consider me Mexican, many Americans, like yourself don’t consider me American, even though I spent 5 years of my life in dedication and service to the country and those I served with. I just want justice and people to be treated fairly given the shit show we have today.
I just want shit to work in a just way. Do any of you know of different concepts of justice? If this is cleared up maybe it will clear up what I’m talking about… I guess I have to dig into my old Phil notes on Law.