Cruz Joins Trump in Promising Expulsion of '12 Million Illegal Aliens'

"Yes, we should deport them," the Texas senator says.

Fox News

In a recent column about Republican presidential candidates' increasingly tough rhetoric on immigration, I said Ted Cruz "does not go quite as far" as Donald Trump, who has promised mass deportation in addition to a border wall. Cruz seems determined to close that distance. In a Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly last night, the Texas senator insisted he would track down unauthorized immigrants and send them packing:

O'Reilly: [There are] 12 million illegal aliens here in America. Mr. Trump says he would deport them forcibly. The federal authorities would round them up and send them back home. It costs a lot of money, but he says it's worth it, because we just can't allow the law to be broken this way. Would you round up 12 million illegal aliens here, and if so how?

Cruz: Listen, we should enforce the law. How do we enforce the law? Yes, we should deport them. We should build a wall, we should triple the Border Patrol, and federal law requires that anyone here illegally that's apprehended should be deported. 

O'Reilly: Mr. Trump would look for them to get them out. Would you do that if you were president?

Cruz: Bill, of course you would. That's what ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] exists for. We have law enforcement that looks for people who are violating the law, apprehends them, and deports them.

Presumably the promise to round up and expel millions of people who are living and working in the United States without official permission is not part of Cruz's new appeal to libertarian-leaning Republicans. It is instead aimed at primary voters who are attracted by Trump's wall-building nativism. But since mass deportation is not popular even among Republicans, let alone the general public, Cruz runs the risk of alienating voters the GOP nominee will need to win the general election.

The polling firm Latino Decisions calculates that the Republican presidential nominee will need at least 42 percent of the Hispanic vote to win the election this year. Mitt Romney, who said he would encourage "self-deportation" by making economic conditions intolerable for unauthorized immigrants, won just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, down from 44 percent for George W. Bush in 2004. It's hard to imagine that a candidate pushing mass deportation at gunpoint will do any better.

Comments

[Hugh Akston]

So this is how Ted Cruz goes down, as a washed out Trump-lite.

[Gray Ghost]

FWIW, this has been Cruz's position all along. He and Trump have marketed themselves from the start as the anti-amnesty, anti-illegal immigration candidates in this primary. So I'm not sure why statements like this from his camp are surprising anyone.

One reason why I don't think a lot of Cruz's supporters will go over to Rubio, should Cruz drop out.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

to thunderous applause.

[Cytotoxic]

That's the death rattle. Every candidate that has attempted to go 'diet Trump' has failed after that attempt. It's pointless to try and win over a cult of retards.

[EndTheGOP]

For all of you dunderheads out there who haven't grasped the concept of how to get the illegal aliens out of the country; who think it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to perform this task, I'm here to tell you how it will be done at a fraction of the cost to allow them to stay here and give them welfare, medical, schooling, etc.

All Mr Trump has to do is have congress impose a $250,000 fine per illegal alien on any employer who hires them. And while illegal aliens may not be able to read English, they sure in the hell can read the writing on the wall and they will self-deport within 6 months.

Is there anything else you need the answer to? I'm here to help.

[ace_m82]

So, you've decided to stand between the producer and consumer in the labor market?

Do you have any idea of the terrible history of government interfering in the market? How dare a third party interfere with the mutually beneficial economic decisions of 2 other parties!

[Crusty Juggler]

GAH BROWN HORDES!

[Lord Humungus]

You know who else wanted to expel undesirables...

[GILMORE?]

Warty?

[GILMORE?]

Principal Skinner?

[SugarFree]

STEVE SMITH DESIRE ALL!

[DJF]

So Cruz says he will enforce the laws that have been on the books since the Reagan amnesty.

[Apatheist ?_??]

I guess he should also come out and say that he'll enforce Obamacare too. After all, it is the law.

[DJF]

It is the law. The thing to do is to change the law if that is needed. Not pull an Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush and pick and chose what laws to enforce

[Cytotoxic]

Thanks but I'll take a pass on the law fetishism. More of a freedom guy.

[BigT]

It is the law. The thing to do is to change the law if that is needed. Not pull an Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush and pick and chose what laws to enforce

Would you support sending troops door to door to track down these illegals? I hope not.

So there is some discretion as to how the law is enforced. Focus on those illegals who commit crimes - even relatively petty crimes - and you would get broad support, even among the other illegals who are the primary victims of those crimes.

[Agammamon]

Better - get rid of the low-skill VISA quotas, change the idea that people who come to this country *must* be on a path to citizenship, create/expand a program for temporary residence-work-permitting.

Then the incentive to *sneak in* and deal with the associated costs drops. And now the only illegals you have to deal with are the ones you'd want to deport for reasons *other* than 'well they crossed the border illegally', as now illegal immigration because a useful proxy for 'probably a criminal scumbag in his own country which is why he *had* to sneak into ours'.

[BigT]

Better - get rid of the low-skill VISA quotas, change the idea that people who come to this country *must* be on a path to citizenship, create/expand a program for temporary residence-work-permitting.

Yes.

I'm not sure we could eliminate quotas. Would we be comfortable with 50 million immigrants in a single year? I would not. But certainly the quotas could be relaxed so that the immigrants were up to say 1% of current population (or something similar).

[Heroic Mulatto]

I'm not sure we could eliminate quotas.

You can eliminate them de jure, but you can't eliminate the fact that a bottleneck will arise from the simple mathematics that INS can only handle so many people per day per year.

[buybuydandavis]

Obama care is not constitutional no matter what The Supremes say.

[prolefeed]

Vigorously enforce, as in triple the border patrol and build even more walls.

[Agammamon]

Don't forget the on-demand-ID laws, criminal checkpoints, facial recognition scanners, RFID scanners, and internal passports.

Until and unless a candidate is willing to own up to the above - he's simply not serious about tackling the 'illegal' problem, no matter what his rhetoric.

Not even Trump is willing to go that far and that should be pointed out to any of your friends/associates who support him/Cruz for his anti-illegal immigration stance. Tell them that until he's willing to do the above he's simply not serious about the issue and is just pandering to them to get their votes and will dump them the minute he's elected.

[Cytotoxic]

Let's hope you're right!

[Detroit Linguist]

Thank you for pointing out the virulently anti-libertarian implications of the 'deport them all' rhetoric. Regardless of your opinion on WHETHER they should be deported, actually accomplishing it would be so totalitarian as a result that our liberties (what's left of them after 9/11) would be effectively abolished.

[Agammamon]

Its been my opinion for a long time that, whatever evils immigration - legal or otherwise - brings (and I won't pretend there aren't significant problems with both types) the *solution* required to fully secure the border (internal and external) is far, far worse.

I look at it much the same way as a lot of us here do firearms and weapons in general - there's some bad shit associated with letting people have easy access these things, but the alternative is significantly worse than the problems we have now.

[buybuydandavis]

Deporting them all does not require that you need to immediately capture every single one of them.

All that crap is simply not required. You can deport as they are identified by government interaction.

[Zombie Jimbo]

Latino Decisions says that the nominee will need 42% of the Latino vote to win.

I'm sure they are a completely objective organization.

[prolefeed]

Pick the swing states, and see if the have large latino populations. Saying you need 42% of the votes of latino votes nationwide is meaningless.

[Ken Shultz]

I'm more or less an open borders guy myself. We should have a treaty with Mexico that lets people come across seeking work so long as they can provide reliable identification showing that they aren't convicted felons, are immunized against certain diseases, etc.

Pending that, I don't have a problem with the idea that illegal aliens should be deported. They should also be ticketed for running red lights, arrested if they commit spousal abuse, and made to pay their bar tabs. They shouldn't get a free pass on the law just because they're illegal aliens.

If the legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, and protecting our rights from foreign threats requires the government to control who comes across our borders, then the government should deport people who come across our borders illegally.

This libertarian doesn't have a problem with that, and that seems to be, pretty much, what Cruz said.

[Cytotoxic]

The current immigration laws do not protect American rights at all. They violate those rights. You are engaged in some blatant and obvious rationalizing.

[ace_m82]

Speaking of rationalizing, if NAP is what libertarians stand for, then how would they defend taxation?

[Cytotoxic]

Necessary to implement the state that is required to prevent a much greater degree of NAP violation. Finding the bottom of the curve.

[Freedom Frog]

So you don't agree with NAP then.

[Cytotoxic]

Read my post again. With your brain on.

[Free Society]

Non Aggression Principle

The N stands for "non", which is a term of negation.

[Freedom Frog]

I read it. There is no 'yeah, but...' when it comes to freedom.

[Free Society]

"Yeah but I want these goods and services provided to me by tax payers."

[Freedom Frog]

Fun fact: Before modern governments there were no roads anywhere in the world.

[sarcasmic]

Ah yes. The inevitable "You support taxes so you're not a real libertarian" jibe.

*yawn*

I don't know about other people, but I certainly don't support taxation. I just accept it as an unavoidable part of life. So long as some group of men employs violence to get what they want, as in government or tribal leaders or gangs or whatever, then they will steal under the guise of taxation. Like death, it can't be avoided. Thugs gonna thug, and there will always be thugs.
The question becomes what those stolen monies should legitimately be used for. But those monies will be taken. Can't avoid it. Accept it and move on.

[Freedom Frog]

So you're a Cleveland Browns fan?

[ace_m82]

Like death, it can't be avoided.

Yes it can, and has.

Thugs gonna thug, and there will always be thugs.

That's what guns are for.

The question becomes what those stolen monies should legitimately be used for. But those monies will be taken. Can't avoid it. Accept it and move on.

The question becomes what those [immigration laws, government licensing, sin taxes, etc.] should legitimately be used for. Accept it and move on.

[sarcasmic]

Sorry ace, but organized violence will always triumph over the individual. Always. Individuals with guns will always lose to organized men with guns. Always. That's just the way it is. And those organized men will use the fact that they have the last word in violence as license to steal. Always. Life ain't fair. Get used to it.
/Life 101

[Free Society]

Sorry ace, but organized violence will always triumph over the individual. Always. Individuals with guns will always lose to organized men with guns.

organized= tax financed?

[sarcasmic]

organized= tax financed?

Maybe not initially, but once the competition has been killed off it will. That's why a free market in security and justice will not work. There is an incentive to literally kill off the competition, because once you do so you can literally steal from your customers. Who's going to stop you? You've got the last word in violence. You have more friends with guns than any individual customers. You will always win. It ain't fair, but it's life.

[Free Society]

Security and justice are economic products like all other goods and services. I don't see the need to carve out an exception to my opposition towards central planning just because those services are typically monopolized by criminal gangs at present.

[ace_m82]

Sorry ace, but organized violence will always triumph over the individual.

Perhaps over the individual, though with modern semi-autos that's questionable. I'm saying that they won't triumph over the free-market militia.

[sarcasmic]

Then the free-market militia will replace them. That's just how it goes. Once a group of men has the last word in violence, they will use it as a license to steal under the guise of taxation or tribute or some such thing. That's life.

[ace_m82]

Then the free-market militia will replace them.

Excepting when the free-market militia quits protecting rights, people won't support them (or join them) anymore. What killed off liberty here is abandonment of the militia in support of a standing army (supported by the taxation of the Fed).

Once a group of men has the last word in violence, they will use it as a license to steal under the guise of taxation

Who said they have the last word? Who says there's no competition in militias? Why would competition certainly be killed off here but not in other free-market entities? After all, people are much more likely to be willing to defend their homes rather than attack them... And the defenders usually win anyhow.

You have assertions but little evidence.

[Free Society]

Who said they have the last word? Who says there's no competition in militias?

I'm not sure militias represent a free market solution to the production of security and justice. Better alternative to the state perhaps, but probably inferior to that of a network of private contracts, security firms, courts and insurance companies.

[sarcasmic]

Who said they have the last word? Who says there's no competition in militias? Why would competition certainly be killed off here but not in other free-market entities?

A little thought experiment here. Let's say you contract with Justice X and I contract with Justice Y. I steal something from you, and you want justice. However Justice Y doesn't much give a shit about you or your complaint. You haven't given them any money, and I have, so fuck you. And if you want Justice X to serve justice to me, you have to go through Justice Y, since from their point of view that is an initiation of force. Now what? How do you get justice, other than by Justice X defeating Justice Y? Let's say Justice X and Justice Y duke it out, and your contractor kills my contractor, then goes after me. You win. You get justice. Now as that process continues, Justice X becomes a monopoly. Any upstarts are quickly defeated. Before long, Justice X decides to raise it's prices, and do violence on anyone who doesn't like it. Fuck you, that's why. Justice X is now government. Sure, I don't have much in the way of evidence, but I do have logic on my side.

[ace_m82]

How do you get justice, other than by Justice X defeating Justice Y?

No-one wants a war of annihilation. Arbitration seems much more likely. Also, there would likely be some sort of "thou shalt not steal/murder" clause in your contract, even to those outside the contractor's purview, right?

Also, if Justice X becomes so evil, then people stop paying and make their own. If Justice X tries to kill its own constituents, people stop paying. No payment, no money, no Justice X.

Also, again, assaults usually fail. Attacks suck and defenders have better incentive to fight. Though, if you want me to defend a thief or murderer, I'm more likely to capture him and hand him over rather than risk a full war for a jerk.

So, basically this is the same argument that all government worshipers make to "prove" that monopolies would take over without governmental intervention (failing to see that 90+% of monopolies are created by government). So no, you don't have logic on your side.

[sarcasmic]

No-one wants a war of annihilation.

If winning means gaining the power to tax, you can surely bet some will risk it.

Also, there would likely be some sort of "thou shalt not steal/murder" clause in your contract, even to those outside the contractor's purview, right?

Not necessarily.

Also, if Justice X becomes so evil, then people stop paying and make their own. If Justice X tries to kill its own constituents, people stop paying. No payment, no money, no Justice X.

If there is no competition to protect the people from Justice X, then what? That's like saying if we stopped paying taxes then there would be no government. Doesn't work that way. They take what they want, and lock you up or kill you if you don't like it. They'll hang you up by the neck as an example for the others who don't want to pay. Pretty soon the others will pay.

The difference between other market entities is that we're talking about violence. That is the product in question. You're talking about mini-governments competing over who wants to pay them to do violence on their behalf. Well, there is a word for that. It's called war. And the winner gets the monopoly on violence which gives them the power to tax.

"..in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes" -Ben Franklin

[ace_m82]

If winning means gaining the power to tax, you can surely bet some will risk it.

Would you?

Not necessarily.

You're right. The ones who didn't would risk annihilation though.

If there is no competition to protect the people from Justice X, then what?

You're assuming your conclusion, that there is no competition therefore there is no competition.

Doesn't work that way. They take what they want, and lock you up or kill you if you don't like it. They'll hang you up by the neck as an example for the others who don't want to pay. Pretty soon the others will pay.

That's the beauty of the militia, it won't gather to kill it's own, and certainly not people like me (even my fellow Marines were scared of me). They don't invade and they don't kill their own.

You're talking about mini-governments competing over who wants to pay them to do violence on their behalf.

No, because borders wouldn't be defined as governments do it and there would be competition. Either way, your best argument against my proposal is that it would be, at worst, as bad as it is now!

[sarcasmic]

I'm not against your proposal. It sounds nice enough. I'm just pointing out where it would lead. We're not talking about groceries or cars here. We're talking about companies that do violence on your behalf. What happens when there is a conflict between companies? What stops it from turning violent? What stops one company from seeking to gain a monopoly by literally killing off the competition, especially when the reward for that monopoly is the power to tax? Companies seek to use government to create monopolies for them because they can't literally kill off the competition. But companies that deal in violence could. And would. Because the reward is the power to tax and kill and create legislation and basically do whatever the fuck they want because no one can stop them.

[ace_m82]

I'm just pointing out where it would lead.

You did give a good scenario as to where it might lead. You didn't give very good reasons as to why it must lead there.

What stops it from turning violent?

In the long run? Profit motive. You may say "government", and yes, that's where much of their incentive comes from to keep their profit motive, but it's isn't the only place and isn't the only way. If the company thought it best to turn to violence and pay whatever "fine" (prison term, whatever) the government demanded, they would turn to violence (look at the Pinkertons).

What stops one company from seeking to gain a monopoly by literally killing off the competition

Again, profit motive. If you have a company that kills its competitors, I will go kill it off myself if no-one else will.

What stops one company from seeking to gain a monopoly by literally killing off the competition

The guns the company uses is the guns of those it wants to tax (in a militia format). Good luck gathering the militia to use force of arms on itself to steal from itself.

All your arguments are fairly valid, but incomplete. All of them are good arguments for militias instead of "foreign" forces. All of them are, at worst, as bad as your resignation to government power is at its best.

[Free Society]

All your arguments are fairly valid, but incomplete.

If that were true, then by his reckoning we should see all the governments of the world, whom all operate in a state of anarchy vis a vis each other, constantly at war, not extraditing criminals, no treaties for cooperation of justice systems, no means of arbitrating disputes beyond one country's borders, no system of international law whatsoever and ultimately one country exterminating every other country in existence as a matter of constant inevitability.

He's operating off of assumptions that don't have a logical basis because even tax financed governments don't behave towards each other in the modern world the way he describes, and worse yet he assumes that free market entities actually would do so without the corrupting influence of having a involuntary investors.

[ace_m82]

OK, well, then his arguments are possible, just not terribly likely.

[sarcasmic]

Governments of the world have the monopoly on organized violence within the territory they control. ace is postulating a scenario where there is competition within that territory. So your counterargument is based upon a false premise. You know what an argument based upon a false premise is? Yeah. A fallacy.

[ace_m82]

What he's saying, is even when the evil governments have total control over their chunk of ground, there are still agreements between them to deal with crime. Ergo, it's totally reasonable to think that any company would do the same with a different company.

[sarcasmic]

I disagree. Having the monopoly on the initiation of violence is the power to tax. That right there is incentive to forgo agreements and just wipe out the competition. Justice X could make a lot more money with the power to tax then it could by competing with Justice Y. Companies plot and scheme all the time to wipe out the competition. In the case of administering violence, they could do more than plot and scheme. They could literally do it. Then they would have the power to say "Fuck you, that's why your rates just tripled. Pay up or we'll kill your family."

[ace_m82]

Having the monopoly on the initiation of violence is the power to tax.

Who said this company or militia had a monopoly on the initiation of violence?

Justice X could make a lot more money with the power to tax then it could by competing with Justice Y

Then why doesn't the US just invade Russia and tax their citizens? It's the same idea.

In the case of administering violence, they could do more than plot and scheme. They could literally do it.

Not if they didn't have a monopoly on the initiation of violence (the initiation of violence being a violation of NAP to begin with).

Again, none of this is an argument against a militia that wouldn't take kindly to being ordered to tax itself.

[sarcasmic]

Who said this company or militia had a monopoly on the initiation of violence?

Are you saying that once they have no more competition over a given geographical area, that they will not?

Then why doesn't the US just invade Russia and tax their citizens? It's the same idea.

Do you have a choice between paying the Russian government or the American government for protection? No. Because each has the monopoly on the initiation of violence over their territory. They aren't in competition with each other over the same customers.

Not if they didn't have a monopoly on the initiation of violence (the initiation of violence being a violation of NAP to begin with).

If they don't have any competition, then they will. That's the whole point. And I doubt that they would give a shit about the NAP. Most people don't.

Again, none of this is an argument against a militia that wouldn't take kindly to being ordered to tax itself.

That doesn't make any sense. That's like the progressives who say that government is us and we are government. We're talking about people whose job is to mete out justice. That requires the power to initiate violence. That is how it is done. Once you have more armed buddies than any individual customers that you encounter, then they cease to be customers. They become taxpayers.

[Free Society]

We're talking about people whose job is to mete out justice. That requires the power to initiate violence. That is how it is done.

Has a more powerful country ever extradited a criminal defendant to a less powerful country? How could that possibly be, the less powerful country has more men with guns. Impossible!

[ace_m82]

Are you saying that once they have no more competition over a given geographical area, that they will not?

You are assuming that which can't be assumed. Lack of competition is no more certain here than in any free market activity. Also, the militia won't aggress against itself!

Do you have a choice between paying the Russian government or the American government for protection?

Actually, I could move if I wanted, so yes, I do. But either way, competition in a certain territory would lead to better results, it would be hard to imagine it being worse, right?

And I doubt that they would give a shit about the NAP. Most people don't.

They do when you tell them to "get off my lawn" like Clint did. Then they are all about not aggressing... Again, the reason you steal is because you think you'll be better off if you do. Give someone a reason to think they'll die and they won't think they're better off...

That doesn't make any sense.

Not sure you understand how a militia works...

That's like the progressives who say that government is us and we are government.

Not at all. The government has hired goons (police, army, whatever). The militia is the people, directly.
(continued)

[ace_m82]

We're talking about people whose job is to mete out justice. That requires the power to initiate violence.

No. By (the only good) definition, justice is repayment and only repayment. Therefore, if you mete out justice, there is no initiation of violence, just a repayment of violence.

Once you have more armed buddies than any individual customers that you encounter, then they cease to be customers.

The customers are the militia. You don't understand how a militia works...
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
That's why tyranny needs a standing "army" of some sort.

[Free Society]

That right there is incentive to forgo agreements and just wipe out the competition.

And yet states, that have this power unlike private firms, are not just forgoing agreements and wiping each other out left and right.

Companies plot and scheme all the time to wipe out the competition.

Who can forget Apple's early morning raid on the IBM headquarters back in '95? It was a bloodbath.

In the case of administering violence, they could do more than plot and scheme. They could literally do it. Then they would have the power to say "Fuck you, that's why your rates just tripled. Pay up or we'll kill your family."

Governments literally have this incentive and the power to wipe each other out. Yet very rarely do modern states actually do so.

Again, your claim is that sovereign entities, without some common overlord(s) will resort to violence and total warfare at the first chance they get. Yet this is a tremendous assumption since even these tax funded governments around the world rarely behave this way towards one another. They maintain their treaties and agreements for the vast majority of their interactions in the vast majority of places.

It's worth repeating that territoriality and taxes are irrelevant to the question of whether or not two companies can cooperate without some kind of central overlord over them both, which is your central thesis here.

[sarcasmic]

It's worth repeating that territoriality and taxes are irrelevant to the question of whether or not two companies can cooperate without some kind of central overlord over them both, which is your central thesis here.

A central overlord? Like some overlord with the last word in violence over those two companies that can be used to force them to cooperate? Like... a government?

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore.

[Free Society]

A central overlord? Like some overlord with the last word in violence over those two companies that can be used to force them to cooperate? Like... a government?

YES. Like a government, finally.

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore.

We'll have to add that to the list of things you willfully don't understand.

[sarcasmic]

Willfully? I thought you were an anarchist. As in no government. Now you want a government (by definition a group of men with the last word in violence) to administer competing groups of men who use violence?

No, I don't understand. And it isn't willful.

[Free Society]

Willfully? I thought you were an anarchist. As in no government. Now you want a government (by definition a group of men with the last word in violence) to administer competing groups of men who use violence?

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. You are really off on your own here.

Your argument up to this point has been that two protection agencies cannot possibly cooperate without some kind of overlord governing over them making them play nice. I say that's not true. Are you really so far removed form this conversation that you're unaware of that? This is the definition of obtuse.

[Free Society]

Governments of the world have the monopoly on organized violence within the territory they control. ace is postulating a scenario where there is competition within that territory.

And the governments of the real world operate in a scenario where there is competition within the territory known as Earth.

So your counterargument is based upon a false premise. You know what an argument based upon a false premise is? Yeah. A fallacy.

Since territoriality is irrelevant to your contention that sovereign entities face overwhelming non-cooperation because they deal with each other without a clear overlord governing them both, I guess the fallacy belongs to you.

[sarcasmic]

And the governments of the real world operate in a scenario where there is competition within the territory known as Earth.

We're talking about competition within the same territory. The same geographical area. Like a country or state. God, you're obtuse. But I've come to expect that from you. I have to make the same arguments over and over to you, and you always respond the next day as if you didn't comprehend a single word. You're worse than Tony. Don't be surprised if I start to ignore you completely.

[Free Society]

We're talking about competition within the same territory.

And in this analogy the "territory" where the analogous sovereign entities are competing is called "Earth".

God, you're obtuse

Says the guy constantly squirming to change the terms of the debate every chance he gets.

I have to make the same arguments over and over to you, and you always respond the next day as if you didn't comprehend a single word.

Make your arguments not stupid, for starters. You on the other hand have lost this debate probably fifty times in a dozen different ways and think that if you repeat your failed arguments over and over they become good arguments.

Don't be surprised if I start to ignore you completely.

Like I give a fuck what some loser who always calls his opponents Tony does. How often do I go the insult route on you? Only after you cross that line yourself, even then very rarely because I'm better than that and I'm better than you. But today I make an exception.

Even though starting out the conversation I know you to be an intellectually dishonest halfwit that can't help but have temper tantrums when the debate doesn't go his way, I keep it to myself. I treat people civilly right up until the point where they can't be bothered to treat me the same. Every good faith discussion with you turns into a disappointment. They always will, because that's who you are.

[sarcasmic]

You say that different governments with the monopoly on the initiation of violence over their separate territory is the same as protection companies competing for meting out violence over the same territory, and then you call me stupid and intellectually dishonest?

I compare people to Tony because that idiot considers fallacies to be compelling arguments. You, whether you realize it or not, are doing the same thing. You start with false premises, like governments with the monopoly on the initiation of violence in a given geographical area is the same as protection companies competing over the same geographical area, and make arguments from there. What am I supposed to do? Entertain you? Go along with your false premises? Because if I try to be intellectually honest you accuse me of the opposite.

Whatever. I come here for honest debate. And it is looking like I won't get that with you.

[Free Society]

Governments operate in a state of anarchy vis a vis each other, no? Or is there a world government exercising sovereignty over all of them?

You don't go anywhere looking for an honest debate. You look for people to agree with you and then stomp your feet like a child when someone doesn't.

[sarcasmic]

Governments have a monopoly over their territory. When there are disputes over who has the last word in violence over some piece of dirt, they tend to go to war. My understanding, maybe I was wrong, was that you propose groups of men cooperatively competing over who uses violence over the same territory. That is not comparable to governments. Not comparable at all because governments have a monopoly over their territory. I really don't know what you are talking about. I don't. What you are saying is a contradiction as far as I am concerned.

[Free Society]

When there are disputes over who has the last word in violence over some piece of dirt, they tend to go to war.

This is you assuming that two companies can't operate in the same piece of dirt. And yet, on a global scale, that's exactly what they do.

[Free Society]

was that you propose groups of men cooperatively competing over who uses violence over the same territory.

Yes and they can. Contracts between companies and between costumers spells out exactly who can use violence and where and against whom. You are the one who claims this would break down into chaos because there isn't a government lording over both of them to make them play nice. What I'm saying with my analogy is that this is not the case as evidenced by the real world existence of entities interacting cooperatively without an overlord to forcing them to do so. No one country has a monopoly on Earth, countries prosecute each other's citizens all the time. The extradite each other's citizens all the time without going to war, because war is not cheap. It's not cheap for governments that have printing presses and it certainly wouldn't be cheap for free market companies that don't have printing presses.

There's really nothing more for me to add this evening.

[sarcasmic]

This is you assuming that two companies can't operate in the same piece of dirt. And yet, on a global scale, that's exactly what they do.

Alright. Now I'm just going to write you off. If you can't understand the difference between planet Earth and the divided territories over the planet in which governments operate, then you aren't worth talking to. Good day.

[sarcasmic]

And in this analogy the "territory" where the analogous sovereign entities are competing is called "Earth".

Not the same piece of earth. I thought the whole point was having non-sovereign entities competing over the same piece of dirt. And I am the one changing the terms?

By the way, you haven't "won" once. All you have done is misconstrued what I have said until I got tired. My giving up on you isn't you winning.

Maybe it is my fault. Maybe I truly don't understand what you are saying. But one thing is definitely for sure: you don't understand what I am saying. And I am sick of saying it.

[Free Society]

Not the same piece of earth. I thought the whole point was having non-sovereign entities competing over the same piece of dirt. And I am the one changing the terms?

How is that Dell and IBM can sell products in the geographic area? Is that impossible for some reason?

You're the one hung up on territorial for some reason. Private protection agencies wouldn't necessarily need a geographic monopoly in order to operate. Let that sink in before you bother to respond.

[sarcasmic]

Private protection agencies wouldn't necessarily need a geographic monopoly in order to operate.

What happens when they come into conflict? Some central arbitrator decides? How does that arbitrator enforce its decisions without its own army? How many legions does the Pope have? Or the Supreme Court?

Some arbitrator can make a decision, but if no one cares, then what? It must be enforced. With violence if necessary. So someone has to have the last word in violence for any decision to stick. Or it is merely a suggestion.

Who has that last word? And what stops that agency with the last word in violence from forcing the people living in the geographical area in which they have sway to pay taxes?

[sarcasmic]

Profit motive? Why bother to compete for profits when you can kill the competition and then send gangs of thugs to collect taxes? Profits require pleasing your customers. That requires work. It is much easier to just tax people.

[ace_m82]

You assume that "profit" implies competition. In fact, even total monopolies have to account for profit.

Taxing people is much "easier", unless your tax man is a militia that is sent to tax itself... Doesn't really work, now does it?

[Free Society]

Profit motive? Why bother to compete for profits when you can kill the competition and then send gangs of thugs to collect taxes? Profits require pleasing your customers. That requires work. It is much easier to just tax people.

Why bother to keep tax rates below 99% if you can *just* conquer every other state in the world so there's nowhere for capital to flee? Oh right, because you can't *just* do that as though it were a simple thing.

[sarcasmic]

Why bother to keep tax rates below 99% if you can *just* conquer every other state in the world so there's nowhere for capital to flee?

Again, the discussion was about companies competing for the power to initiate violence over the same area of territory. Are you deliberately obtuse, or just stupid?

[Free Society]

Again, the discussion was about companies competing for the power to initiate violence over the same area of territory. Are you deliberately obtuse, or just stupid?

You really don't understand how analogies work. You say two companies ungoverned by a state can't compete without shooting each other constantly. And I respond that, yet real world governments do this every single day despite not having a world-government ruling over them both. I get why you keep calling me obtuse at every opportunity, because intellectual cripples like yourself project, project and then project some more.

[Free Society]

However Justice Y doesn't much give a shit about you or your complaint. You haven't given them any money, and I have, so fuck you. And if you want Justice X to serve justice to me, you have to go through Justice Y, since from their point of view that is an initiation of force. Now what?

Justice Y wouldn't be in business very long if disputes involving their clients always came to blows, the avoidance of which is why people would seek out the services of courts to begin with. If I'm looking over my options of a court firm to arbitrate my disputes, I'm not going to pick the one that gets a terrible rating owing to the fact that it has no contracts with other justice firms to resolve disputes.

[Free Society]

Now as that process continues, Justice X becomes a monopoly.

A giant leap in circumstances. Assuming that dispute resolution has an economy of scale, which even in state systems you can see is not the case. We don't see the Supreme Court arbitrate every traffic violation and civil suit in existence. We don't even see grossly overburdened federal courts doing that stuff. Even in our monopoly cartel of justice, there are subdivisions within subdivisions within subdivisions, handling household disputes, local disputes, national and international disputes.

And in regards to international disputes, the existence of international law itself works against this logic of yours. We have 190+ ostensibly sovereign entities operating in the world with widely varying cultural practices, legal norms and ethical standards and yet state versus state warfare is at an all time low and there exists a web of extradition treaties and court systems that exist solely to arbitrate disputes between people operating out of grossly divergent legal systems.

[Free Society]

Ah yes. The inevitable "You support taxes so you're not a real libertarian" jibe.

More of a "you support taxes so you're not consistently applying the NAP". I don't see how that's even up for debate.

[sarcasmic]

There is a big difference between supporting taxation and accepting things you cannot change. You can conflate the two if you wish, but that only makes you look like an idiot.

[Freedom Frog]

Except that Cyto clearly does support taxation while making an excuse on how it relates to the NAP.

[Free Society]

The idiocy at play here is claiming taxation is compatible with the NAP. Either support or reject the NAP, don't bend and twist it like a Democrat interpreting the Constitution.

[sarcasmic]

The idiocy at play here is claiming taxation is compatible with the NAP.

I never made that claim.

[Freedom Frog]

No, Cyto did though.

[sarcasmic]

Cyto fell for a loaded question.

[ace_m82]

I suppose any question aimed at pointing out hypocrisy is a loaded question. Question is, was it a fair question? Did it point out logical inconsistency?

[sarcasmic]

Did it point out logical inconsistency?

No. It assumed one.

[ace_m82]

It did, then it proved it. NAP cannot be reconciled with taxation, by definition.

[sarcasmic]

Government is the people who have the monopoly on the initiation of force. They are aggression. But they aren't going away, either.

[ace_m82]

But they aren't going away, either.

Not with that attitude. You are defeated by the Federalists (1790s arguments). The modern "conservative" is defeated by the TOP MAN (1930s arguments).

Why admit defeat when you can grasp victory? Why give the enemy an inch when they'll take a mile and beat you down? The only difference between your arguments and cyto's is that his is more "mature" (aka, beaten down).

[Freedom Frog]

More like the fucking guy talks too much and got called on his shit.

[LynchPin1477]

This thread is a great example of why there aren't more libertarians.

[ace_m82]

Rationalizing.

A. It's not "necessary". A free market can and will beat it.

B. Even if it were necessary, it's the same logic those defending the "current immigration laws" use to defend their NAP violations. You are logically inconsistent, and therefore wrong.

There, I've proven you wrong and given some evidence I'm right. How do you respond?

[Ken Shultz]

"Speaking of rationalizing, if NAP is what libertarians stand for, then how would they defend taxation?

It needs to be done in as voluntary a way as possible, and that means two and a half things to me:

1) We limit all taxation to sales taxes.

Sales taxes are more or less paid voluntarily. You decide whether or not to pay the tax every time you decide whether or not to buy something. That form of taxation is incredibly efficient from an economics perspective, but it's also respectful of people's agency.

2) We prohibit the government from taxing basic necessities.

We don't tax food. We don't tax rent. We don't tax toilet paper.

That way, we've made the tax system incredibly voluntary. If you don't want to pay taxes at all, you may not have to. If you break down and decide to buy a non-essential, well, that was your choice to pay the tax.

2.5) We limit government to only doing its legitimate jobs.

A military to protect our rights from foreign threats.

A police force to protect our rights from criminals.

Court systems to protect our rights from police, contract disputes, etc.

-------------------------

Give me such a system of taxation, and I'll never complain about the NAP.

[Free Society]

Sales taxes are more or less paid voluntarily.

Closer to less.

that was your choice to pay the tax.

Choice would be me at the store deciding whether to buy this item with tax added, or this other identical item with no tax. The opposite of choice is being forced to pay the tax if one is to acquire the good or service legally. A voluntary tax is a square circle, it's a contradiction in terms.

[sarcasmic]

It is voluntary in the sense that if no one forces you to buy the taxed good/service, you can avoid paying the tax by not making the purchase.

[Ken Shultz]

+1

[Free Society]

It is voluntary in the sense that if no one forces you to buy the taxed good/service, you can avoid paying the tax by not making the purchase.

Income tax is voluntary too then. If you don't want to pay the income tax, don't have an income. The drug war is perfectly voluntary, don't want to be a victim of the drug war, do whatever the state tells you in regards to drugs. FATCA is voluntary, if you don't want to pay taxes on income earned overseas, don't earn an income overseas. Obamacare is voluntary, you don't want to dick with the laws repercussions, don't buy health insurance or seek medical care. You can apply that logic to literally anything the state does, so I guess there's no point being a libertarian. Everything is voluntary, tyranny is a myth.

[sarcasmic]

The assumption with a sales tax being a somewhat voluntary means of taxation is that there would be no tax on income. I thought that was plain, but then again I should be used to you deliberately taking things out of context and being otherwise obtuse.

[Free Society]

What am I taking out of context? Because it's definitely not the concept of "voluntary".

I don't need to attempt to insult you personally to make an argument. Apparently I just insult you by making an argument you don't like.

[sarcasmic]

The only thing you insulted was my intelligence. Good day.

[Ken Shultz]

"Income tax is voluntary too then. If you don't want to pay the income tax, don't have an income."

The income tax is much less efficient--artificially inflating the cost of hiring unemployed people during recessions is morally reprehensible. . . . and that's what the income tax does--it artificially inflates the cost of paying people their take home pay.

The income tax is also harder from a moral perspective--in a number of ways. The idea that I owe you money because I earned it is bad. The idea that every individual has to report every penny they earn to the government or face criminal prosecution is probably worse. It practically amounts to being searched without a warrant.

Regardless, none of the things you're talking about are voluntary in the way the tax system I described.

Hell, ObamaCare includes a penaltax if you don't buy something. How can that be compared to the system I outlined, where you only pay taxes at your own discretion, and you can choose not to pay any tax at all?

[Free Society]

The income tax is much less efficient--artificially inflating the cost of hiring unemployed people during recessions is morally reprehensible

I don't dispute that.

The income tax is also harder from a moral perspective--in a number of ways.

I also do not dispute that.

Regardless, none of the things you're talking about are voluntary in the way the tax system I described.

My point of contention is not the efficacy of one tax over another. My point of contention is that there is no such thing as a voluntary tax. One form of taxation may be closer to "voluntary" than another, but no form of taxation can ever cross the line into voluntary territory, in any sense whatsoever. Otherwise it wouldn't be taxation.

Hell, ObamaCare includes a penaltax if you don't buy something. How can that be compared to the system I outlined, where you only pay taxes at your own discretion, and you can choose not to pay any tax at all?

Fair point. I'll amend that, if you don't want to deal with Obamacare either kill yourself or draw breath in the jurisdiction of another government. Voluntary.

[Ken Shultz]

"My point of contention is not the efficacy of one tax over another. My point of contention is that there is no such thing as a voluntary tax."

I disagree.I'll give you an example.

Take contract enforcement. If a judge finds finds for the plaintiff and against you as the defendant in a contract dispute, you might say that your money is being forcibly confiscated by the government and given to the plaintiff--but that would be wrong.

What's really happening is that you are being "compelled" to abide by an agreement that you intentionally signed and dated. Can you really be forced to do something you willingly promised to do? The proper job of the judge and/or the jury is to figure out what it is that you agreed to do.

Likewise, if there is a sales tax on some discretionary consumer product, and you look at the after tax price and choose to pay it anyway, then you may say that you were forced to pay the tax. But you actually acquiesced. Acquiescence may not be the freest or most enthusiastic form of volition, but it sure as hell isn't compulsion.

Are sellers being forced to eat the costs of collecting taxes in that system? Maybe they should be free to withhold whatever it costs them to collect taxes for the government. But they'd need to take it out of what they collect from consumers in sales taxes--since there wouldn't be any corporate taxes on profits.

I want to live in that world.

[ace_m82]

Give me such a system of taxation, and I'll never complain about the NAP.

That may be true, but it's still a violation of NAP. Also, "needs" or "necessary" are words almost always used in a political context to mean, "Yes, we know we're violating NAP here, but we're really scared of [blank] so it's OK."

Again, if you have a choice in the "taxation", then it's not a tax at all.

[Ken Shultz]

People might argue about what constitutes a necessity in that system. That's different from saying the NAP is incompatible with any system of taxation.

I'm talking about giving people the option not to pay any taxes at all. How much more voluntary can it get for a small government libertarian?

Meanwhile, there are plenty of anarcho-capitalists who will be happy to point out that government taxation doesn't exist in their "system", only fees paid for services to entrepreneurs.

[ace_m82]

People might argue about what constitutes a necessity in that system.

Yes, for instance, I claim that no government is "necessary".

That's different from saying the NAP is incompatible with any system of taxation.

Unless you define taxation as a voluntary payment, then taxation is a violation of NAP by definition.

I'm talking about giving people the option not to pay any taxes at all. How much more voluntary can it get for a small government libertarian?

That's about as small as I can imagine. Still too much though.

[Ken Shultz]

Just as a general observation, anarchists need to be wary of affirming the consequent with NAP.

If NAP, then no taxation is valid.

No taxation is valid.

Therefore NAP.

I'm not saying that's exactly what you're doing, but doing that is a fallacious argument. It is extremely tempting for anarchists to burn that NAP candle from both ends.

There are people you will meet, maybe right here in this very thread, who neither accept nor reject NAP as the basis of all that is good and holy. And they still think of themselves as libertarians. They might even be libertarians!

At least, you might consider that ultimate respect for other people's agency (a more basic component of NAP) could lead people to advocating free forms of government rather than anarchism. And the taxation system I outlined is most certainly the freest form of government, where taxation is done on as voluntary a basis as possible and features the ability to choose not to pay taxes at all.

[ace_m82]

If NAP, then no taxation is valid.

I didn't state it like that. That's a ridiculous way to state it, provably false.

They might even be libertarians!

Define "libertarian".

At least, you might consider that ultimate respect for other people's agency (a more basic component of NAP)

Actually, it's the other way around. Respect for agency comes from NAP, not NAP from agency.

And the taxation system I outlined is most certainly the freest form of government

True.

where taxation is done on as voluntary a basis as possible and features the ability to choose not to pay taxes at all.

Not true. If taxation were actually "voluntary", then it wouldn't be tax. This is just a more evolved sin tax. Heck, by your logic, I could choose not to pay taxes today as long as I make no income and live in a state without sales tax!

[Ken Shultz]

How could the NAP be more fundamental than agency, upon which the NAP depends?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/

[ace_m82]

If by agency you mean "you are you", then yes, you need that in order to figure out if I am aggressing.

If, however, you mean intentional action, then no, you don't need agency in order to be aggressed against.

Either way, the importance here is the aggression part of the principle. Also, if agency is really your basis for libertarianism, then you'd still have to decry taxation for the same reason, it doesn't respect agency either.

(Again, even if you were to take "respect for agency" as the basis for libertarianism, you'd still have to explain why you could punish someone for murder. The murderer says. "You can't do anything to me because I have agency." Then you have to explain to the murder that just because you have agency doesn't mean that you can use that agency to aggress against other agents. So NAP is necessary to explain libertarianism either way.)

[Ken Shultz]

"If however, you mean intentional action, then no, you don't need agency in order to be aggressed against."

Respect for other people's agency is the foundation upon which the NAP is built.

Rights are choices, and our rights should only be circumscribed by the right of other people to make choices for themselves.

Isn't aggression violating someone's rights (to make choices for himself)?

You can't talk about aggression until you've talked about other people's right to make choices for themselves. And other people's right to make choices for themselves is agency.

How can the NAP be more fundamental than the thing it protects?

[Ken Shultz]

I should add, I hope you see why this matters. We're not talking about a distinction without a difference . . . not if some anarchists are going to claim that neither free government nor a system of taxation that respects freedom are truly possible because of the NAP.

I think I've just showed that there is at least one government / taxation model that respects agency, and I think I've just showed that agency is more fundamental than the NAP, too.

[ace_m82]

I think I've just showed that there is at least one government / taxation model that respects agency

No, you haven't. I've shown that in the present model of government, you don't need to pay taxes either, as long as you live in the right state and don't commit the "sin" of making an income. If you claim that your model respects agency, then our current model of taxation (ignoring for a minute all the other governmental usurpations) would have to do the same.

I think I've just showed that agency is more fundamental than the NAP, too.

Not really. Again, if you explain to the murderer why you're detaining him because he failed to "respect the agency" of the victim, he'll ask "how" and you'll have to explain aggression anyhow. Either way, you would be correct in stating that agency is necessary for libertarianism, though it is certainly not at all sufficient.

[ace_m82]

You can't talk about aggression until you've talked about other people's right to make choices for themselves. And other people's right to make choices for themselves is agency.

You can't explain people's rights until you explain aggression, aka that which limits rights. In fact, there is only one right, the right not to be aggressed against.

How can the NAP be more fundamental than the thing it protects?

As your only right is the right to not be aggressed against, the better question is what good is agency without NAP? Don't aggress against another human. I'm arguing it is the "aggress" that is the important part of that sentence, you are arguing that the "human" is the important part. You would be right in saying that without "human" there is no way to define aggression. I would be right in saying that I define human as "that which you don't aggress".

[Ken Shultz]

"The current immigration laws do not protect American rights at all."

I gave two examples of how controlling who crosses our borders would do so--by protecting us from people with communicable diseases and protecting us from convicted felons.

And I was advocating a system that would do that better--by letting people cross at will so long as they can show reliable ID and we can verify that they don't represent a threat to our rights.

Deporting illegals would still be an issue even if the border were opened that way. If we decided not to let convicted felons across, then if and when they came across anyway, we'd still need to deport them.

[Agammamon]

. . . and protecting our rights from foreign threats requires the government to control who comes across our borders, then the government should deport people who come across our borders illegally.

But does it? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is true - shouldn't we apply strict scrutiny to this?

Meaning is this actually a *compelling government interest*? If so, why is it one now but wasn't in the past?

Is this 'narrowly tailored'? As in do we need the government to step in for *all people* crossing the border or just the ones with guns and armored vehicles? Because the latter seem pretty obviously a threat to our rights, the former - not so much.

Is this the 'least restrictive means'? A blanket set of laws that makes it a crime for the vast majority who simply wish to travel, is that really the least restrictive means of protecting our rights? How about increasing the availability of low-skill visas? Of allowing temporary residence/work permitting for those who simply wish to earn some money?

[Ken Shultz]

"Meaning is this actually a *compelling government interest*? If so, why is it one now but wasn't in the past?

Perhaps our government has become so distracted by the drug war that it has failed to do its essential job in protecting us from violent felons coming across our border. In fact, maybe they've become so focused on stopping cheap labor from coming across our borders, they're doing a terrible job of screening out the real threats to our rights.

IF IF IF we had a reliable means of identification for Mexicans who want to come across the border for work--so that we could verify that they aren't any kind of threat, then the only people sneaking through the deserts at nights would be the people who are threats. The non-threats wouldn't trudge miles through the desert at night with some coyote.

They'd just walk across the border at a checkpoint and show ID.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kCRbSyjmo

[Agammamon]

The government you have no problem with deporting people who come across the border without the ID that that very government resists making available at every turn?

The very things I've been saying - increase visa quotas, eliminate the expectation that immigrants must be on a path to citizenship, temporary residency/work permits - all that is what the government and these candidates are explicitly rejecting in favor of blanket deportation solely because someone didn't have the ID the government refuses to supply them with.

Its the exact same thinking that keeps the drug war going, keeps us in the ME - because if we walk away, 'they'll' win.

And the obstructionist excuse is always 'these people need to be completely deported before we can loosen immigration restrictions or it will encourage more illegal immigration'.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Seems like a sprint to see who can claim the ability to remove as many sure Dem voters as possible.

[BigT]

Why can't someone ask Cruz or Trump if the troops going door to door to 'round up' these illegals would be issued brown shirts?

Cruz should rather say that he would not round them up, but each time an illegal committed so much as a misdemeanor that person would be deported. And he could make it policy to go after local governments that do not turn over illegal immigrant criminals to ICE. That way he focuses on the primary fear that citizens have - the fear of immigrant rapists and child molesters - without going all Nazi.

[John]

Why do you need troops going door to door? We have thousands of ICE and CBP agents that we are already paying to do this. Can't we just tell them to enforce the law?

Do we send troops out door to door to enforce any other law? If the standard for enforcing the law is "you must do it to a 100% effectiveness or not do it", then we should just stop enforcing any laws.

I understand that you think the border should be open and we shouldn't deport anyone. You are entitled to your opinion. But don't tell me that the only alternative to that is sending troops house to house or that the only way to enforce immigration laws is to resort to drastic and horrific methods. That is just not true.

If Cruz said he was going to arrest every cop in America, would you say "since he could never get every single one, this is not a serious policy"? No of course you wouldn't. So don't resort to the same sort of sophistry here.

[Tom Bombadil (fmly Copernicus)]

"Do we send troops out door to door to enforce any other law?"

Sometimes seems that way.

[John]

Fair point.

[BigT]

"Do we send troops out door to door to enforce any other law?"

War on drugs. Nuf said.

[LynchPin1477]

It's not sophistry, it's judging him by his own standards.

O'Reilly: Mr. Trump would look for them to get them out. Would you do that if you were president?

Cruz: Bill, of course you would. That's what ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] exists for. We have law enforcement that looks for people who are violating the law, apprehends them, and deports them.

You can argue that he wasn't being serious, or was glossing over some nuance in order to make a more general point, but the words as spoken mean "I'll send ICE out to look for illegal immigrants". I'm not sure how you do that without going door to door, or at least monitoring areas where illegal immigrants tend to hang out and asking for proof of citizenship.

And to deport 11 million people, you're going to need more than thousands of agents.

[John]

first, the standard for success is something less than getting every one of them. Second, do a google search for the various news stories coming out of ICE and you will find that Obama has pretty much stopped letting them deport people. So it wouldn't be hard to massively improve over what is going on now. Why do you think so many unaccompanied minors are showing up every summer? Because Obama said he wasn't' going to deport them. The mere act of enforcing the law again with have a big deterrent effect that doesn't exist now.

Third, you don't need to catch every illegal. You just need to catch enough people who employ them to make employing them a risky enough proposition that it is no longer worth doing. Do that and there are no jobs and no reason to come here.

Can you get all 11 million? Of course not. What you can do, however, is get a lot of them and more importantly prevent a flood of new ones from arriving, no door to door searches needed.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Stop panicking LynchPin. He's not going to bust down every door. Sheesh, get real.

[BigT]

John, you misunderstand. I am most certainly NOT an open borders fan.

If you are really serious about deporting them how would you find the 12 million? My point is to illustrate how irrational it is to even propose that one could deport 12 million people. I'm not sure what ICE does besides enforce border security and hassle people driving near the border, but putting a dent into 12 million is just unrealistic.

Most of these illegals will have almost no interaction with the authorities if they can help it. I say leave them alone and eventually let them become legalized (not citizens). I think we SHOULD deport any of these people who are found to be either freeloading or breaking other laws. Focus on the worst actors and leave the poor families alone.

[John]

See my point above. I think people are fixating too much on the "get every one of them" promises.

[BigT]

I am focusing on the words that Trump and Cruz use. They seem to imply that they are going after all 12 million. If they want to make it more reasonable they could choose to say: "Let's focus on deporting every illegal who commits a crime here or freeloads off our system. And let's be more selective on who we let come here - background checks." But they don't. Words have meaning.

[Agammamon]

They're fixating on that because the alternative is the status quo. What we're doing right now. And right now they're coming in at least as fast as we're getting rid of them.

Like the drug war, the current War on Illegals is failing. The rhetoric being deployed is 'moar woar'. But ramping up with ineffective measures is worse than not ramping up at all - look how well the 'surge' worked for us in the ME.

Again, none of these guys - none of *you* guys - are serious about fighting illegal immigration because you're not willing to admit what it would take.

Either we go full-on police state or we change the law so that there is less illegal immigration. Barbed wire and machine guns on every interstate or open borders.

Anything less than those extremes and you're right back to where we are at this very moment.

[John]

They're fixating on that because the alternative is the status quo. What we're doing right now. And right now they're coming in at least as fast as we're getting rid of them.

The status quo is doing little or nothing. We told all of Central America we will not deport an unaccompanied minor. Amazingly enough, people started putting their kids on buses to the US. Who could have seen that coming?

The world is a horrible and nasty place. There is an endless supply of displaced and desperate people who would view life on the street in the US an improvement over what they have. If you are unwilling to do anything to stop them, then you better be ready for them to show up by the millions. And most people in this country don't want that.

You say "oh my God they are going to kick down everyone's door" and everyone else says "what are we going to do when 15 or 20 million economic refugees show up?" I know the consensus on here is that every refugee is a fabulous person who wants nothing but to drive for Uber and run an organic taco truck, but the reality is sadly a bit more complicated.

[Agammamon]

You can't lay the blame for this on Obama. We have 12 million illegals in this country and they all didn't show up in less than seven years.

So - where's the W amnesty? The Clinton amnesty. The Bush amnesty? The Reagan amnesty? The Carter amnesty? The . . .

You're not going to tell me every single one of those presidents back on down past Nixon deliberately forced the DoJ and CBP to turn a blind eye to immigration are you?

[John]

I am not blaming Obama entirely. Bush wasn't much better. Bush spent eight years promising and working for amnesty. And that has had a real effect. Incentives matter.

And the other culprit is the drug war. If the US hadn't totally fucked up central America trying to save degenerate Americans from themselves, this wouldn't be such a problem.

Whoever is to blame, it is what it is and we have to be realistic about what to do about it.

[Agammamon]

And *you're* the one who's supporting deportation? That's 'realistic'?

And you say we 'don't need to get them all'. But how many? What percentage will be good enough for you that we can actually move on to doing the things that will lessen illegal immigration?

[John]

And *you're* the one who's supporting deportation? That's 'realistic'?

Why is it not realistic? I don't see how doing nothing is an option. If your basement was flooding would you do nothing and let it rise up into your kitchen just because even your best efforts would only check it and not dry it out?

Your whole point seems to be that if we can't achieve complete success no success can be achieved. And that is just not true.

[Agammamon]

12 million people over a couple of decades is not a flood that threatens my house.

its slightly less than 4% of the population. The *net gain* per year is tiny.

[Homple]

"Most of these illegals will have almost no interaction with the authorities if they can help it. "

As an aside, that makes we wonder if we have any idea how many illegals are in the country, or how we figure out that net immigration is zero, as someone points out elsewhere.

I expect we have no idea of the real numbers.

[John]

That number is a SWAG if there ever was one. It is a real problem and fuck you that is why is not an answer people are going to accept anymore.

[Agammamon]

What exactly is the problem though? This is what I don't understand.

What problems are illegal immigrants causing?

[John]

There is a lot of problems. First, there is a significant criminal element that comes with this. Letting people into the country to commit crimes is not something people tend to support.

Second, we don't live in libertopia. It is not just welfare that is the problem. It is public services, specifically public schools. Schools all over the country have had all kinds of issues dealing with the UACs the feds dumped on them last summer. When a bunch of kids who don't speak English and come from a totally alien culture shows up and the local school is obligated to educate them, everyone who is already there suffers. People have a right to be pissed off about that. Yeah, I know we shouldn't have public schools, but we do and as long as we do this is going to happen.

Third, thanks to PC and the infiltration of leftists in pretty much every insittution in America, we no longer have the kind of confident culture that can assimilate huge numbers of immigrants like we once did. Whenever they come here, there is an army of social worker progs to encourage them to become professional victim groups and do nothing to integrate into society or if they do adopt the worst aspects of our society. Are they 100% effective? Of course not. But they are effective enough. Progs support immigration because they want to create a bulkanized and easily manipulated society that will allow them to take power. I really don't want to give them the chance to see if it works.

[Agammamon]

1. There is a significant criminal element because

a) They're illegal immigrants. By your standards they're 100% criminals.
b) We refuse to do the things that will actually work to separate criminals from the rest.

2. Welfare. Like regulation, nobody ever calls for less of it, just that 'the playing field be leveled'. You'll say that, like the poor, we'll always have the welfare state - so we should stop immigration. I say you'll have a better chance at rolling back the welfare state than you will immigration. Not the least because all you guys who want 'control of the border' have been and remain completely unwilling to admit what it would take to do that.

The Soviet Union didn't have much of a problem with illegal emmigration. There weren't a lot of East Germans slipping into Berlin.

3. I don't know where you live, but where I live the Mexicans are integrating just fine. Don't confuse Muslim 'refugees' with Mexicans and South Americans.

[John]

a) They're illegal immigrants. By your standards they're 100% criminals.
b) We refuse to do the things that will actually work to separate criminals from the rest.

A is absurd. I don't think they are all criminals but some certainly are and you know it. And unless you are willing to deport people and control the border, there is no way to separate the criminals.

I say you'll have a better chance at rolling back the welfare state than you will immigration.

A large majority of voters support it and more importantly are willing to vote on the issue. Do you honestly think there is anything like that sort of support for ending the public schools or stopping welfare? What brand of crack do you smoke? The welfare state is not going anywhere.

3. I don't know where you live, but where I live the Mexicans are integrating just fine. Don't confuse Muslim 'refugees' with Mexicans and South Americans.

Clearly you have no direct experience with this. If you did, you would know this round of refugees are not Mexican. They are central American. And if you looked at these people as individuals rather than cartoon cut outs in the morality play in your head, you would know that as a group, Mexicans are not the same as Central Americans. There are a lot of integration problems. And even if there were not, last I looked Trump proposed not letting in the Muslim refugees and Reason shit their pants at the thought. So open borders means refugees from everywhere.

[Gray Ghost]

What problems are illegal immigrants causing?

As John wrote below, they consume more in public services than their work generates in taxes. Which wouldn't be a giant problem, except .gov is going broke. Yes, it's a problem with citizens too, as someone will no doubt say, clutching any number of Cato studies that say illegals aren't as bad on this topic as citizens in the same economic quintile. But, as illegals aren't citizens, equitably they should get cut off first before all of the citizens that you could also say are on the mooch.

Get rid of the social nets, and we don't nearly have the problem we do now. Albeit, John's point below about the lack of pressure to assimilate culturally, relative to conditions in the past, plays a role too.

[Agammamon]

This is completely untrue.

Most of these illegal guys are on a payroll, paying state, federal, FICA, SS, the whole 9 yards, and are completely unable to get a refund and are ineligible for SS later on.

[pan fried wylie]

Can't wait to fill out my I9 again.

[Cytotoxic]

The only immigration problem America has is that it is too difficult to immigrate into America, legally or otherwise.

[SIV]

Keeps you out. Every cloud has a silver lining.

[Cytotoxic]

No it doesn't. I could take a job in America with my credentials. Or just work illegally.

[CampingInYourPark]

I could take a job in America with my credentials.

Our quota of blog-comment section experts is met for the next several years

[Glide]

Why the hell would he try to be Trump? No one Trumps as well as Trump.

Who does this appeal to? The dozens and dozens of people who want every thirtieth person ejected from the country but just can't vote for someone with hair like that?

[John]

Trump is winning because of his positions on immigration and trade. Cruz needs to peel off Trump's supporters. The only way he can do that is to take away the reason to support Trump. A lot of people who support Trump disagree with Trump on culture issues and agree with Cruz on those issue. They are still voting for Trump because they consider trade and immigration more important. So if Cruz can close the gap on those issues, maybe the issues Trump's supporters disagree with him on will start to matter.

I have no idea if it will work. That seems to be what is going on, however. What Cruz is doing may not work but it is a hell of a lot smarter than what the other GOP candidates are doing, which seems to consist, when they are not insulting his supporters of yelling about culture issues no one cares about or about how mean and crude Trump is, which is something his supporters consider a virtue.

[John]

http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....ion_update

This is behind a pay wall but the summary makes the point.

Most voters continue to favor stricter border control over granting legal status to those already here illegally and believe amnesty will just encourage more illegal immigration.

This is a winning issue with actual voters. And as long as Trump is the only one willing to take the popular side of an issue that a lot of people are voting on, he will continue to do well no matter what he does.

[GILMORE?]

"This is a winning issue with actual voters"

and has been from day one. The fact that Cruz and the other candidates are scrambling to super-charge their Border Patroling bona fides is just desperation, and people will recognize that. Trump owns the issue because he defined himself by it very early on in the race. Which i was very surprised most others *didn't* do, since it was well known even in 2014 that it would be the #1 issue for GOP candidates (along w/ basic economic 'jobs' stuff, with which immigration is conceptually tied in many voters minds)

[John]

It is proof that they really are the stupid party. They really do live in a bubble on this issue. What on earth possessed Rubio to try to make a deal on amnesty? It makes you think he is the kind of guy who had he been in World War I would have stuck his head above the parapet to see what was going on.

The consultants and the journalists and everyone else associated with the GOP in Washington somehow convinced themselves that the Republican voters really care more about culture war issues than immigration and would vote for someone who supported amnesty. I have no idea how someone could be so disconnected from reality to believe that.

[Homple]

"...which i was very surprised most others *didn't* do...."

I can think of three reasons offhand why they didn't.

(1) Many of those donating to the other candidates are hot for cheap labor any way they can get it so their candidates try to deliver what they're paid for.

(2) Some GOP consultants believe that the voters mainly have positive views of all immigration, despite revealed preferences saying otherwise.

(3) They believe that it is possible to crack the Democrat's hold on Hispanic voters by letting in more Hispanic voters.

[GILMORE?]

"Many of those donating to the other candidates are hot for cheap labor"

Meh. I think this is half just a silly projection by nativists who don't really understand how immigrants actually fit into the labor markets, and half a distortion of the actual economic reality which is that we DO need more labor... but its more long term than just "cheap undocumented labor" = we need the immigrants to make babies, not wash dishes.

"Some GOP consultants believe that the voters mainly have positive views of all immigration, despite revealed preferences saying otherwise."

I don't know about that. I know what you mean re: the polls on people's attitudes (which were mentioned here a short while back) and I also think those polls are misleading and wrong. GOP consultants look at 'cohorts' and know exactly how passionate *some* people are about the issue. I think the Jebs of the world were trying to "triangulate" and really misunderstood how it would be read by people.

"They believe that it is possible to crack the Democrat's hold on Hispanic voters by letting in more Hispanic voters.'

I think this is the MOST significant reason a number of them decided (jeb, rubio) to initially be 'contrarian' about immigration and present a softer-side. Because Bush II pulled large #s (for a republican) and the consultants thought, "we need those people".

[Homple]

"we need the immigrants to make babies, not wash dishes."

Vielen Dank, Frau Merkel.

[kinnath]

I saw a GoT/Trump mashup the other day. It wasn't a brilliant as the makers think it is.

But they did quote Trump saying he wanted a great big wall . . with a really big door. Seems I've heard this many times at H&R.

Tall fences, wide gates.

[John]

You are not supposed to actually listen to what Trump says kinnath. Didn't you get that memo? How are you supposed to properly shit your pants if you bother to pay any attention to what he actually says?

[kinnath]

I've pretty much come to terms with President Trump.

[John]

I am not happy about it. But what are you going to do? The only good thing I will say about Trump's candidacy is that it has really opened my eyes to how intellectually bankrupt the American Right is. Trump is a great showman and politician in many ways but people are right when they say he isn't offering any real substantive answers. That doesn't matter, however, because no one on the right is willing to engage him on substance. Whatever you think of Trump, he is attracting support because people feel like he cares about their concerns. And no one on the right has any response to that. They seem utterly unwilling to engage Trumps supporters and explain how they care about their concerns and can address them better than Trump would. Instead they just scream about how he isn't a real "conservative" or once supported planed parenthood or donated money to the Clintons as if in a nation where 46% of the working age population isn't even looking for work gives a damn.

I have come to the conclusion that the people in politics and the media who call themselves conservatives are nothing of the sort. They are partisans who have a set of policy preferences that are mostly conservative. They do not, however, have any clear philosophy or understanding of the underlying principles of government that causes those preferred policies to be the right answer. They just have things they like and fight with Progs about getting them. That is it.

[kinnath]

Professional politicians on both sides of the aisle seek power, not because they actually want to wield that power to accomplish policy goals, but to use it to beat up the other side to get more power.

Regular people, leaning to the left or the right, are desperate for someone that will actually do something. These people are drawn to Trump and Sanders this cycle. It is not particularly rational, but desperate people do desperate things.

[John]

Exactly that. Shame on me for being so blind to how intellectually bankrupt the right is. I always knew the politicians were shit weasels, but all politicians are. My mistake was thinking the people at the think tanks and in the media were not and had any sort of understanding of the country or any deeper understanding of the issues we face beyond pushing various partisan issues and of course engaging in gross cultural snobbery. Shame on me.

[Cytotoxic]

By listening to what he says and considering that it's fascism when it's not unintelligible babble.

[DK]

A much better mashup.

[dajjal]

If he wants to 'uphold the law' then he also needs to go after the employers that hire them knowing they are illegal and paying them for decades. They work in cleaning, cooking, construction, and lots of other fields we benefit from. Why now all of a sudden now it's time for them to go? Net immigration is now zero. Go after the employers with a fine to make it unprofitable and then they will leave over time. Of course, expulsion is not really the goal. The goal is to abuse and exploit a vulnerable minority.

[kinnath]

http://www.slate.com/articles/.....again.html

By Jamelle Bouie

And there's still the question of turnout. Going by early returns, Nevada will be the third state where Democrats have underperformed relative to 2008. Those numbers don't bode well for the party's general election turnout effort, where Democrats will need to reach every possible supporter to hold onto the White House for a third term and claim a victory that would be necessary to preserve President Obama's chief accomplishments from the last two.

Clinton doesn't stand a chance of winning. Even against Trump

[Cytotoxic]

The data is clear that she will dominate him. Trump would drive the voters into her arms.

[kinnath]

Well, I got the bold right but fucked up the italics. Preview, preview, preview.

[GILMORE?]

I know you guys are all super-sophisticated and all, but i'd think at least one person might point out that remarks like these, made by the #2 trailing candidate on the evening of the last significant primary before super-tuesday....

....are less indications of the candidate's actual "National Policy" priorities and far more akin to a crack addict saying to his dealer, "Check this out i got these burgers and they DOUBLE CHEESE man..."

IOW, these remarks say less about Ted Cruz than they do about polls of the electorate in Nevada. Or across the south (assuming cruz is looking towards next week).

[John]

Well yeah, but how can you shit your pants over the evil Republicans coming to get the poor Mexicans if you do that?

[BearOdinson]

I understand those of you who are open borders disagree with this on principle. Fair enough. But, having gone back and reread the transcript, I don't think he said he would try to deport all 12 million. He said he would look for illegal immigrants, and where they are found, particularly those who are arrested for other things, he would deport them.

He also said he would depart an Irishman who was here illegally, with no equivocation. That isn't exactly racist.

[John]

He said he would enforce the law. What a concept.

[Agammamon]

So he said he'd do what we're already doing, been doing for decades, and isn't working?

[Homple]

Given that we have 11 or 12 or however many Million illegals in the country, I'd suggest we haven't been enforcing immigration laws, if that's what you mean by "already doing for decades".

[Heroic Mulatto]

50.80% of Americans 26 or older reported having used illicit drugs, 46.10% reported having used marijuana, 17% cocaine, and 16.20% hallucinogens.

Now look me in the eye and say we haven't been enforcing drug laws.

[Homple]

Look me in the eye and tell me that there is a war on immigration remotely comparable to the war on drugs.

[Heroic Mulatto]

You mean the "war" that is being conducted by the three organizations (ICE, CBP, DEA) joined at the hip like some modern-day Geryon?

Sure.

*stares at your eyes until they water*

[Homple]

There is a lot of typical government activity of the nasty sort, but a lot of selective enforcement as well. The illegals who mow my relatives' lawns for cash aren't being hounded like drug dealers are and I'm pretty sure that's the case everywhere.

[Heroic Mulatto]

And, Christ...if it's 2016, you're over the age of 25, and you still haven't figured out that the War on Drugs and immigration law/enforcement have been glove-in-fist since the 30's, I don't know what to say to you.

As a leader in narcotics investigations and enforcement, ICE participates in key task forces around the country.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is committed to strong investigative partnerships with federal, state and local law enforcement.

ICE brings to bear its investigative expertise in money laundering and bulk cash smuggling in the fight against drug trafficking. Knowing where criminals are consolidating cash and how they are transporting it, helps arm law enforcement with critical information needed to halt drug traffickers in their tracks. ... High intensity drug trafficking area task forces bring law enforcement agency partners together to combat drug-trafficking crimes in designated areas around the country that have a high concentration of narcotic distribution, transportation, smuggling and other drug-related activities.

ICE participates in 30 of the 32 high intensity drug trafficking area task forces around the country. The task forces are administered by the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, which launched the program in 1990.

[Homple]

Look me in the eye and show me the drug law sanctuary cities.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Look me in the eye and show me the drug law sanctuary cities.

Ok.

[Homple]

So Denver cops don't cooperate with the feds in chasing down heroin dealers, illegal opioid sellers, methamphetamine producers?

Now you're just kidding me.

[BearOdinson]

That is a fair criticism. Whether or not we actually have been doing that for decades is another question. I just don't think that on this particular point, there has been any real changing of position. He has never been for "amnesty", but he has never said he was going to deport all 12 million either. He always said he would seek to enforce the law.

[Agammamon]

They all say they 'seek to enforce the law'. That means deporting. Making a real attempt at finding and deporting 12 million people.

Drug warriors say they just seek to enforce the law. And look how effective they've been.

[Homple]

The tax law enforcers seem much more effective than the drug law enforcers. Maybe the immigration law folks should learn from the tax guys.

[Jackand Ace]

This is all just laughable.

Here is the sad fact that the GOP ignored 4 years ago, then understood all too well, and now is ignoring once again. Immigration just isn't all that important to the American voter.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/185.....-vote.aspx

It's critically important to just 20% of the electorate, and of that 20% many think exactly the opposite of the GOP base. And in their post mortem on the 2012 election, the GOP correctly pointed out that they will never win going forward garnering just 20% of the Latino vote. And immigration is very important to that group.

And what do they do in 2016? They talk even more stridently then they did when they only got 20% of the Latino vote.

And judging by the many of the comments here, libertarians are making the same mistake. Have at it.

[Old Mexican Mighty Aggressor]

Re: Jackass Ass,

And judging by the many of the comments here, libertarians are making the same mistake.

I love it how you can't seem to distinguish between individual minds and the group. "Judging by the comments", a REASONABLE person might conclude that SOME libertarians believe the immigration issue is an important one. Not libertarians, as if the number of libertarians alive was limited to those commenting here, like you imply.

[John]

This is all just laughable.

We are not talking about your height or your career Joe. Not every thread is about you.

[jarflax]

How about we change the law to allow 1. open borders for guest workers, 2. fairly strict, but achievable, standards for naturalization for those who want to join our polity, and 3. modify birthright citizenship to require a citizen parent.

[Agammamon]

Birthright citizenship already requires a citizen parent.

[Agammamon]

Excuse me - requires one if you're born outside the country.

The problem with requiring it *inside the country is - what do you do with children that have no country? They can't stay in the US and they can't go anywhere else as they have no papers (please).

[jarflax]

I would allow them to stay as a resident alien, and follow a naturalization path if they wanted.. I just would not let anyone vote who was not a child of a citizen, or a naturalized citizen. To me the problem of immigration is that it seems to lead to more pro government voters. Let me write (and score) the Naturalization test and watch what happens 🙂

1. Explain in 100 words or less why all government action involves the use of force.

2. Which author do you prefer, Hayek, Rothbard, Rand or Friedman, and why?

[jarflax]

Actually if you let me run the testing, lets eliminate birthright citizenship entirely and make everyone take the test ...

[Agammamon]

If you're going to go that far - just eliminate the test and set up a subscription model. Want the benefits of government, subscribe. Then you get to cast a vote - both an actual ballot *and* a 'you guys suck, I'ma switch to Walmart for my strategic defense needs.

[Rhywun]

what do you do with children that have no country

You treat them like shit until they ghettoize themselves?

See: France

[Free Society]

They're treated sooooo shitty that they not only stay in France, but import their families to be treated like shit too once they get their legal status.

[jarflax]

Not true, merely being born on US soil is enough under the current laws.

[Free Society]

Not true, merely being born on US soil is enough under the current laws.

Tell that to my health insurer that refuses to believe that my 9 month old, born in the US like everyone in my family since the founding of the US, is a US citizen. According to the script readers at my health insurance company, as per the Affordable Care Act a birth certificate showing his birth in the US isn't good enough, they want to see his driver license, utility bills, draft card or diploma(s). Ironically none of those things even comes close to proving citizenship and the one thing I do have to use as proof, is unacceptable evidence. We live in a Kafka story.

[Agammamon]

Funnily enough - you can't get any of the others without a damn birth certificate anyway.

[Free Society]

And you must be a person that has existed for no less than 16 years. I guess I'll have to cross my fingers that if my son gets sick or injured, I'll be able to successfully sue my health insurance company for denying him coverage on thoroughly absurd grounds. Problem is, I'm white and my wife is a European immigrant, as opposed to one from an equatorial region.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Only outside of the United States.

[John]

If the GOP were not retarded, they would pass a law similar to this and smoke out the Democrats as the power hungry bastards they are. Obama would never sign such a law and the Democrats in Congress would do anything to keep it from passing.

The Democrats only care about immigration because they think they can turn the immigrants into Dem voters. And immigration without citizenship doesn't do that and is thus of no interest to the Democrats no matter how much it would benefit immigrants.

[Agammamon]

And Republicans only hate immigrants because they're afraid they *can't* turn them into R voters.

[Homple]

Of course, anyone who disagrees with you does so because of hate. It's the logic of teenaged girl who yells, "Why do you hate me?" as she runs to her room and slams the door.

[John]

Probably. But that is what politicians do. I don't see how that detracts from my point.

[ranrod]

12 million illegal aliens is a decade old politician/media decades old lie

Univision boasts 50 million
Retired INS M. Cutler talks 40-50 million
Debbie Schlussel writes of 40 million
CAPS Study 2007 talks of 38 million...

[ranrod]

Video - However, after conducting a nationwide investigation that took her to the frontlines of this crisis, Ann Coulter has come forward with alarming evidence that proves the true number of illegal immigrants who have crossed our border has exploded past 30 million. And it could be as high as 60 million people.

http://conpats.blogspot.com/20.....an-60.html

[AD-RtR/OS!]

I'm sure the writers and editors of Reason will open their hearts, and the doors to their "castles", to take in dozens - if not thousands - of the "Undocumented". Why, they don't even have locks on their doors to keep their neighbors out.

[4thaugust1932]

If you meet anybody from India ask him, What Is Your Caste? You're doomed, if he answers it;

Caste system is quite simple to understand; If you're not from my caste, you're non-human to me; I can abuse/exploit/rape/kill you; Caste is present where ever Brahmin is there; We have petitioned President Obama to Expel Brahmin from USA

wh.gov/iyhMK

[Alan@.4]

Would one be well advised to hold their breath while waiting for the start of the referenced deportation? I find myself curious.