Are we losing touch?

[franklin]

I really think that the immigration issue is where conservatives lose all credibility. For instance, they fight for "free markets" when it comes to tax policy, yet forget that free flow of labor is an essential component of free markets. Open borders is a part of free markets, like it or not.

Maybe Laissez-faire, but free markets require regulation. Then again, the conservative base seems more in favor of Laissez-faire these days, the party majority less so, however. I guess we forgot about mercantilism, Robber Barons, and all that Jefferson, Madison, etc. worried about feudalism. But hey, that part of original intent doesn't mesh with certain values and can be forgotten.

You clarified your thoughts nicely and made a solid argument, but I just don't buy the open border policy.

Conservatives also betray their love of freedom and capitalism in their refusal to end Americas ongoing civil war, also known as the war on drugs.

I'm not anti-drug or anti-drug user or pro-prisoning "offenders", but don't some things become too dangerous to society that we must regulate or outlaw them? I mean, doing hard drugs is just as much of an individual right as driving drunk. I don't think we should wait until the individual causes harm before throwing the book at them.

 

[babe]

So here's my breakout on this:

QUOTE]Maybe Laissez-faire, but free markets require regulation. Then again, the conservative base seems more in favor of Laissez-faire these days, the party majority less so, however. I guess we forgot about mercantilism, Robber Barons, and all that Jefferson, Madison, etc. worried about feudalism. But hey, that part of original intent doesn't mesh with certain values and can be forgotten.[/QUOTE]

The principal mass of "original intent" was to prevent government from becoming a tool of oppression like it had been under the Brits, so it was deliberately designed to be a weak central government, and in order to keep the States supreme and willing to sign on, they left slavery unresolved, and state religions in various states still living off their official state monopolies/state tax funding. Lawyers might make their living off "original intent", but I think citizens need to invoke "original intent" and push for a lot of reforms that will once again put human inalienable rights back on the table, and undercut the role corporates and their lobbyists are playing in setting human rights back to the dark ages.

You clarified your thoughts nicely and made a solid argument, but I just don't buy the open border policy.

I'm with you on this one. Immigration is for people who want to become Americans, not for people who just want a cut-rate job that only works because of the manipulated currency exchange rates. Being willing to comply with our laws is the first clue as to who wants to become fully invested in Freedom.

I'm not anti-drug or anti-drug user or pro-prisoning "offenders", but don't some things become too dangerous to society that we must regulate or outlaw them? I mean, doing hard drugs is just as much of an individual right as driving drunk. I don't think we should wait until the individual causes harm before throwing the book at them.

Pot became illegal when Du Pont invented nylon, and wanted to eliminate hemp rope from its competition. Even then, some countries had a lot of pot culture, like Morocco for example, but except for a few hayseed farmers it was just not a social issue. And Coke really had coke back then, and it was "cool". We need a better way to deal with it all without just stuffing our jails with "perps" who were having "fun". Focus on offenders' dangerous/illegal actions. Drop the "War" mentality and eliminate the police state support system of confiscation of private property.

 

[PearlWatson]

Sorry I kind of went off on a rant more than I addressed your comment.
I don't have the time, interest or required skill to fully explain my whole picture view on this, but I feel that if you do not provide social safety nets for failure then you don't attract people who come to your country in order to take advantage of them. At that point (when people succeed or fail based on their own merits) you have nothing to fear from immigration because people coming in will understand that they have to make it and be productive to enjoy the good life opportunities that exist here. I'm perfectly happy to watch social programs ruin this country just so long as after the fact people are able to realize that was the cause.

This post makes up for the off point rant.

It is an excellent point you are making about social safety nets. In the Ellis Island days they only allowed "able bodied" and healthy immigrants through and sent the rest back. So if you got some disease on the ship coming over you were out of luck. The only way they could do that was because they had one entry point, though. The state did provide free education for the children that came...and there were racial/ethnic mutual aid societies.
Why are you "perfectly happy" to let social programs ruin this country?...seems like an awful price to pay to teach people a lesson that they won't be willing to admit to anyway.

To me immigration is a freedom and individual rights issue. The people in Mexico suffer from a corrupt and unjust government. I don't think a person who wants to get away from that should be trapped into it by a nation that claims to be the shining light of freedom and liberty. It is as though we as natural born U.S. citizens feel that we somehow have a right to our freedom and liberty, while others do not. All people have individual rights (according to my view of what individual rights are) and it takes government action to reduce or eliminate those rights. When people being oppressed want to escape oppression by coming here I don't think it makes any sense or is consistent with our values to stop them at the gate and force tehm back into the arms of their oppressors. We don't own freedom, we enjoy it in as close to it's natural form as we are allowed. All humans have a right to be free and I feel compelled to support anyone who seeks freedom.

It is a freedom from oppression issue as long as they are coming to America and are willing to embrace this country and it's laws (social contract*) as their own. If they care more about la raza or flying the Mexican flag than that is a clear indication they don't.

*According to Thomas Hobbes, human life would be "nasty, brutish, and short" without political authority. In its absence, we would live in a state of nature, where each person has unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which each gains civil rights in return for subjecting himself to civil law or to political authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxnBSb4OKeU

So to me saying that we have our national sovereignty so we can build a fence and keep all the unwanted people out is inconsistent with the view that all people should be free to come and go as they please. I do not belong to the United States. Mexicans do not belong to the Mexican government. We are all humans and have a right to be where we want to be. I think the better solution is to create a system where individual freedom is not a threat to the system. If it is then it is the system that is wrong, not individual freedom, liberty and rights.

I don't hold that view between countries. America can only function if those who enter are willing to abide by our laws. Again the whole social contract thing. The ideal thing would be if we could banish one criminal/moocher for one oppressed person who was willing to abide by the laws and contribute to society in a positive way.