Posted on 04/13/2006 5:09:07 PM PDT by lancer256
The biggest problem with the notion of deanis and others that the existence of nation-states like the United States is simply an impediment to some utopian ideal involving some sort of global government (or global anarchy?):
Experiments performed on the entire population are irreversible.
You can't wipe out the borders of the United States as a lab experiment and then if you discover you don't like the result, you simply wash out the beakers and start over.
No, the experiment is irreversible.
I do not know what the figures are of illegal Canadians. They do not alter things America. I would guess about fifty thousand. Still, send the beggers back to Canada, says I.
To use Canada to justify going easy on Mexico, is pretty limp stuff. LOL
I'm sure people have been robbed and raped by Canadians who then flee the border. your point?
So we're fighting "an enemy that practices assymetrical tactics" and you want us to defend ourselves by only placing a fence on one side and not the other? Why the differing priorities here? This is a war, right? I fail to understand why you want to secure one border and not the other.
Yeah, I'd take welfare and medical costs over an INSANE fence... at least the welfare and medical costs would do something productive (building a fence does nothing, there'll always be a way around it). If you spend a ridiculous amount on these programs, they might actually die, which is what real conservatives have been wanting for years.
Thanks for the links.
We go back to small government?
I appreciate that the United States protects my freedom. My point is that the United States did not create my freedom, I was born with inherent rights, as are all people and it is the job of a just state to defend those. In fact, it's not called being a post-American, it's called following the Declaration of Independence.
No.
I agree.... and that is the major reason why they absolutely REFUSE to call someone who has violated our borders and entered this country illegally what they are.... ILLEGAL.
Fits perfectly with their world view.
Sovereignty be damned.
So tell me, how long have you been hearing these voices in your head?
By the way: The people that say illegals should be legalized because we all break the law in one way or another.
Personally I don't believe it is a great moral trangression for someone to come to this country illegally. As many pro-borders advocates often say "if I were in that situation I might do the same thing"
The reason the law must be enforced against illegal immigration is not that it is a great moral offense, but because to fail to do so would wipe out the sovereignty of our nation, and with it our Constitution, bill of rights, and economic system.
In my view: To enforce the immigration laws is simply to assert the internationally-recognized right of the people of all nations of the world, including those of the United States, to self-determination.
That is a point, by the way, that I make in chapter 1 of my book "Immigration Politics":
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~35912.aspx
There you have it, folks.
You could give a rip about your fellow Americans who live on the border war zone or the thousands that have died at the hands of illegal aliens.
So, if you don't give a damn, why are you so insistant on more suffering being heaped on them? What's it to ya?
Oh, I think you are...you just need to come to the realization that others will wise up soon.
deanis said:
"I was born with inherent rights, as are all people and it is the job of a just state to defend those. In fact, it's not called being a post-American, it's called following the Declaration of Independence."
By failing to enforce our immigration laws, our government is refusing to defend our inherent rights.
It's because WHAT POLLS ARE CONDUCTED SHOW OVERWHELMING SUPPORT - EVEN AMONG LEGAL MEXICANS - FOR NO AMNESTY.
Got polls?
"the existence of nation-states like the United States is simply an impediment to some utopian ideal involving some sort of global government"
Wait... I must be having memory lapses. When did I say that?
All I ever said was that our Founding Fathers clearly believed that our rights are not granted by the state, but should respected by the state. Our rights are innate, and not because we are Americans, but because we are humans. Let me demonstrate:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
What did you say, Mr. Jefferson? We're not free because we're American, but because we're people? Well I'll be...
"By failing to enforce our immigration laws, our government is refusing to defend our inherent rights."
sigh. I'm arguing that perhaps this is an appropriate occasion to discuss CHANGING the law. "Conservative" doesn't mean that you think every law is perfect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.