I see the discussion has moved on… well enough, no longer really interested in reading the same error repeated back using different words, as if that will make it less erroneous.
Quit your obfuscating Dave.
This was a red herring to begin with, and it’s a red herring now.
I never talked about militia requirements on this board before, so this is complete and utter bull on your part.
Complete and utter bull.
None of this, not one letter, changes the textualist definition of the 10th amendment, or the Constitution.
Not one letter, changes that secession is not a unilateral right.
Nor that history completely curb stomps the idea that it exists.
It’s Confederate Revisionism to assert it exists, and you can neither do nor say anything to deny it.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten what this thread is about, AS…to be charitable. It’s the “Consolidated Immigration Issues, Thread.” It’s NOT the “10th Amendment” or “confederate revisionism” thread. It’s about “immigration”. In particular, about ILLEGAL immigration and what to do about it. If you want it to be about either the 10th Amendment or the Constitution, then YOU start your own thread(s). You DON’T know what you’re talking about vis a vis the “militia” and what the term means and to whom it refers.
I missed this post from RWNJ earlier, but the video he posted shows how the errors of yesterday are still bearing fruit today for the Extreme Left.
Yes, back when it was commonly accepted that illegal immigrants were not eligible for Welfare and would therefore work to support themselves under the same competitive labor market that citizens participated in the only complaints were matters like cost of education; which were easily nullified by comparing the cost to society of these children growing up without an education which would be both horrendous and ignore the reality that under the current rules those children were citizens if they were born here regardless of the legal status of their parents.
Such was the thinking in the 1970,s when the Welfare State was barely 10 years old and consisted mostly of a small cash stipend and food stamps, it was simply not part of the debate and most sound economic thinkers did not see any reason why it should be.
Today the Welfare State has become far more exhaustive with housing, job training, full medical care, subsidized utilities, free college (both in tution and favoritism for admittance based on skin tone over grades) and amnesty from all the laws and regulations that burden the citizens who must compete with these illegals in the job market.
With this protectionism in place there is no way a legal taxpayer who must capitulate to all of the rules and regulations AND provide for his own sustenance AND pay for his competitions sustenance can compete with this protected class in the job market or in small business.
Less than 10 years after that debate the problems had escalated so much that Reagan was adamant about border security, so much so that he agreed to an amnesty to get the Congress to secure the border going forward and stop the bleeding.
Congress simply lied to get the amnesty (and millions of votes from illegals) and the Extreme Left in both Parties had the formula to remove the economy from its position of prominence in National Elections; Welfare Rats and government employees do not participate in recessions and they are not burdened by high taxes and draconian regulations.
The conditions that swept Reagan into power in a landslide no longer occur for about half the population, only the self sufficient private sector suffers under bad economic policies while the kept population notices no change at all.
The incentive for an immigrant to want to assimilate and adopt our nation has been replaced by the incentive to refuse assimilation and thereby live above the laws and corruption that those who are citizens of this country must carry on their shoulders; the Left have nullified the Primary and universal check of shared economic accountability for bad voting habits in several States and the push to establish more of them is bearing fruit.
When Texas falls to the California strategy there will be no option but secession and war to preserve Liberty, short of that all national elections and the congress will be dominated by the Extreme Left in perpetuity.
I don’t write this because I think the ignorant will wake up, AS and those who share his agenda have polluted the discussion nationwide for so many years that most voters on both sides are relentlessly debating irrelevant angles to the exclusion of how this strategy actually bears fruit; Trump is now the last hope to save the United States and he will have to do it without any help from political parties and under the protestations of the ignorant and those who trade in decption nationwide.
That is a very large Longshot with virtually no chance of victory but it is the only option left so that is the fight I signed up for; the critics be damned and hopefully the Era of widespread refusal to obey the law or lend it credibilty is soon upon us; that is a dangerous thing to wish for because it could go either way but the current trajectory can only lead to The Kalifornia result.
In other words there is nothing to lose.
Pointing out that the very regulatory state you rail against, equally makes immigration worse?
That the reason we have massive non-compliance in immigration, is because we try to micromanage it to hell?
Which is the net result for anything you manage this way? As any conservative would observe if it were anything else?
The only people who are trying to “micromanage” anything are those of you on the left who think it’s a good idea to leave our borders undefended and open to anyone wanting to come in and suck on the government’s teats. You (the generic you) do EVERYTHING you can think of to insure you get your way…including behaving treasonously.
Are those who turned the immigration system into a circuit diagram:
You can’t defend this system Dave. It’s a bureaucrat’s wet dream, and a regular person’s nightmare.
If you ran gun ownership through a system like this, virtually no one would be a legal owner.
Of course I can “defend” it, though it needs no defense. What you’ve “diagrammed” is an absolutely worst-case situation. It has NOTHING to do with actual reality and practice, which is simply, apply for an immigration visa at the nearest U.S. consulate, submit to a modicum of investigation to determine your fitness to immigrate and come to America, study for a few years, assimilate into American culture and society, swear allegiance to the U.S. and become a naturalized citizen. Simple. If you’re a terrorist, druggie, have an extensive criminal background in your own country or are sick with any dangerous disease, chances are you will NOT be admitted for either immigration OR as a temporary visitor.
Practice is even worse. The system drags its feet, consistently waiting 6 months or longer to give you updates, and is opaque as to whether a visa will fall through or not.
It can & will keep people waiting years if not decades.
No defense. This is an over-bureaucratized system, with all the shortcomings that implies. Nothing in our society should be managed this way.
So YOUR “solution” is to open the borders and allow anyone who wants in to walk in unimpeded? That’s INSANE, AS and the recipe for the destruction of his country.
Nope, it’s Freer immigration. Just like Australia and Singapore.
Calling that “Open Borders” is like calling Limited Government “Anarchy”.
You know what the difference is Dave.
Just how “free” do you suppose immigration is in Australia? I’ve BEEN there and have a nephew living in Brisbane today–and has been for almost 15 years now. Australia is VERY restrictive as to who they will allow into the country. For decades, NO person of Asian ancestry was allowed to become an Australian citizen. That’s changed (slightly) since I was there in 1968, but they still have strict rules about Asian immigration as well as Muslim immigration into their country.
Why is that even a question? Oh, it must be rhetorical, because that is exactly what he proposes; completely open, unenforced borders and unrestricted immigration, inevitably leading to the economic and political dissolution of the United States of America under a flood of freeloaders.
Freer than ours, with better outcomes.
In the 1980s, they, New Zealand, and Ireland got a face lift in their regulationsl embracing freer markets, and freer immigration.
It’s worked out pretty well. Australia is currently King for the country with the longest growth streak without a recession.
BTW Dave, here’s an immigrant testifying to just how “wonderful” our system is in reality:
You can read his other 5 points here.
False; my standpoint is Freer Immigration. A clearer, simpler, more transparent legal immigration system, will solve illegal immigration.
Calling this the same as Open borders, is the same as calling Limited Government = Anarchy.
Less = more. That’s the conservative standpoint on Government.
Complicated, opaque systems, gives you crap outcomes. Where in Government is this not true qix?
And why would immigration respond any differently?
We respond differently because YOU’VE decided that illegal immigration “helps” the American economy and society in general. You’ve said as much…and it’s mostly a bunch of BS.
It does; America has labor shortages, sorting out those shortages helps the economy.
It doesn’t, Black markets have defects on society; they spur on corruption. So does having an underclass operating in the dark, away from legal protections.
So we can get the economic benefit, while avoiding the societal defect, by bringing in more legal immigrants. Deregulating labor would also help; Trump seems to agree on that one.
BS. We’ve got a shortage of CHEAP, unskilled labor, but hiring people here illegally isn’t the answer. Raise the wages for those unfilled jobs and watch how fast they fill up with LEGAL workers.
You’re agreeing with me then; a labor shortage is a labor shortage, and companies can’t work at their full potential without it.
It’s because they’re experiencing the same shortage, that Japan is importing people from the mainland to do low-skill labor work.
That just leads to the work overshoring.
Wages compete in a market, not a vacuum of whatever wage rate people want.
This is why minimum wage arguments are faulty.