You angry white men stole the Mexican territory

of California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona in Feb. 2, 1848.

Plunging Mexico into a great depression that it still has not recovered from.

Now the Mexican people have to come back to California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona

to look for work to survive.

It must be nice living off the hard work and natural resources of other people.

remove federal wealth redistribution, and individual states will or won’t implement “population control” legislation by subsidizing its residents. will people be smarter about this? nah, probably there’d be all kinds of strife about state entitlements, racial misdirection, unprecedented corruption. yeah i faced the facts by now that we cant trust ourselves to be adults.

and i understand that you see immigration as it should be a “Wild West” and no one needs “papers” and such. i mean part ways with that on general state and local law enforcement issues. but yeah removing federal entitlement is a pipe dream anyway and i dont know why i’m bothering to try to think this through.

On the one hand you claim to be worried about immigrants consuming welfare services. Then you seem to turn around and say that limiting welfare consumption is no reason to control population.

These are not consistent positions. Immigration restriction is a population control measure by definition. If you want to restrict immigration, you are arguing that you want to control population at some level. If you are arguing that welfare consumption justifies immigration restrictions then you are arguing that welfare consumption justifies immigration restriction.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Or, are you arguing that you want to control the population by preserving the status quo without some overarching principle other than the fact that the status quo represents some sort of political consensus?

BUT if we were able to guarantee (pass through Congress, the whole 9 yards) a phase-out (entire)of Federal income(yes, only income) tax and within say 5 years, i wouldn’t care about arresting or deporting anyone at all right now or at any time again. i would also be immediately for fully legalizing all thoroughly criminally-checked illegals. i would still be for starting full enforcement of traditional Federal law at all borders. nothing crazy like RFID/biometric cards and crap like that. nothing like newgeneration super-surveillance weapons that also scan incorporated/township United States soil, and i would still be for a real fence, go figure. :/

tarran:

considering immigration from a population control standpoint is probably the lowest priority in my personal list. that said, i do see the effects of a relatively new population that has not assimilated. yes, there is sociological stress in many metropolitan areas of the US right now. what did you expect? but the people are here, it is what it is, and things could work out quite naturally if we all trusted our government to work at the state level in this situation.

basically i dont think we should change our federal government with population control in mind at all. we should change our federal government with actual fairness in mind. and this would take care of immigration problems along the way.

I debated including something in the post about how it’s a malum prohibitum (sp.?-been a few years since law school) crime, and why I find malum prohibitum crimes to be inherently unjust. I also should have done a better job drawing out the effects of preventing children of illegals from being regarded as citizens- there, it’s a much clearer case that the child is being told he has no right to exist despite giving absolutely no consent, implicit or explicit, to the government’s telling him so.

I apologise, since I must have asked my question too vaguely; I am not interested in what welfare paynments you find acceptable and whichones you don’t like. No, my question was where do you draw the line on forms of population growth.

In othere word, which forms of population growth should be legal and which forms should not and why?

The reason why I ask is that it seems to me that

1. A child born in the U.S. is guaranteed to be a drain on the taxpayer, if nothing else thoough consumption of state supplied or subsidized education.
2. Making travel accross borders more difficult makes it more likely that an immigrant will bring his entire family with him, rather than leaving them behind.

This latter point is one that I think alot of anti-immigration activists who are focused on cultual concerns should consider. A common lament, though not one I ever recall oilnwater making, concerns the “unassimilated” immigrant, who never becomes culturally American, but essentially retains a loyalty to their home-country (I’m not sure why this is a problem, but let’s stipulate it is one for the sake of argument). If you put yourself into the unassimilated immigrant’s shoes, he does not want to stay here forever – his heart is somewhere else. Making it hard for him to come and go ensures that he will stay here, while making it easy for him to come and go will ensure that as soon as he can, he will be returning to the land that is ‘home’ to him.

i bet you could make a sound case about timelines and subjection to US law in the case of a refugee, political or “humanitarian” or whatever subset of refugee. this is implying the person had no real home, or a recently inviable home in his native country. i’m sure this is a popular loophole in illegal cases already.

Here’s the problem with the concept of illegal immigrants being law-breakers who must be dealt as such: at the time of their immigration, they’re not subject to US law. So how can we possibly expect them to obey a law that they have had no say in, is…