Posted on 02/14/2018 4:16:47 PM PST by EasySt
They've had radical success in turning employers into tax-collectors (withholdings) and, insofar as I can tell, requiring them to render the service involuntarily is involuntary servitude
, no?
I would have voted for him over Hillary. I suspect that more than a few here would not.
Most of what the Pauls say about what is and isn’t Constitutional is precisely accurate.
But they both seem to very effectively serve the Deep State by causing so many to rail so hard against them that often the Constitutionality aspects of what was being discussed wind up utterly ignored.
How else could our most outspoken advocates for forcing Constitutional limits on government, be so universally reviled?
Crock of crap. The I9 form is useless.
“They have changed the demographics of this country in half a century. “
Half a century? I have noticed the dramatic change since the Obama years. We had an Uber driver last night who was a young Ethiopian immigrant who could barely speak English. We were wondering why the U.S. was importing such people into the U.S. At least he was working.
“They have changed the demographics of this country in half a century. “
Half a century? I have noticed the dramatic change since the Obama years. We had an Uber driver last night who was a young Ethiopian immigrant who could barely speak English. We were wondering why the U.S. was importing such people into the U.S. At least he was working.
Georgia is 10% Hispanic now. It won’t be long until Dems have an electoral college strangle hold on the country.
Very true. While it started with immigration “reform” in the 1960’s, Obama mashed the accelerator in ways that GWB only dreamed of. Their intentions are very clear.
I would vote for him over Hillary, but he isn’t good on immigration.
The 12-term Texas congressman spent the better part of a 25-minute address thinking aloud about the thorny subject. He talked about how Americans are more accepting of outsiders when the economy is good, but when trouble looms there is a search for scapegoats.
“I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/news/la-pn-ron-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201
My sentence above about the Pauls serving the Deep State was pretty tortured.
Let me try again.
Anyone in Congress that advocates for a return to Constitutionally limited government is flying directly over the target, and is guaranteed to take the most fire from that target. (Especially if they mean it!)
With the resources available to the Deep State today for shaping public opinion, (MSM co-conspirators, Daily talking points passed to the faithful, Google search engine results manipulation, Twitter Bots, Facebook Bots, etc.) why wouldn’t it fight the hardest to remove the biggest threat to its rule. (Constitutional Limits)
What joy it must bring to the Deep State to see people on our side join them in hating the very people who consistently deliver the only message that is a real threat.
Government is supposed to be limited, for a multitude of very good reasons. Whatever faults the Pauls may have, advocating Constitutional limits is not one of them. The don’t deserve to be hated by us almost as much as we hate our true enemies.
We have a national identity card today. It is called your social security number. The problem is our system for obtaining a social security card is not secure. Make that system secure and the problem is solved. It also needs a picture on it and a fingerprint. End of problem.
FReepers are really falling for this e-Verify scam.
The Establishment makes the problem, so they can provide the solution.
They let in hordes of criminals, so everyone will demand to be treated as a suspect. FReepers will demand to have their Freedoms taken away for more security.
It is like leaving the back door wide open then volunteering for a strip search at the front door.
Sorry, a bit of drinking there? I cannot understand a word of what you wrote.
Yes, seems very wrong that the IRS knows this information and does not act on it. Whatever stupidity was enacted to cause them to stand down needs to be reversed—protect Americans by letting them know someone is trying to use their social security number and send something to arrest that criminal and most likely illegal alien.
Seems to me that the only real reason for E-Verify is the refusal of past Administrations to enforce the borders and illegal immigration. Pending bills in the Senate don’t inspire confidence that anything will change significantly anytime soon.
As for Paul - don’t trust him as far as I could throw him, if I was even slightly interested in getting close enough to do that.
That is true.
However, Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover seem to have solved this problem. They identify their cardmembers in a second or two over the internet and facilitate payment, no problemo! These capitalists face the same problem (knowing the customer), yet make money hand over fist!
Properly implemented, e-Verify can solve the problem of discriminating between Real Americans, US persons, and los ilegales!
If you really feel that way, then you might as well accept that there is no way to identify illegal invaders or anyone else - let the free-for-all ramp up....
I have one - it is shared by at least four others in various parts of the country. Guess who told me that - the Social Security people. I asked what they were going to do about it. The answer was “Nothing.”
Properly implemented ???
Tell me one thing the US government has properly implemented?
FISA and the laws behind it?
ACA and Health and Human Services?
Department of Homeland Security and the joke that is the Atlanta airport security?
Or maybe the Cash for Clunkers? Or the Shovel Ready Projects?
How about the War on Poverty?
The war in Viet Nam? The pro-war people will tell you that was very poorly implemented.
>Nothing constitutional about open borders
Maybe you have a diff. Constitution than I do?
The ONLY thing ‘Constitutional’ re: borders is A4S4:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
I see vs. illegal immigration (’silent invasion’), those whom would do us harm (cartels/terrorists). I don’t read that to mean people cannot freely traverse to and fro otherwise.
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.