Illinois' 14th Congressional District (stanch Republican turf) is Denny Hastert's old district. He resigned before the 1/1/08 deadline affecting retired congressmen's abilities to become paid lobbyists. There was a special election held on Super Tuesday to temporarily fill this seat prior to the 11/08 election. For a number of reasons (IMHO, primarily because of the Bush Republicans' numerous failures), the Republican was defeated. Both "RepubliCrats" will be running for this office in November.
One can easily assume that the 14th CD voters (again, historically staunch conservatives) felt like they had no real choice else they would not have voted for a Democrat with a far left platform. This makes us believe that we have a chance to upset the apple cart with a Libertarian victory. However, if the campaign only serves to wake up and educate more people, then it will be a worthwhile endeavor.
Our team is currently collecting petition signatures. Our goal is 15,000+ as 11,000 valid, incontestable signatures are required - four times that required for a Republican or Democrat. Herein lies evidence of the unfair, "protectionist" playing field the RepubliCrats have created against Libertarians and other third parties.
Below is my Statement of Candidacy which will answer the question of why I'm running for Congress.
Wish us luck!
Our federal government's role is clearly defined by our Constitution - that ageless, living document that was created to evolve with the ever-changing times. Within this framework, our nation became the most prosperous and free nation on earth. Sadly, we have allowed our government to ignore the Constitutional restrictions on its powers. We have allowed our elected officials to take us on an uncharted course to an unknown destination. We have failed to heed Jefferson's wise words and the resulting problems are now becoming apparent.
With a rapidly eroding dollar, our economy is clearly heading for some extremely tough times. Our military has been used under false pretenses to invade a nation that posed no threat to us. As opposed to "walking softly and carrying a big stick", our nation-building foreign policy has soured our image abroad, increased the threat of terrorism, cost the lives of more than 4,000 of our brave soldiers and brought us to near bankruptcy. Our trade policies, falsely labeled as "Free Trade", have exported hundreds of thousands of our jobs to nations with near slave labor conditions benefiting only the mega-corporations' profit margins. Ignoring our rights to privacy and due process, our government monitors our communication and affairs without warrants, detains indefinitely those merely accused of crimes, and abuses powers of eminent domain. Our borders have been left unprotected, allowing the free entry of potential terrorists and millions of illegal immigrants who strain our social services to the point of collapse.
It's time for the madness to stop. It's time for every American who cares about the future of our nation to say NO to the status quo and break the "RepubliCrat" strangle-hold on our electoral process.
I am not a "professional politician". I have decided to run for Illinois' 14th Congressional seat because I believe it is my duty as an American, a veteran, and as a father to stand up for the country I so dearly love. As the owner of a national business, I understand that you cannot use debt without restraint, as those in Washington have done. My Democratic opponent would expand the power and authority of government to take over health care, expand social programs, and increase taxes. My Republican opponent would keep us in Iraq indefinitely and do nothing to change the course of the last seven years.
The voters of the 14th District deserve more. No longer do they have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Won't you join me in taking back our nation? We, our children, and the memories of those who have sacrificed their lives and limbs in defense of America deserve so much more.
PS: For those who may not know me, I am a Constitutionist whose platform is 99% identical to Ron Paul's.
©2008 USAF Vet Dan, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of USAF Vet Dan only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. USAF Vet Dan is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by USAF Vet Dan of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By USAF Vet Dan |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Lloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-08 14:43:23
So does that mean that you support free trade, just as long as that said free trade does not involve direct descendants of Spanish and Aztec, Inca, Myan, and/or Olmec tribes who have brown skin, speak Spanish and are escaping a nation who has turned thier collective backs on them?
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-08 15:09:32
Lloyd,
The "1%" difference between Ron Paul's platform and mine is in the area of trade. I do not believe that "free" trade exists unless both trading nations are practicing it. Therefore, I believe the Article 1, Section 8 provision empowering Congress to "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations" should be used to impose equal tariffs appropriately and when necessary.
I'm not sure why you've singled out Hispanics in your question. My reference to "nations with near slave labor conditions" was primarily pointed at China. However, I oppose NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT because they have nothing to do with free or fair trade.
And finally, regarding your reference to those "escaping a nation who has turned their collective backs on them": I don't oppose immigration so long as it is properly regulated and controlled. I vehemently oppose illegal immigration for a number of reasons - all of which should be obvious so I won't elaborate.
I hope I answered your questions.
Posted By: Lloy Kempson
Date: 2008-04-08 15:28:27
So regulated immigration is needed to curb the Mexican and Central American Mestizos possible immigration to the US, while Cuban Whites, Blacks, Mestizos, and Mulatos can simply come on in as long as they reach the main land?
What about the unfair legal advantage that Cubans have over Hatians?
What would you do that would help solve our so called "immigration" problems?
You mentioned Terrorism, do you think that Illegal immigrants from Mexico pose a greater threat than those from Canada and Other Nations?
What actions do you favor to solve these issues?
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-08 15:41:56
Regulated immigration is needed to curb illegal immigration - period. I could care less what color, nationality, religion, country of origin, favorite ice cream flavor, etc., that they may have. Such regulations should be applied to all applicants, regardless of their country of origin.
To solve "our so called 'immigration' problems", we must secure our borders (all 360 degrees) with sufficient border guards, fences, electronic technology, etc.
>>You mentioned Terrorism, do you think that Illegal immigrants from Mexico pose a greater threat than those from Canada and Other Nations?
I don't think illegal immigrants from anywhere pose a threat of terrorism. But if we don't have secure borders, not only do we have illegal immigration problems, the back door is open for terrorists to enter our country unimpeded.
Posted By: lloyd kempson
Date: 2008-04-08 16:12:36
So Candidate Dan, sir:
Do you support Bills such as The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882?
What about the 1891 Immigration Act?
Do you support the Supreme Court Decision regaurding The US V. Wong Kim Ark?
Do you support the Emergency Quota Act of 1921?
What about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?
Do you support the Imigration and Nationality Act of 1965?
Do you support the changes to INA 65' that occured in 1972?
Do you support the Supreme Court Decision of Plyer V. Doe in 1982?
Do you support the Imigration and Reform Act of 1986?
Do you support the 1990 Immigration Act?
Do you support the Supreme Court's decision in The US v. Verdugo-Urquidez of 1990?
Do you support the Illegal Immigration Act of 1996?
Do you support the Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. the US of 1999?
Do you support the 2005 Real ID Act?
Do you agree with the State of California's appology to Latino Families for the 1930's Civil Rights Violations?
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-08 16:15:47
Dan the best of luck to you. Get used to the anti-xenophobia types. Way to hold your ground. Illegal is illegal no matter how you slice it.
"People only have the rights they are willing to fight for"- TJ
Best of luck hope to see you in the House in 2010 from TN.
LIBERTY or DEATH
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-08 16:21:45
lloyd are you from his district or just tryin to stir shit about your polarizing issue?
Most don't know nor care about all of those regulations you wrote. LIBERTARIANS hate regulation. But remeber our laws are for our CITIZENS, if you dont fall in that category and wish to then get in line, get your citizenship like the rest and join the group legally. As far as those oppressive countries, it is up to the citizens of that country to throw off their shackles and fight for their LIBERTY not come here and try and steal ours.
I agree we desire cheap labor from Central Americans, but as long as we have any unemployment in this country why would we want to give our money to someone that will take it out of our circulation?
LIBERTY or DEATH
By the way are you a citizen of these UNITED STATES?
Posted By: Lloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-08 16:30:44
Oh, Dan don't think that I am dogging you here. I am just pulling a Ron Paul move by seeing how much you have really researched economics.
You might be surprised to know that the 4 of the Fastest Growing Cities in America (#1 Dallas/Fort Worth) are in the state of Texas. Texas, a border state has traditionally affordable real estate, low taxes, and no state income tax. Both Legal and Illegal immigration have contributed greatly to our economy.
I challenge you to watch Penn & Teller's BullSh^T! episode on immigration. I also ask you this question: Did the German, Irish, Chinese, Japaneese, or Jewish immigrants ruin America like all of thier critics said that they would? No, then why are Mexican and Central Ammerican Immigrants going to ruin this country?
What I would like to hear is real actions plans. Not Xenophobic Border wall proposals. (What are we Israel?) I want to know how you are going to really fix the problem. I want solutions.
"What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular."
Oh and in regards to terrorism Canada has more known Terrorists that have attempted to cross the border and commit Terrorism. (See 2000 LAX plot)
Posted By: lloyd kempson
Date: 2008-04-08 16:34:48
"Most don't know nor care about all of those regulations you wrote."
Wow, and you call yourself a Libertarian?
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-09 06:31:07
Wow, Lloyd... that is quite a list. However, you asked - I'll answer.
>>Do you support Bills such as The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882?
While I believe it was Constitutional, I cannot comment on its pros and cons because I was not alive then. Therefore, I cannot fully understand the issues and conditions that led to the exclusions.
>>What about the 1891 Immigration Act?
Yes. We should not let "convicts" (political crimes excepted) nor those who cannot reasonably support themselves into our country.
>>Do you support the Supreme Court Decision regaurding The US V. Wong Kim Ark?
Yes. Merely being born on US soil does not reasonably solidify citizenship.
>>Do you support the Emergency Quota Act of 1921?
No. Quotas by nation of origin do not make sense. Each individual applicant should be assessed on the merits of the application.
>>What about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?
I disagree with its ethnic quotas but agree with its emphasis on labor qualifications.
>>Do you support the Imigration and Nationality Act of 1965?
No. It merely replaced national quotas with hemispherical quotas. Again, each individual applicant should be assessed on the merits of the application.
>>Do you support the changes to INA 65' that occured in 1972?
If you're referring to the Ethnic Heritage Studies Bill, NO! A common language is a big part of the glue that binds us together. It makes it possible for us to be ONE nation of many cultures, not merely one nation that has many different segregated cultures.
>>Do you support the Supreme Court Decision of Plyer V. Doe in 1982?
No. It was a violation of the 10th Amendment plus it ignored the federal government's responsibility to secure our borders. Giving illegal immigrants any social services including education exacerbates the illegal immigration problem as it creates an incentive for them to bypass our immigration laws and procedures. The only exception should be emergency medical care. But, once the illegal immigrant's condition is stabilized enough for travel, he should be deported.
>>Do you support the Imigration and Reform Act of 1986?
Yes. Too bad our federal government doesn't enforce its provision of making it a criminal offense to knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
>>Do you support the 1990 Immigration Act?
Predominantly no. I vehemently disagree with its softening of the English proficiency testing. I tend to think the total quota was too high based on a number of conditions, but I reserve the right to change my mind on that - subject to more research.
>>Do you support the Supreme Court's decision in The US v. Verdugo-Urquidez of 1990?
Yes. Only the search and seizure laws of the country in question should apply.
>>Do you support the Illegal Immigration Act of 1996?
This is a pretty complex Act that encompasses a lot. Can you narrow it down to one or two issues?
>>Do you support the Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. the US of 1999?
Are you referring to the US v. Rodriguez-Moreno... the case about venue?
>>Do you support the 2005 Real ID Act?
No! This isn't Nazi Germany where everyone must show "der paperz".
>>Do you agree with the State of California's appology to Latino Families for the 1930's Civil Rights Violations?
That is a state issue. As a Congressman who respects the 10th Amendment, that would not be any of my business.
Well Lloyd, I hope I've answered your questions to your satisfaction. I attempted to post this shortly after you posted yours, but Nolan Chart's comments were shut off thereafter. My response was lost when I tried... hopefully it will go through now.
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-09 06:33:41
Lloyd said:
>>Oh, Dan don't think that I am dogging you here. I am just pulling a Ron Paul move by seeing how much you have really researched economics.
Economics? Your questions were all about immigration.
>>No, then why are Mexican and Central Ammerican Immigrants going to ruin this country?
I never said they would. I have no problems with Mexican, Central American, or Martian immigrants so long as they don't come here illegally.
>>What I would like to hear is real actions plans. Not Xenophobic Border wall proposals. (What are we Israel?) I want to know how you are going to really fix the problem. I want solutions.
California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said it best: "National sovereignty and border integrity are integral rights of all nation states and of the citizens therein." Indeed, national sovereignty cannot exist without border integrity. As I alluded in my previous reply, I advocate border security that would be the envy of Fort Knox.
>>Oh and in regards to terrorism Canada has more known Terrorists that have attempted to cross the border and commit Terrorism. (See 2000 LAX plot)
More than who? You didn't complete your statement. Assuming it is Mexico, again I say that border integrity is a 360 degree issue. We simply cannot allow unrestricted entry into our country, regardless of where they attempt it.
Posted By: Kenn Jacobine
Date: 2008-04-09 06:54:30
Dan,
I wish I could vote for you. Make sure you canvas door to door extensively and ask people to vote for you. You will be surprised how important this is. I got 5% as a Libertarian once and many people told me at the poll that the reason they were voting for me was because I came to their house and asked for it.
As to your question of my blog - I think the pro-American sentiment is sincere. Why do you think there are so many Latinos coming to the U.S. illegally? Compared to the rest of the world we still have a lot of wealth, rights, and freedoms. If the U.S. was situated in the middle of Asia we would have a real immigration problem. It would be even easier for people to cross all of our borders and enter illegally.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-09 08:57:34
lloyd,
Thanks you made me go a read some more.
My point is that all of the regulation is the problem. How about, get in line, fill out the proper paperwork (so we know how comes in the country), learn the language and our Constitution, and if we need your skill set then welcome to America. One easy set of rules not the litany of legislation.
Further regulation does not solve the problem only causes more problems that then have to have another agency fix it.
I think you should be allowed entry based upon what you can bring to the collective. Like the Cuban that makes a boat out of a 1956 chevy pick up truck and drives/pilots it to the US for FREEDOM. We need these type of people in our country, but to not make your home better and then choose to come to ours, use our social services (which shouldnt exist at the Fed level) dont assimilate to our culture and language then make money to send back to their country effectively taking those fiat dollars out of our circulation. We are a consumer based economy that depends on our citizens redepositing money back in our economy. But in the end I guess that is ok the FED can just print more to make up for the exported currency.
Why would we want to openly allow unskilled or skilled workers into our country when we have even a .1% unemployment rate. Cheap undocumented, untaxed, unskilled labor ususally drives prices down I agree, but 20 years ago I could make a living as a roofer making $10 an hour (in 1988 dollars!) now you cannot get a job roofing for more than $5 an hour. Wonder why? Illegal immigrants that dont have to be reported on the tax sheet have the jobs and not Americans trying to feed their own. I agree that a free marketeer will then find a new niche, but most displaced workers dont find new skills instead they rely upon the system to help out. This further burdens the system by not only increasing the demand but also by decreasing the revenue available to fund them.
Most care not the country of origin, a Russian breaking our laws is the same as a Martian, Mexican or American breaking the law for that matter. If those immigrants are so willing to go to such great lengths to break our immigration laws where does it stop? Theft? Murder? Rape? Its ok break these laws and we will trust you wont break others? You may feel that thoe immigration laws are bad and you opt for civil-disobedience of them. But civil disobedience can only be practiced by the citizenry, for when it happens outside of the citizenry it is indeed an Invasion or insurrgency.
Illegal immigration is merely a symptom of the whole disease. When groups choose a polarizing "issue" instead of focusing on the real issue (THE OLIGARCHY that is oppressing our country) then nothing gets fixed.
Now if your whole retort was a Litmus test for Dan, then that is truly fair and I think Dan responded exceedingly well having a short time to study your list.
You obviously seem well read and passionate, keep it up.
LIBERTY or DEATH
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-09 09:07:00
Kenn,
Thanks for the nice comment and suggestions. We have a series of "press the flesh" opportunities scheduled. I agree - door-to-door is effective (albeit time consuming).
Our wealth, rights (what's left of them) and freedoms (ditto), compared to other countries certainly are the magnet for immigrants (legal and illegal). But that is different from "pro-Americanism" which would be comprised of respect and positive opinion about our people, our foreign policy, etc. I'm of the opinion that there isn't much pro-Americanism in the world today. Your travels give you an informed perspective. What do you think?
Posted By: Lloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-09 09:35:44
So what are you going to do about the illegal drug trade since illegal is illegal no matter how you slice it?
Also, what did you do to become an American Citizen? It is obvious that you do not believe that the Constitution was right about the 14th Ammendment's birthright citizenship. So why should we not deport you? Did you fill out any paperwork?
Why do you seek to destroy the economic freedom of those small businesses who need people to do jobs that your average drug-free American won't do for minimum wage, by enforcing a law that says who a business can and can not hire? How long have you done a job like that for that little? Would you want that as an opertunity for your kids?
I ask these questions because a true libertarian understands that America belongs to everybody who comes in peace. Why do you trust the Federal Government to properly handle the immigration paper work in an affordable, efficient, and fast process? These are the same people who do your passport, drivers licence, and your taxes.
I wonder these things, because you mention that illegal immigration is a problem, but you make it seem like the government has the solution.
You mention Terrorism, but you say that you do not support the Iraq war. So if you are going to be consistant why don't you tell us where and how all of the terrorists have come from? Did our immigration issues give us Eric Robert Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, or the Animal Liberation Front? So should Oklahoma build a wall arround its border to keep the future Timothy McVeigh's out?
And if we are going to prevent all forms of death, why not make cars illegal? Every year an average of 43,000 Americans die in car accidents. Should we ban hand guns too? I just want to know where your reasoning comes in that a peice of paper justifies a peaceful human being's existance in the United States?
Posted By: World
Date: 2008-04-09 10:22:35
Best of luck Dan!
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-09 11:32:25
First you have to realize the difference between a citizens rights/privileges and an immigrants rights/privileges. The immigrant has to obide by our rules, I agree most are bullshit, but laws are laws and laws must be followed or changed. An illegal immigrant cannot change it as they are not able to vote on the process. Why should people from other countries have a say in our laws.
I agree the Drug War and most of its laws are draconian at best. But We the People have the ability to change those laws. In our Judicial system, we jurors (read citizens) have the ability to nullify bad laws through jury nullification. This is our check on bad laws. We follow old english common law which is based on precidence. Hence bad laws are brought to light through civil disobedience. We CITIZENS participate in civil disobedience not foriegners as they have no RIGHT to alter or abolish our laws no more than I can change the laws of Paraguay. It is up to the people of Country A to right the wrongs in country A not us in country B and visa versa.
As far as the portion of the 14th that you speak of, I presume the first part of section one.
No I dont agree with it, as it further motivates people to break our laws.
For example I worked as a Paramedic in Brooklyn NY in the mid 90s. I had to go to LaGuardia and pick up a 12 year old girl from Hondorus that was in active labor. Now she birthed her beautiful baby girl (now an American citizen) but who will take care of this new citizen being she is a minor? You got it the birth mother, oh but wait for it, she is a minor too, so our tax dollars not only birthed a child, gave citizenship to not 2 but 3 people as we paid to fly her mother up from Hondorus to take care of the 2 new citizens. Now our new citizen is entitled to health care, an education, all social services, etc. See the incentive to break those silly little American immigration laws?
Now what did I do to become a citizen? Nothing. I was born to American citizens in America. Got it? As far as paperwork do it online.
Granted I am an evil male of european descent and similar white beasts took this country from the natives by force. Yeah I got that, so should I be guilty of their transgressions based upon my color or heraldty?
As far as I know, males in my family have fought in every armed conflict (both sides of the War Against the States) this country has been involved in since the revolution. Not that this earns me anything, but I have infact stood guard on the fence for almost 2 decades paying my pennance for freedom and LIBERTY and for someone to come in and start taking from all of US carte blanche is to me offfensive as I feel I earned my FREEDOM and LIBERTY and have encouraged my kids to earn theirs and not attempt to inherit the works of others.
Immigration is a problem, but government tyranny is the disease. The point is cure the disease and the sypmtoms go away
Like the old LIBERTARIAN motto, "No free lunches"
LIBERTY or DEATH
Posted By: Lloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-09 12:17:31
Socialism is the problem, not illegal immigration.
That is my point. Being racist gets us nowhere. End socialism and make English the official language of government, and presto chango it is fixed.
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-09 15:41:28
Lloyd,
>>So what are you going to do about the illegal drug trade since illegal is illegal no matter how you slice it?
Alcohol was prohibited by an amendment to the Constitution. An amendment was used to repeal this prohibition when everyone woke up to the fact that it only put the business of alcohol in the hands of gangsters and did nothing to stop people from drinking. I've talked to many who lived through prohibition and they all concur that, because it was "taboo", drinking became the "in" thing to do. Many drank during prohibition who never drank before.
Drugs, however, have been outlawed without such regard to the Constitution. So, not only do I oppose federal drug laws because of their lack of Constitutional authority, but for the same reasons the prohibition of alcohol was repealed. Drug laws don’t work, waste huge amounts of taxpayer dollars, increase crime, fill our prisons, and, therefore, should be eliminated.
>>Also, what did you do to become an American Citizen? It is obvious that you do not believe that the Constitution was right about the 14th Ammendment's birthright citizenship. So why should we not deport you? Did you fill out any paperwork?
I was born in America with AMERICAN citizen parents. That is quite different than being born here with an illegal immigrant mother who slipped across the border yesterday. The bottom line is this: rights of American citizenship do not apply to citizens of other countries (except in cases where criminal charges are brought against them by the US government).
>>Why do you seek to destroy the economic freedom of those small businesses who need people to do jobs that your average drug-free American won't do for minimum wage, by enforcing a law that says who a business can and can not hire? How long have you done a job like that for that little? Would you want that as an opertunity for your kids?
Who said I did? Again, you speak as if I’m against immigration – I’m NOT! I’m just against illegal immigration.
>>I ask these questions because a true libertarian understands that America belongs to everybody who comes in peace.
…so long as they come legally. I’m a Libertarian, not an Anarchist. What you propose is to ignore valid law. Therein lies your quandary.
>>Why do you trust the Federal Government to properly handle the immigration paper work in an affordable, efficient, and fast process? These are the same people who do your passport, drivers licence, and your taxes.
I view government much as the founding fathers did – government is a necessary evil so limit its power and scope as much as possible… to those things that a central government can best deal with for the common good. Handling immigration is one of the few responsibilities the Constitution gives the Feds. If our government would respect its Constitutional mandates, not only would it be much smaller, it would be much more efficient.
>>I wonder these things, because you mention that illegal immigration is a problem, but you make it seem like the government has the solution.
The solution is two fold. Eliminate all of the “bait” (social services, free health care, education, etc., for illegals) and seal up the borders.
>>You mention Terrorism, but you say that you do not support the Iraq war. So if you are going to be consistant why don't you tell us where and how all of the terrorists have come from?
Prior to our invasion / occupation of Iraq, terrorists were not connected with Iraq. Our barbaric, intrusive, bullying, my-way-or-the-highway, nation building, meddling foreign policy has created the hate that fuels terrorism. We topple legitimate governments and replace them with our puppets (i.e., the Shaw of Iran), we fund and support Osama and Saddam (that worked out well for us (eyes rolling)), we intrude on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict… and then wonder why “they hate us”. Propaganda like “they hate us for our freedom” is an insult to intelligence.
Muslim theology and principles have not changed for thousands of years. Why, then, did they only decide to start attacking us in the past several decades? It has nothing to do with their theology and everything to do with what we’ve done in their neck-o-the-woods in that time period. Simply attributing Islamic terrorism to radical Muslim theology is idiotic.
>>Did our immigration issues give us Eric Robert Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, or the Animal Liberation Front? So should Oklahoma build a wall arround its border to keep the future Timothy McVeigh's out?
Again… I’ve never attributed terrorism to illegal immigration. My reference to terrorism related to unsecured borders.
>>And if we are going to prevent all forms of death, why not make cars illegal? Every year an average of 43,000 Americans die in car accidents. Should we ban hand guns too?
Sorry, Lloyd… but where in the Hell did this come from??? How does this tie in to anything we’ve been discussing.
>>I just want to know where your reasoning comes in that a peice of paper justifies a peaceful human being's existance in the United States?
The process of legally immigrating involves far more than the paper that documents it. Good immigration laws will allow and promote responsible immigration so that the new citizens can be properly assimilated into American culture, so that the economy and job market can accommodate them, and so our national security is preserved (screen out the criminals and terrorists).
Posted By: Lloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-09 17:16:41
I agree that we should seal up the borders and do background checks.
However, I was pointing out that your solutions made no mention of what to do with the illegals already here. Also by sealing up the borders and offering no guest worker program and no fast track citizenship you allow a Statist government to come in and ruin the economy by keeping out much needed low income job takers.
How bad would you hurt the tourism industry with your sealed up border? Oh, I guess that it is ok for Americans to travel abroad, but not for foriegners to visit here. As Penn & Teller mentioned: a border fence is expensive, ineffective, and a waste of tax payer dollars. Why on earth would you want to spend over $155 billion for a fence that will more than likely be poorly built (by illegals most likely), delay an illegal's journey to earn $8 an hour doing hard labor by 8 minutes, and be a symbol to the world that we do not like one of our largest trading partners because they speak a different language?
You use the simple arguments of socialism (deport the blacks if you really want to go after the abusers of the system), terrorism (even though cars kill more people every year), and the letter of the law (all be it founded on racist propaganda).
You seem to have no problem with illegal drugs being made legal, but a huge problem with illegal people. So should we have banned slavery? Should we have deported all freed slaves to Liberia? Should we add to the further buerocratic BS in order to fix the "problems", or should we return to a simpler time when immigration was a hell of a lot easier and didn't set quotas?
Posted By: lloyd kempson
Date: 2008-04-09 17:40:05
"Muslim theology and principles have not changed for thousands of years. Why, then, did they only decide to start attacking us in the past several decades? It has nothing to do with their theology and everything to do with what we’ve done in their neck-o-the-woods in that time period. Simply attributing Islamic terrorism to radical Muslim theology is idiotic." So what happens when Pakistan gets bombed by terrorists? What about Palestinian Terrorists? This whole idea that any religion is a religion of peace and tollerance is BS.
Posted By: Lloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-09 18:04:18
"I was born in America with AMERICAN citizen parents. That is quite different than being born here with an illegal immigrant mother who slipped across the border yesterday. The bottom line is this: rights of American citizenship do not apply to citizens of other countries (except in cases where criminal charges are brought against them by the US government)." Oh, so you have never had to stand in a line, pay well over $5000, wait 10 years for the buerocrats to handle your papers, and when you finnally had the chance you got to raise your right hand and say the pledge of alligiance. Is it any wonder why most sane poor people would break such ridiculous laws to get into our country? Why they engage in false marriages, visit while 8-9 months pregnant, and/or claim refugee status? God bless the people who go through the legal process. But can you really blame the border jumpers, sham weddings, and birthright citizens of this land? This is only about socialism and the perception that Americans are really being harmed by workplace competition with people who work better, for less, and stay with the firm longer. Who cares if Juan if flipping your burgers and not Steve? Who cares if Yujin Cho is giving you the cheaper handjob and not a girl named Stacy Smith? Only the most lazy and incompetent of Americans are hurt financially by working non-criminal illegal aliens. Come to think of it, is it possible that there are approximately 4% of Americans who voluntarily choose not to work?
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-10 09:59:17
Again, I think we all agree immigration is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
Locke sted, "The end of law is not abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom; for in all states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom"
So to agree with Dan, laws are needed but only as the social contract between the people and the government they establish. But when those laws do not serve the people it is the peoples duty to abolish and replace it.
"Since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislature shold have power to destry that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making, whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves in a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God (nature) has provided for all men against force and violence"
Locke clearly advocates civil disobedience, from the people when the social contract (between the citizens and the soveriegn) has been violated. Non-citizens are not signatories of the original contract so they cannot absolve it through disobedience, where as the citizen is bound to. Now the arguement can be made that most American citizens inherited that social contract through birth.
Rousseau further expounded on this ideal "And so it follows that each individual immediately recovers his natural liberties and primitive rights whenever any violation of the social contract occurs and thereby loses the contractual freedom form which he renounced them."
Bottom line is civil disobedience of our laws is our responsibility and not the responsibility of non-citizens as they are not signatories of the contract.
LIBERTY or DEATH
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-10 10:42:46
Lloyd said, "That is my point. Being racist gets us nowhere. End socialism and make English the official language of government, and presto chango it is fixed."
I could not agree with you more!
Posted By: lloyd kempson
Date: 2008-04-10 11:29:20
So does that mean that you are going to support a guest worker program, work with Mexico to have English taught as a second language in thier schools, and abandon the silly, costly, and ineffective Statist Border fence in favor of a simple border patrol?
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-10 11:48:02
Lloyd said:
>>However, I was pointing out that your solutions made no mention of what to do with the illegals already here.
Illegals here have to be deported and, if they want to come back, get in line. I know this is a monumental task but it needs to be done. I didn't create the problem so don't blame me if the solution seems harsh, monumental, etc.
>>Also by sealing up the borders and offering no guest worker program and no fast track citizenship you allow a Statist government to come in and ruin the economy by keeping out much needed low income job takers.
I advocate a guest worker program as part of our overall immigration program. This will address issues like seasonal farm workers (based on REAL need - after American citizens' job needs are filled). As far as fast tracking, I think the whole immigration process needs overhauled. Making legal immigration more efficient and faster will go far in reducing illegal immigration.
>> How bad would you hurt the tourism industry with your sealed up border? Oh, I guess that it is ok for Americans to travel abroad, but not for foriegners to visit here.
I said seal up the border, not close it.
>>Why on earth would you want to spend over $155 billion for a fence that will more than likely be poorly built (by illegals most likely), delay an illegal's journey to earn $8 an hour doing hard labor by 8 minutes,
I've previously explained my position and justifications for secure borders.
>>and be a symbol to the world that we do not like one of our largest trading partners because they speak a different language?
The language they speak is meaningless and I feel you are, once more, attempting to make this a "race" thing. It isn't.
>> You use the simple arguments of socialism (deport the blacks if you really want to go after the abusers of the system), terrorism (even though cars kill more people every year), and the letter of the law (all be it founded on racist propaganda).
I oppose socialism and would advocate a transitional end to such programs. But, for now, they are only available to US citizens. I'll ignore your reference to "racist propaganda".
>>You seem to have no problem with illegal drugs being made legal, but a huge problem with illegal people.
As I've stated, I have a problem with the lack of Constitutional authority and the ineffectiveness of drug laws. I have a huge problem with anything "illegal".
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-10 13:36:19
Lloyd: So what happens when Pakistan gets bombed by terrorists? That is Pakistan's problem. >>What about Palestinian Terrorists? This whole idea that any religion is a religion of peace and tollerance is BS.I never made any such inference. I merely stated that the Islamic religion hasn't changed in thousands of years. To attribute recent terrorism to "its their religion" is idiotic. It is equally idiotic to ignore all of the havoc, meddling, strong-arming, and nation building of our current foreign policy when evaluating the terrorism equation.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2008-04-10 14:05:15
Wow!
This is quite a heated illegal immigration discussion here.
Just some thoughts to share about immigration:
20 to 30 years ago there was illegal immigration but there were less immigration laws and less enforcement of those laws. Illegal immigration existed but most came with the intention of getting some income for 3 to 4 months and then return to their homes. The next year the same people will come again for 3 to 4 months and return to their homes. It was similar to what a guest worker program would be without the government regulating it. Today, by making more tough laws and regulations the illegal immigration skyrocketed in the same manner as drug consumption has risen with more anti-drug laws. Also, once the people cross the border, they segregate themselves rather than assimilate or integrate because of fear of they prosecution or deportation. Since there are more stringent laws today, the people who cross the border stay permanently rather than going back and forth like they used to do.
I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that more laws and enforcement may not fix the problem but rather increase it. Maybe a guest worker program is a better solution with less regulating immigration laws and no fence is the real solution.
One thing that we are all in agreement though is the abolition of all these socialistic laws that benefit both illegal and legal people.
One additional note:
Although a big percentage of the U.S. population agrees with making English the ‘official language’ that goes against our first amendment. This does not mean that the government should translate everything into multiple languages but we should not force or regulate people to talk a certain way or a certain language. However, any government documents must be in English because most people talk such language. We just need less government documents. If somebody needs a translator, then that individual needs to pay for his own translator. We must let the market determine languages and if you cannot speak the language that the highest percentage of the population speaks then you will suffer the market consequences of not been able to communicate properly.
In the U.S.A. we have multiple accents for the English language. The accents of those in Boston are different that the accents of those in the southern states, or the Midwest states. Also a lot of black people with English as their 1st language have their own accents and some even talk with bad grammar. Some whites also use bad grammar, and there are slang words in different regions of this country. Are those going to also be made un-official? How about some British word that with time we have changed even their spelling? How about some old English words? So what is official to write a cheque or a check? ‘Ain’t’ or ‘not’? To drink ‘pop’ or ‘soda’? ‘This does not work’ or ‘This don’t work’? ‘You and me’ or ‘me and you’? What is ‘thy name’ or ‘your name’? Can we force people to write, think, and talk in a specific language? Can we prevent black people from writing rap lyrics with bad grammar? Can we prevent TV stations from broadcasting in Spanish, Arabic, or Chinese? How about those Amish people who talk German? Can we prevent Hispanics from ‘escribir o hablar en español’?
What do we do with the people that do not want to speak the 'official language'?
Languages evolve and we need to keep language in the free market with no regulation. People will still understand each other.
Although the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are written in English (Old English which is different than today’s English), the first amendment gives us Freedom of Speech. It does not say which language is that freedom of speech should be exercised.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2008-04-10 14:09:22
Sorry about some grammar mistake in the posting above.
Posted By: Lloyd kempson
Date: 2008-04-10 14:11:36
So why was Al-Quida's first target Hindu India? Why now are they blowing themselves up in Muslim Pakistan? If you ignore international news, how can we expect you to keep us safe. Islamofacism is threatening European Nations who have pulled out of Iraq and those who never stepped foot in it. Islamic Terrorism is all about advancing thier ideology, they have absolutly no reason to target the Spanish, Germans, Dutch, Danes, or the French, but they do. They attack in Asian Nations that were Budist in cities like Bali. This is not just an American caused problem this is a religion that has no morality at all.
Posted By: lloyd kempson
Date: 2008-04-10 14:29:06
"Although a big percentage of the U.S. population agrees with making English the ‘official language’ that goes against our first amendment. This does not mean that the government should translate everything into multiple languages but we should not force or regulate people to talk a certain way or a certain language"
Yes I want English to be the language of the State, not a law forcing you to speak it only. Thanks for the clarification
Posted By: lloyd kempson
Date: 2008-04-10 14:37:41
Old English was not spoken at the founding of the country. Old English is pre-latin influence. (Before the Romans conquered England. The US Constitution is written in Modern English. Shakespeeare spoke Middle English
Posted By: lloyd kempson
Date: 2008-04-10 15:02:18
"As I've stated, I have a problem with the lack of Constitutional authority and the ineffectiveness of drug laws. I have a huge problem with anything "illegal"."
So should we repeal the 14th ammendment and ban birthright citizenship? If that is the case should we also repeal the 13th ammendment and bring back slavery?
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-10 15:40:16
Lloyd said, "Oh, so you have never had to stand in a line, pay well over $5000, wait 10 years for the buerocrats to handle your papers, and when you finnally had the chance you got to raise your right hand and say the pledge of alligiance. Is it any wonder why most sane poor people would break such ridiculous laws to get into our country?"
As I've said, we need to rebuild our immigration process and procedures to make it more efficient and faster. This will do much toward solving the illegal immigration problem.
>>But can you really blame the border jumpers, sham weddings, and birthright citizens of this land?
I do not blame them - in fact, I sympathize with their plight... living in a corrupt, statist country where things are so bad that they'd rather leave their families and endure all the risks of coyotes, thieves, border guards, etc., etc. That is one of the reasons we have to stop illegal immigration and fix our immigration system. We need an immigration system that works for the benefit of America and those who desire to become good, productive, contributing *legal* immigrants.
>>Only the most lazy and incompetent of Americans are hurt financially by working non-criminal illegal aliens.
What about the "criminal illegal aliens"? The statistics for crime in states like California clearly show that illegal immigrants account for a huge percentage of crimes. As I've previously stated, a rebuilt, efficient immigration system that includes a solid guest worker program (that considers American citizen job needs) will help solve problems not only for America, but for the immigrants as well. Add to this the elimination of social services for illegal immigrants (and the gradual elimination of these programs for Americans) and we'll take one Hell of a bite out of this problem.
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-10 16:36:45
trd, thanks for your comments.
>>"Today, by making more tough laws and regulations the illegal immigration skyrocketed in the same manner as drug consumption has risen with more anti-drug laws."
How has an increase in anti-drug laws raised drug consumption? On what information / statistic / study does your assertion lie?
>>One thing that we are all in agreement though is the abolition of all these socialistic laws that benefit both illegal and legal people.
On this we certainly agree.
>>Although a big percentage of the U.S. population agrees with making English the ‘official language’ that goes against our first amendment.
Requiring English proficiency as a requirement for citizenship does not force them to use English thereafter - it merely assures that this individual can function in an English- speaking culture. Because it does not mandate the use of English (or ban the use of another language), it does not violate the 1st Amendment.
>>Can we force people to write, think, and talk in a specific language? Can we prevent black people from writing rap lyrics with bad grammar? Can we prevent TV stations from broadcasting in Spanish, Arabic, or Chinese? How about those Amish people who talk German? Can we prevent Hispanics from ‘escribir o hablar en español’?
Again, I do not advocate outlawing the use of any language. I simply think that English proficiency should be a condition of gaining American citizenship. Also, I vehemently oppose tax dollars being spent for dual language signs, forms, documents, etc.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2008-04-10 17:17:27
Dan:
So with regards to the 'official language' I guess we are all in agreement in the sense that we don't want the government to translate all forms, laws, road signs or even voting ballots or get publicly paid translators in court. We just need less forms. Let those individals who need translation pay it for themselves. Personally, I just don't see the need to make a constitutional amendment to make English the official language. Not having an official language makes us more free in my opinion. Marketwise English already is the official language maybe even around the globe. Unfortunately our governments pay translations with our tax dollars, and that is what is wrong.
With regards to gaining American citizenship, I thought that it was already a requisite for naturalization. I didn't know that people who did not know English could be naturalized. Nevertheless, by birth there are Amish communities that may not know English and they are still American citizens. Also, people born in Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States, are American citizens by birth regardless of whether they learn English or not. There are close to 4 million of those American citizens by birth living inside the island of Puerto Rico and another 4 million living in the mainland. Although about 95% of the people inside Puerto Rico know English and learn it in school as a requisite, it is still their second langauge and not their first which is Spanish. There may be other smaller examples with local communities of Asian descent or Navahos, Hopis, Cherokees, etc.. They are all still American with the same rights and obligations like you and me.
With regards to immigration, the tougher we get with more laws the more immigration problems we will have just as with drug laws, social laws, welfare laws, etc. I don't have any statistics to back that up, just an opinion, therefore I could also be wrong.
Very nice debate!
Posted By: Lloyd Kempson
Date: 2008-04-10 20:07:23
Sorry I had to come at you so hard Dan, but you were starting to sound like a Blue Blood Republican more than a libertarian. The last thing that I want to see a libertarian get into is a losing election because he "sounds" racist. The Mexican American Community will be the future of libertarianism. Let's always talk about the positive contributions of immigrants both legal and illegal before we alienate the Hispanics entirely. Libertarians don't play politics very well and this is why they are not in office. Let's not try to race bait either, but try to bill your plan as Sensible Reasonable Immigration Reform. Don't mention amnesty and at the same time don't mention costly deportations and family break ups. We want to try to solve the beurocratic mess before we ever build a stupid fence. We don't want future fingers pointed at us saying look there is the party that hates Hispanics. We want to include everyone without scaring anyone. Libertarianism is a hard to explain belief as hard as Atheism is to a faithful audience. SO try as hard as you can not to sound racist to the future American Middle Class (Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, And Central American descendants, Cuban Americans, and Puerto Ricans) PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE play politics from a centrist point of view to get elected. Guys like you are needed. Maybe libertarians need to infest the democratic party?
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-11 10:41:21
Lloyd,
I think your arguements and conclussions are fair, and only until now I think genuinely caring about the system. I agree the enemies of LIBERTY will use any trick to discredit real change. Abortion, gun control, income taxes, immigration, civil union are all bullshit polarizing issues that attempt to cover up the real cause, TYRANNY upon our own!
I disagree with the future middle calss being hispanics as the oligarchy is waging direct war on the middle class. There is no longer a prolitariate in this country. We were all sold on high tech jobs by the first Bush and the Clintons, only to have all of those jobs outsourced. We have no production capability anymore( minus the Military Industrial Complex), so no producers, hence no prolitariate, hence no middle class. The intent is to create a larger divide between the oligarchy and the lower class. Orwell did an excellent job of explaining eliminated class turn over in 1984. The same is holding true today in America.
Race comes into play, b/c we are not easily identified by class anymore, even the poor have bling. They (the STATE) can no longer create discord amongst the classes, so racism has easily replaced class identification, plus if everyone is either rich or poor with no middle ground the complexities of social seperation become easier for the STATE.
Why do all illegal immigrants have to be hispanic? Can they not be European or African, I guess they could but getting access to the country from over "seas" is much more difficult. Running swimming and jumping into the country from Mexico is where most come from. We realize that access into this country is in fact wide open, and more abused from Mexico than Canada.
The illegal immigration "problem" is politically motivated anyway. Notice how we turned a blind eye to our open borders, even while the federal govt beat we are in danger of terrorists attacks down our throats. Could it have been to insure that Vicente Foxe's NAU minions stayed in power? We couldnt have a socialist government in Mexico as it would affect the NAU, so who would vote for a socialist other than the poor? No problem make shit more difficult on them so they are motivated to leave, provide very cheap or free plane trips to the border, an whala no more people to vote for the opposition. Didnt they win the election by less than a 15th% of the vote? Interesting. Throw away your dollars and buy Ameros so as not be a rscist xenophobe.
I dont agree however that LIBERTARIANism is hard to grasp. My kids get it. You are responsible for yourself, do onto others as you would have them do onto you, work hard, no free lunches. Aethism on the other hand is much harder as you are breaking years of indoctrination and psychosclerosis.
As far as the take over of the Democratic party, BRILLIANT! Only I dont think I could stomach the smell, so it wont be me.
Glad you are making your voice and presence heard around here, but its not about LIBERTARIANISM or REPUBLICANISM, its about FREEDOM in AMERICA!
LET FREEDOM RING!
LIBERTY or DEATH
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-11 11:15:19
Lloyd said:
>>Sorry I had to come at you so hard Dan, but you were starting to sound like a Blue Blood Republican more than a libertarian.
No apology necessary. When you throw your hat in the ring, you have to expect to receive hard-hitting questions and healthy skepticism. Believe me, if all voters were like you in this manner, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
First and foremost, I'm a Constitutionist. Luckily, the Libertarian philosophy is a very close match. On the issue of immigration, I can see why you may have initially reacted like you did because I see regulation of immigration as one of the federal government's true powers and responsibilities. Without knowing, one might surmise that I'd take a similar position on other issues not included in Art. 1, Sect. 8. I plan on publishing a series of position papers (one for each main issue) in the coming weeks. I think these will make it clear that I'm a strict Constitutionist... miles away from your average Statist Republican.
>>Let's always talk about the positive contributions of immigrants both legal and illegal before we alienate the Hispanics entirely.
I'll admit that the racial issues made your initial comments confused me as they seemed to be concocted because I never said anything that would have prompted such comments. But your point here is a good one and I appreciate the suggestion. When you see my position paper on Immigration, I think you'll see that I took your suggestions seriously.
Furthermore, I truly abhor racism for a number of reasons. Among them is my belief that racism is nurtured and fertilized by the main stream media, racial equality laws, etc. These racial categories divide us with the results being "we" are no longer "We the People" but "We the African American People", "We the Hispanic People", "We the Caucasian People", etc. United we stand, divided we fall. We simply must come together and defeat the real enemy whom patrick henry referred to as "THE OLIGARCHY that is oppressing our country".
Lloyd, I'll welcome your comments and questions in the future.
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-04-11 11:37:28
patrick henry,
I wanted to thank you for all your terrific comments. Lloyd kept me a bit busy with his questions so I didn't get a chance to respond to many things you said. Perhaps it shall suffice to say that we seem to be on exactly the same page on almost every issue and observation.
Too bad all Americans aren't as smart and informed as we are! ;-)
Posted By: DigitalBob
Date: 2008-05-12 14:31:18
Yikes, what grilling! Remind me to hit myself in the head with a big mall if I get the itch to run for Congress! Wingman Dan, you're a better man that I.
I'll let you know how my run for Precinct Delegate goes. I'm putting a little toe in the water, instead of jumping in with both feet. I don't dislike the incumbent enough to run against him. I think I've missed the filing date anyway.
Even if a candidate is right on 3/4s the issues, it's better than being wrong on all of them!
All the best. --dB.