The recent anti-invasion law will save the state money, and lead to a downsizing of government bureaucracy, as well as ultimately, lower taxes for citizens. by Billy Roper
(libertarian)
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Man and other animals tend to be hierarchical in nature, and as much creatures of instinct as rationality. Those who wish to live outside the pack structure, or be divorced from those who would unite, often find that the strength in numbers is more than compelling.
I maintain that if you really want to get a handle on what is going on in a country, you need to do at least these two things: 1) Follow the money; that is, understand the economic situation, and understand who is making money from whom and from what. 2) Follow the factions; that is, conduct a libertarian analysis regarding how people are grouped into special interests, and equally as important, what groups have acquired special privileges for themselves at the expense of other groups, and whether they are economically productive or nonproductive, and why certain groups insist on monopolistic practices as opposed to chivalrous free enterprise competition.
With Dr. Rand Paul winning the Republican primary in Kentucky against the establishment candidate, and espousing the view that the fourteenth amendment does not give citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, as well as expressing that the interstate commerce clause should not be used by civil rights enforcers to dictate hiring and customer/clientele service policies to business owners, this is not simply a state or regional issue. Many of the illegal immigrants now leaving Arizona because of the law are simply heading next door to New Mexico, and taking their state dependency with them. New Mexican citizens may not like this new invasion, and their state becoming even more indistinguishable from Old Mexico. If they don't, they can pass similar laws to the one which Arizona has passed, themselves. If they do like the new invasion wave, or rather, if like Texas and California, they are already too far gone in the Reconquista process to offer any legislative resistance to the invasion, since New Mexico has a higher percentage of undocumented Democrats than other border states, already, then they get exactly the kind of population, and government, which they want. Or deserve. Or are willing to tolerate. That's modern democracy in action. It does, however, demonstrate that no person, community, state, or region exists in a vacuum, nor can it have control over its own destiny unless it impacts the free will and destiny of others.
In today's news, the Florida legislature is discussing a law similar to Arizona's. Say goodbye to my little friend.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch in Arizona, thousands of illegal immigrants and their families are choosing to leave, for either New Mexico, or Old.
Alhambra elementary school in West Phoenix is expecting to lose 200-300 students over the summer.
"Balsz Elementary District in East Phoenix has lost 70 families in the past 30 days, an unprecedented number, officials said."
According to the 2009 Hew Hispanic Center study, 17% of all elementary students in Arizona are the children of immigrants.
"For every net decline of one student, a school loses an average of $4,404 in state money. The total amount of funding for the 170,000 children of immigrants is about $749 million, or 16 percent, of the state's education budget."
That's just in education costs, and doesn't include the costs of health care or other government services provided by the long-suffering taxpayers of Arizona.
"A sizable loss of undocumented families could reduce crowding in some schools and allow others to combine classrooms and reduce teaching staff, said Matthew Ladner, research director for the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, which has not taken a stance on the law.
"It would actually help the state's balance sheet down the road and would lessen the burden on the general fund," Ladner said."
So, how do you reduce the bureaucracy, downsize the state, lower taxes, and reduce overpopulation, to boot? Stop the invasion.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Billy Roper only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Billy Roper 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.
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: June 2, 2010 05:15:35 PM
"With Dr. Rand Paul ..... espousing the view that the fourteenth amendment does not give citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants,"
That alone should disqualify him from holding public office under the Constitution, assuming what you say is true (and I do not). The fourteenth amendment clearly says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States......are citizens". No exceptions! ALL PERSONS!
Now, if you want to propose a Constitutional Amendment to change that, go ahead, but neither you nor Rand Paul should claim that the Constitution says something it doesn't or doesn't say something it clearly does!
Actually, the Arizona law doesn't do anything to downsize government. This is an intentional misconception promoted by the law's backers. What the law does is promote racial profiling as an excuse for not downsizing government, while pretending to actually be doing something in that regard. When this results in a few illegal immigrants leaving the state, they cheer and claim victory, but has government actually been reduced? No. There might be a small, temporary reduction in the number of people feeding at the trough of state, but that's it. The basic practice of feeding at that trough remains essentially unchanged. After all, the promoters of the law don't really give a damn if non-Mexicans feed at that trough. In fact, they favor that eventuality...and therein lies the rub, because it proves that "downsizing government" for the bill's advocates is really just an excuse for massive state intrusions into personal privacy and includes no real motivation in toward downsizing the government. The latter is just a smoke-screen designed to deceive the unwary.
Opponents of the bill have characterized it as racial profiling...and certainly, that's true, but it's not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that the Arizona bill promotes a police state, which of course is exactly why a racist like Billy Roper supports it. (Lest anyone doubt it, Roper is well documented as a racist. Just Google his name, and you'll see for yourself.) Police states are ideal for discriminating against particular races under the law. However, what Roper fails to acknowledge is that when the state gains the degree of control that the words "papers, please" grants to it, all people of all races ultimately find their liberty at risk...including himself.
A law that bases the power of a police officer to stop someone without a warrant and with no more than an evaluation of "he looked like a possible illegal immigrant to me" places too much power in the hands of the police. After all, what does a legal citizen look like? How is that different from what an illegal immigrant looks like? The answer in this country is that both citizens and illegals look like every possible ethnic background on the planet. And that means that once the police gain the kinds of power that Arizona has granted to their police force, everyone becomes a potential target of statist overreach.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: June 3, 2010 05:46:53 AM
This Billy Roper character writes as though (A) illegal aliens (that is, those without visas) increase either the scope of government or government spending incommensurate with their contribution both to government revenues and to economic growth.
That's an empirical claim that needs to be backed with figures. It's neither common-sense nor self-evident.
And were (A) true, Roper would have to argue against the counterfactual of legalizing their presence. If just giving them papers (as ought to be done from the standpoint of simple justice) would cause their economic status to increase to the point where (A) is true, then--and I'm not claiming that it would be justified were it false--causing such visaless aliens to be displaced in the manner he advocates is not justified by the budget-balancing arguments. What appears in this article is sloppiness apparently motivated by simple bigotry. "Well of course them spics are parasites...all my white supremacist buddies know that!"
One must also wonder whether or not Roper believes in simply deporting poor people--or at least anyone who is a net tax consumer--of any ethnic background or visa status. Something about his background makes me think the answer is "no." This article is just another attempt to stir up ethnic hatreds.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: June 3, 2010 05:51:41 AM
This Billy Roper character writes as though (A) illegal aliens (that is, those without visas) increase either the scope of government or government spending incommensurate with their contribution both to government revenues and to economic growth.
That's an empirical claim that needs to be backed with figures. It's neither common-sense nor self-evident.
And were (A) true, Roper would have to argue against the counterfactual of legalizing their presence. If just giving them papers (as ought to be done from the standpoint of simple justice) would cause their economic status to increase to the point where (A) is true, then--and I'm not claiming that it would be justified were it false--causing such visaless aliens to be displaced in the manner he advocates is not justified by the budget-balancing arguments. What appears in this article is sloppiness apparently motivated by simple bigotry. "Well of course them spics are parasites...all my white supremacist buddies know that!"
One must also wonder whether or not Roper believes in simply deporting poor people--or at least anyone who is a net tax consumer--of any ethnic background or visa status. Something about his background makes me think the answer is "no." This article is just another attempt to stir up ethnic hatreds.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 3, 2010 12:40:09 PM
You can put ellipses where the words which define the intent of the 14th amendment (as expressed by its author) in regards to the children of illegal immigrants, just as Dale did.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Allow me to quote Dale, from his own blog elsewhere:
"One of my biggest concerns is the blatant inequality of wealth in many societies and how that often translates into total injustice. Those who are raised in wealthy families tend to remain wealthy. And where there is wealth, there is also power. Meanwhile, those who come from poor families tend to remain poor. Because there are a finite range of resources in any society, those who already have wealth also have access to the highest technologies sooner than others, thus enabling them to maintain and even increase their wealth still further at the expense of the impoverished. And I’m not just talking about individuals, but about nations as well. The United States is far, far richer than Afghanistan and will probably always remain so. Thus, while America is on the cutting edge of technology, the people of Afghanistan still live largely like they did a century ago, because they simply cannot afford the latest computers, cars, or private jets.In a capitalist economic system without any restraints, the rich will get richer and the poor remain poor until finally you have a few ultra rich and masses of the poor that will never have a chance to get better. And because cash flow then drops to minimal levels due to the tendency of the rich to hoard their fiances while the poor cannot even spend much money, the capitalist system collapses under its own weight.Karl Marx forsaw this..."
Gee, aren't those ellipses neat?
TRD may take a few minutes away from his job as a government bureaucrat intimidating private citizens into conforming to building codes with threats of fines or withholding of licenses to try to take a cheap shot, but 90 congressmen have co-sponsored a bill to clarify the intent of the author of the 14th amendment as not giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, now. Hey, have you figured out who the ADL is, yet, Austin?
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 3, 2010 01:10:33 PM
Some of you liberaltarians here will almost certainly accuse F.A.I.R. (The Federation for American Immigration Reform) of being evil racists and White supremacists. Their data on the costs of illegal immigration, however, has withstood the attacks of detractors from across the political spectrum, and unless you can demonstrate their lack of validity, should be considered:
FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/17/immigration-costs-rising-rapidlty-new-study-says/
In a study published six years ago, it was found that "In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year.
Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals." http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm
As an Arizona resident, my problem with the law is that it promotes racial profiling, a police state and yet doesn't even begin to address the problem of employers hiring illegal aliens. Senators Kyl and McCain, aside from wanting to build a fence, haven't proposed legislation that would help with federal immigration reform but strut and posture about how tough they are against illegals. Why don't they want to punish the employers who knowingly hire this cheap source of labor? That would stop the bulk of illegal immigration faster than a police state.
TRD may take a few minutes away from his job as a government bureaucrat intimidating private citizens into conforming to building codes with threats of fines or withholding of licenses to try to take a cheap shot, but 90 congressmen have co-sponsored a bill to clarify the intent of the author of the 14th amendment as not giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, now. Hey, have you figured out who the ADL is, yet, Austin?"
[/I]
I don't know where you get that. I have never worked as a government bureaucrat nor with building codes etc... and my name is not Austin. You did the wrong search. I don't care about what the ADL is. My guess is that it is another racist organization like yours but on the other side.
If the "jursidiction thereof" means what you want it to mean, then the government will have no jurisdiction against any non-citizen, and thus any non-citizen would be exepct from taxes, and may not even be prosecuted if they commit a violent crime. You don't want an illegal immigrant to simply get deported to his country if he commits a violent crime, he also needs to pay for his crime and then get deported. Otherwise, illegals will walk freely, commit violent crimes and the pennalty is just getting deported only to cross the border again and commit another crime?
In case you don't know it, any person, whether a tourist, guest, resident, legal immigrant, or illegal immigrants are subjected to the US jurisdiction. You are just using a play of words.
So my question to you again, forget about the 14th for now, tell me HOW WILL YOU INTERPRET THE 15TH AMENDMENT? Would you like to modify or re-interpret that one too?
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: June 3, 2010 08:47:58 PM
Our white supremacist newcomer can prattle on as much as he likes about one legislator's "intent" for the 14th Amendment, but "intent" has no import whatsoever in interpreting the law. "Original intent" is not "Original public meaning"; nowadays "original intent" is an intellectual and legal nonstarter for reasons even schoolchildren can understand.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: June 3, 2010 08:53:34 PM
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
The children of illegal aliens do not fall into any of those categories.
FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.
And what benefits do they provide to the economy? How much do they pay in taxes? And what impact would giving them visas have on this?
To consider only one side and either presume or hide that there is another, that is the essence of bigotry. Yes, FAIR is a racist organization. No, we do not have to re-compute their numbers to demonstrate that. They are not providing the full story.
Posted By: Dan Steward
Date: June 3, 2010 10:28:39 PM
There is no "immigration problem". It is instead a welfare problem. Cut off the free gooberment goodies to all & then only those fleeing political persecution & willing to produce (and better the economy) will come here.
Personally my first choice would be to see all international & state borders eliminated. They are nothing more than fences to keep us, the livestock milked by Big Bother, penned in and unable to escape to another "farm".
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 4, 2010 01:14:37 AM
I personally agree that those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants should be prosecuted in order to discourage the practice, but some of the liberaltarians on this particular site would disagree, holding that they should have the right to hire whomever they wish, regardless of their legal status. In general, I would support the right of business owners to serve whom they wish or to hire and fire whomever they wish, but not in the case where they are in the country illegally.
As far as the 15th amendment goes, it's interesting that even with Radical Reconstruction treating the conquered half of the country as enemy occupied territory, seven states originally rejected the measure, four were required to do so in order to have representation in Congress, and thirteen never have. The Senate vote was almost entirely along party lines, with no Democrats voting for the amendment, and only three Republicans voting against it. As a matter of historical fact, without Congress requiring the four southern states to accept the 15th amendment in order to be readmitted to the Union, and therefore have occupying Federal troops withdrawn and regain state status, the amendment never would have been ratified. Whether or not an amendment ratified under duress should be considered legitimate or not, then, is open to debate.
http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/SlaveryAndEmancipation/15thamendment.html It did not offer a blanket guarantee of the right to vote because many Radical Republicans feared that would void the disenfranchisement of ex-Confederates. Many states, North and South, required payment of poll taxes, property ownership, or literacy as a condition of voting. The 15th Amendment did not address any of those stipulations. Feminists, especially, fought against the amendment because women were not included in the guarantee of suffrage.
Fascinating Fact: "Think of Patrick and Sambo and Hans and Ung Tung," wrote irate feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "who do not know the difference between a Monarchy and a Republic, who never read the Declaration of Independence... making laws for Lydia Maria Child, Lucretia Mott, or Fanny Kemble."
As far as achieving citizenship via immigration, the Constitution does not mandate race-neutral naturalization. Until 1952, the Naturalization Acts written by Congress still allowed only white persons to become naturalized as citizens (except for two years in the 1870s which the Supreme Court declared to be a mistake).
The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act banned Chinese workers and specifically barred them from naturalization. The Immigration Act of 1917, (Barred Zone Act) extended those restrictions to almost all Asians.
The 1922 Cable Act specified that women marrying aliens ineligible for naturalization lose their US citizenship. At the time, all Asians were ineligible for naturalization. The Immigration Act of 1924 barred entry of all those ineligible for naturalization, which again meant non-Filipino Asians.
In 1790, Congress passed the first laws discussing naturalization, and stated that “free, white, adult alien, male or female, who had resided within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States for a period of 2 years" was eligible for citizenship. Five years later, a debate ensued over whether this was too short a time to prove their loyalty.
I do believe in the concept of original intent, as far as the interpretation of the amendments to the Constitution and the Constitution itself, goes. I believe that when it comes to looking for what the second amendment means by "a well regulated militia" or "the people", for example, it is entirely appropriate to look at what the Founding Fathers meant by those terms, and what they intended the amendment to imply. Consistency requires a similar approach to the other amendments.
So, who has "re-interpreted" the original intent of our Founding Fathers? Not me. My views on race are positively Jeffersonian.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 4, 2010 02:48:43 AM
Whimsy1, you might not have seen this news article about the kind of change you'd prefer to see:
Justice Dept. Challenges Arizona Over Other Immigration Law Targeting Employers
By Jim Angle
Published June 03, 2010
| FOXNews.com
The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision that upheld Arizona's right to punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants.
The Arizona law gives the state the right to suspend or terminate business licenses.
"If you hire a person in this country illegally knowingly, you'll lose your license. First offense, 10 days. Second offense, revocation, never to do business in the state of Arizona again," said Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who helped draft the new controversial Arizona law that cracks down on illegal immigrants.
The Obama administration apparently worries letting that law stand would leave in place a precedent that states have a legitimate role in enforcing immigration laws – a notion the administration fiercely opposes.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: June 4, 2010 03:47:26 AM
No answer, Billy-Boy? How much do aliens without proper visas pay in taxes: income, sales, and property, including the indirect property tax paid by renters? How much do they contribute to the economy? What effect would their regularization have on those variables?
You're so quick to produce numbers for the "cost" column, why such a delay for the "benefit"? Surely a pure whitey like you, not a member of a mud race at all, is up to the task!
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: June 4, 2010 03:50:28 AM
I was just thinking, too:
(1) "Roper" is a really neat name for a white supremacist. Didn't they used to "rope" hundreds per year?
(2) Of the "Ropers" I've known in my life, 70% have been black and one was Jewish. Perhaps this Billy Roper is a black man or has black or hebrew ancestry and isn't the guy we think he is...
So Billy, after writing about all those historical things with respect to the 15th amendment, you haven't answer the question: would you like to have the 15th amendment repealed? Yes or No.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 4, 2010 10:01:54 AM
Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else knows how many of the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrant invaders, otherwise known as undocumented Democrats, pay any taxes, or how many work under the table, or how many use fraudulent or stolen social security numbers of actual citizens. Nor do we know for certain exactly what the costs of illegal immigration are, either in terms of health care, or education, or in crime. What we do know for certain is that adding more Mexicans will make the United States more like Mexico, and most of us would agree that, except for perhaps climactically, that would not be an improvement, or a worthy inheritance for our children and grandchildren.
Actually, the historical origin of my name doesn't come from anything to do with rope, from my geneological research, but rather from William de Rupierre, a Norman lord who came to England with another William, the Conqueror, in 1066, so the name is of Norman, and therefore Norse, ancestry. He was the first recorded person to use that surname. As far as nonWhites having that name, it is a fact that many freed slaves kept the names of their former masters. That having been said, I'm not sure what family might have owned the original Kalafuts.
That rabidly racist, White supremacist, bigoted right-wing rag, the Washington Post, reported in 2004:
"Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household,
... The report estimates that granting legal status to illegal immigrants would dramatically increase their cost, causing the net fiscal deficit to rise to nearly $29 billion because, the author argues, unskilled immigrants would have access to more government services while continuing to make modest tax payments.
"Implied within this study's findings is the sense that if these people could suddenly be made to disappear, the federal government would be $10 billion to the plus, and that is almost certainly not true once you look at the numbers," Jeffrey S. Passel, a demographer at the Urban Institute, said in an interview.
To answer your question about the 15th amendment once again, trd, I would revert back to the original definition of citizenship which was in place when the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified, not including any amendments the ratification of which were forced through by intimidation or under duress or force of arms, involuntarily.
To answer your question about the 15th amendment once again, trd, I would revert back to the original definition of citizenship which was in place when the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified, not including any amendments the ratification of which were forced through by intimidation or under duress or force of arms, involuntarily.
So does this mean that in your view black people are also illegal immigrants and should not be granted neither citizenship nor the right to vote?
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: June 4, 2010 07:46:51 PM
I see that the white supremacist either cannot distinguish between "The Washington Post reports that" and "The Washington Post reports that [bigot think tank] claimed that..." or refused to do so as an attempt at deceit.
But supposing that said think-tank's numbers were the whole story--and they're obviously not, as they still don't answer the "economic impact" part of my question--the objection is that illegal immigrants are poor and thus receive a net transfer. Big deal. Roper wants to get rid of particular poor people.
But not others--there's no call from him to deport the sort of whitebread welfare mamas, jailbirds, and faux-"disability" spongers who pay dues to white supremacist organizations to Northern Europe! Merely trying to stir up ethnic hatred and nothing more. This Chicago dago-polack finds it primitive, amusing, and repugnant all at once; perhaps people from the sticks are truly different.
On the subject of poor people and spongers, I'm wondering about Mr Roper's means of support. The usual bios don't talk about that. Perhaps he should be deported?
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: June 4, 2010 07:57:57 PM
Actually, the historical origin of my name doesn't come from anything to do with rope, from my geneological research, but rather from William de Rupierre, a Norman lord who came to England with another William, the Conqueror, in 1066, so the name is of Norman, and therefore Norse, ancestry. He was the first recorded person to use that surname.
A "Lord", eh? Back then that was someone who lived off of plunder, either from conquest or by bullying tradesmen and yeoman framers. The archetypal gangbanger. And his father and grandfather were Klansmen, participants in a criminal conspiracy that cost the taxpayer quite a bit of $$$ and resulted in considerable foregone economic growth, and he seems mighty proud of that.
Makes the accusation against illegal aliens--"the government gives them more than it takes from them"--that has Billy Boy wanting to strip their descendants of their Constitutionally-guaranteed citizenship and send them to the land of their ancestors seem like a crybaby's whining by comparison.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: June 4, 2010 08:01:39 PM
Actually, the historical origin of my name doesn't come from anything to do with rope, from my geneological research, but rather from William de Rupierre, a Norman lord who came to England with another William, the Conqueror, in 1066, so the name is of Norman, and therefore Norse, ancestry. He was the first recorded person to use that surname.
But that still doesn't prove that you're not a Negro...
Are you Billy Roper the white supremacist or are you not? (Not saying that Billy Roper the white supremacist can't be black!) Come on, don't hide your real motives regarding illegal immigration.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: June 4, 2010 08:05:08 PM
What we do know for certain is that adding more Mexicans will make the United States more like Mexico, and most of us would agree that, except for perhaps climactically, that would not be an improvement, or a worthy inheritance for our children and grandchildren.
Adding more white supremacists might make the U.S. more like the trailer park, and that's not a worthy inheritance for my children and grandchildren, but their inheritance is my business and I'm confident that I won't have to sterilize, deport, or kill white supremacists to ensure it. These things all have been advocated by our author.
The trouble with think tanks is that they're not free, as academics are, to follow the research where it goes--and that, unlike academics, they do not have to prepare their work for an audience of critical experts.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 4, 2010 11:49:17 PM
Some liberaltarians approach the problem of corrupt or inefficient government the same way that leftists approach crime, by blaming the instrument of the crime. For example, it's a liberal idea that guns are evil and that if we just did away with guns, there would be less violence. Likewise, many liberaltarians believe that government itself is inherently evil, or at least inherently corrupt and inefficient, and that therefore no government, no laws, are better than what we have now. My view is that what matters is not whether it's big government or small government, but whether people have a government which represents their interests, or the interests of others, however they choose to define that
Now, maybe they just come here to do the felonies that Americans won't do. But take a look at L.A.'s "Most Wanted" List:
How much cheap lawn care cancels out a murder, in terms of net social worth? How many Mexican restaurants outweigh the cost of educating an anchor baby, to society?
The National Academy of Sciences (those racist bastards!) has estimated that each immigrant without a high school degree will cost U.S. taxpayers, on average, $89,000 over the course of his or her lifetime. This is a net cost above the value of any taxes the immi*grant will pay and does not include the cost of educating the immigrant’s children, which U.S. taxpayers would also heavily subsidize. In this way, the roughly twelve million legal immigrants without a high school diploma will impose a net cost of around a trillion dollars on U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes.
Mr. ORACIO ELDRETE (Standard and Poor's): If you take the 1.8 million of undocumented children that are currently estimated to be in the country and take the average annual cost the school districts typically allocate for the students, there's about $11.2 billion in annual costs.
This is from those cracker honkeys at NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5366515
Who I am only means that I'm not going to be intimidated into silence by being called a "racist" or any other alleged pejorative. It means that I say openly what millions of Americans say in the privacy of their own homes, and think in their minds, and feel in their hearts. So, whether I calculate the costs of immigration economically, politically, culturally, or genetically, I calculate that what is happening to our nation, insofar as the flood of millions of illegal immigrants, is not a good thing, and in that the overwhelming majority of American citizens agree with me, not with you.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 5, 2010 12:44:07 AM
Ben,
Even Arizonans can be downright silly sometimes, such as when you use the Southern Poverty Law Center to discredit a think tank as not being as objective as true academics.
Your AU physics grad picture, with what appears to be one of your favorite items, a marijuana leaf, on your shirt, at least shows that you're a happy person. Let me help you out a bit:
kalafut Name Meaning and History
Dutch and North German: from kal(e)fat ‘oakum’, ‘tow’, ‘calk’ (loose fibers of rope used to caulk a ship’s seams and make her watertight), hence a metonymic occupational name for a calker, someone who specialized in making ships watertight. The word is ultimately from Arabic qalafa; it is also found in 17th-century English in various spellings, mainly calf(r)et.
Of course, in German, "Kalifat" means "Caliphate", which is an Islamic principality, perhaps making your ancestors A "Lord", eh? Back then that was someone who lived off of plunder, either from conquest or by bullying tradesmen and yeoman framers. (sic) The archetypal gangbanger. too.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 5, 2010 12:46:22 AM
TRD, are you willing to throw Thomas Jefferson under the bus, proverbially speaking, because he was a proponent of freeing blacks from slavery and then repatriating all of them back to Africa, for racial reasons? What about Abraham Lincoln?
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 5, 2010 12:27:42 PM
Dan has stated, as is his right, that his ideal world would not have national borders or boundary lines. In my ideal world, they would exist, and serve to demarcate the buffer zones of different ethnic, religious, and racial groups which each have control of their own nations, their own governments, and their own destinies as peoples. I'm not a supremacist, in that I don't wish to own slaves of any kind, or to make nonWhites or anyone else second-class citizens in my ideal nations. I would want them to have nations of their own. You see, trd, forcing multiracialism on people against their will ultimately leads to conflict, especially when there have been historical disparities. The best way to avoid racial conflict is to keep the races separate. Jews have their own nation state, as they prefer it. The Chinese people have China. The Japanese people have Japan. Each of these three, while perhaps not races per se, are identifiable as ethnic groups with a specific genetic, as well as cultural and national, identity. Would you deny them that inherent right of association?
Wow, Billy, you simply can't answer a simple yes or no question.
I would not deny the people their right to free association, but if given the chance YOU would. You don't understand that freedom of association is someone like you who don't want to mix with another race but the same freedom of association also applies to someone who DOES want to freely associate with one from a different race or sexually with one from the same gender. Moulti-racialism should not be forced but neither single-racialism. You certainly are confused in what freedom of association really is. In your ideal world, how do you separate the blacks, from the whites, from latinosn etc... in different nations? Do you take-over a state make it independent and kill any non-white?
And in case you haven't figured it out yet: here it goes once again:
Do you want to treat black people as illegal immigrants and have the 15th amendment repealed? Yes or no.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 5, 2010 02:19:46 PM
If given their choice many people would choose to live in a nation populated by their own co-nationalists. Of course people like you might prefer to live in a multiracial society, or one where your kind are a minority, with another race ruling you and your interests through either the democratic process or through less gentle means. Or, you might prefer to live in a multiracial state where your kind are the majority and rule over other races who are minorities, through either the democratic process or less gentle means. Or, you might prefer to try to create something unique which no people or collection of peoples have ever created: true racial equality and equanamity. Good luck with that.
However, just as the Jews prefer to have their own racially based state, so would I. I would not want to force anyone to live in such a state who didn't wish to, not at all. I believe in voluntary freedom of association. Unfortunately the United States government, along with most every other formerly White-controlled country, denies or actively discourages Whites the right to White schools, White neighborhoods, White associations and political parties, and nearly everything else necessary for the survival of our people. According to the U.N. definition of the term, that amounts to genocide against my people. African-Americans might decide that they wish to have much of the American Southeast as their new homeland, just as Latinos might decide that they wish to have the Southwestern U.S. as theirs. Certain areas might be multiracial, and people can vote with their feet, and decide what kind of society they prefer to live in. Certainly that would be much more civil than the manner in which the former Yugoslavia achieved their equilibrium, or the Ottoman Empire, for that matter.
It addition of been evident that you can't answer a simple yes or no question, it is also evident thay you don't understand what freedom of association is. Althought you have the right to associate with whomever you want, so do the others around you. For example, let's assume that you live in a neighborhood where EVERYONE is white and your next door neighboor is a single white male. By freedom of association he decides to marry a black woman or asian woman and bring her to the 'all white' neighborhood. What if the single white man next door brings in a same-sex partner? Or what if your next door neighboor is moving and he sells the house to the highest bidder who happens to be a black family. Even if your next door neighbor is a racist like you at the time of selling he wouldn't even care because he is not going to live there anymore. Aare you going to prevent your next door neighbor from FREELY ASSOCIATING with these black people or with the black spouse? What if they decide to bring Mexicans to mow their lawn? You have to understand that freedom of association goes both ways.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 6, 2010 09:38:09 AM
I know that you don't know who the ADL is, but if you knew much at all about Israel, you'd know that in order to be eligible for Israeli citizenship, one must be genetically a jew, they measure this through matrilineal descent. Just as some liberaltarians on here might wish to live in a society the constitution of which allows marijuana use but restricts methamphetamine use, my ideal society would have as an integral part of its Constitution that the nation is a biological entity, so just as someone couldn't practice beastiality or rape children, homosexuality and miscegenation would be legally prohibited. The violation for doing so would be giving up one's citizenship in our free association, and choosing to live in the kind of multiracial or homosexual government region which you would prefer. Free Association doesn't mean that there are no community standards or laws of behavior, just that people can choose what kind of community they and their children live in.
I've had four separate readers on here e-mail me laughing at you for pretending to be a lawyer with a hostile witness and demanding a "yes or no" answer repeatedly to a question which I've given you far more complete answers to than you can apparently comprehend. Oh well. I'm getting tired of this thread, and none of the others, such as the Marxists or the pot smokers, seem to want to play any more.
You certainly have no clue what free association means and can't answer a simple yes or no question. Freedom of association does not exist if you are prevented by law to engage with other races.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 6, 2010 10:34:52 PM
I suppose then that by your definition, freedom of association didn't exist in the United States for most of its existence, beginning before 1700 and not ending until 1967, as interracial marriage and homosexuality were until recently illegal.
And no, I wouldn't declare blacks to be illegal immigrants. Like AmerIndians, who also did not immigrate here of their own accord, I would simply declare them non-citizens. If they wanted to have their own reservations, even as sovereign nations, as many AmerIndians do, that could probably be negotiated more peacefully than they worked out things in Kosovo.
Freedom of association did not fully exist in the USA until recently like you stated. Fortunately that has been revised and the people are more free now in that matter. Today is the other way around. By imposing minority quotas on employers it also goes against freedom of association so there is still a lot of room for improvement in true freedom of association.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: June 9, 2010 11:49:27 AM
I agree with you that government mandated hiring quotas, such as affirmative action, should not exist. However, I prefer to follow the Jeffersonian model, and don't presume to know better than the Founding Fathers of our nation. I think their views on race were more healthy and constructive in the long term than the prevalent pop culture view today.
