Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I say No! What say you?
Did anyone listen to George Will today (on "This Week") try to justify a law justifying dragnets?
I say No! What say you?
Did anyone listen to George Will today (on "This Week") try to justify a law justifying dragnets?
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
I say No! What say you?
Did anyone listen to George Will today (on "This Week") try to justify a law justifying dragnets?
I say its pretty simple to determine whether or not Libertarians support Arizona's 1070 Law:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
Since 1070 controls entry of foreign nationals who pose a threat, then you could say Libertarians support it.
On the other hand, since 1070 also may represent an "Unreasonable Constraint" then some Libertarians may NOT support it.
Why are we even concerned about whatever Libertarians may think?
I say No! What say you?
Did anyone listen to George Will today (on "This Week") try to justify a law justifying dragnets?
I say No! What say you?
Did anyone listen to George Will today (on "This Week") try to justify a law justifying dragnets?
I say No! What say you?
Did anyone listen to George Will today (on "This Week") try to justify a law justifying dragnets?
You would be wrong for saying no. The US Constitution is the law of the land, not a political party. It establishes US borders and the laws for enforcing those borders.
Voting no amounts to nothing less than voting against enforcement of the law.
Perhaps you folk on the left should spend more time and energy on enforcing the laws we have rather than writing new ones out of the Communist Manifesto?
Show where it conflicts with US law.I say No! What say you?
Did anyone listen to George Will today (on "This Week") try to justify a law justifying dragnets?
You would be wrong for saying no. The US Constitution is the law of the land, not a political party. It establishes US borders and the laws for enforcing those borders.
Voting no amounts to nothing less than voting against enforcement of the law.
Perhaps you folk on the left should spend more time and energy on enforcing the laws we have rather than writing new ones out of the Communist Manifesto?
Oh me, oh my are you being funny? If the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, what business is it of the State of Arizona to enact legislation in conflict with it? Or, if you disagree (and believe 1070 does not violate Amendments 4 and 14) then anyone stopped for a burned out tail light or other infracton, and must submit to a search because the officer or deputy has a "resonable suspicion" of their status, and who is here legally, or is a citizen, will sue the shit out of the agency.
I say No! What say you?
Did anyone listen to George Will today (on "This Week") try to justify a law justifying dragnets?
I say its pretty simple to determine whether or not Libertarians support Arizona's 1070 Law:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
Since 1070 controls entry of foreign nationals who pose a threat, then you could say Libertarians support it.
On the other hand, since 1070 also may represent an "Unreasonable Constraint" then some Libertarians may NOT support it.
Why are we even concerned about whatever Libertarians may think?
The problem with using the Libertarian Party as basis for what libertarians believe is that the Libertarian Party has worked very hard to make itself more attractive to the mainstream by becoming more conservative than libertarian.
In my opinion it comes down to the nonaggression axiom, which essentially defines libertarianism. The Arizona bill aggresses against the right of privacy of anyone in the state by allowing the police to ask for anyone's papers at anytime. Therefore, a "real" libertarian would oppose this bill on that basis alone, regardless of their view on immigration.
I say its pretty simple to determine whether or not Libertarians support Arizona's 1070 Law:
Since 1070 controls entry of foreign nationals who pose a threat, then you could say Libertarians support it.
On the other hand, since 1070 also may represent an "Unreasonable Constraint" then some Libertarians may NOT support it.
Why are we even concerned about whatever Libertarians may think?
The problem with using the Libertarian Party as basis for what libertarians believe is that the Libertarian Party has worked very hard to make itself more attractive to the mainstream by becoming more conservative than libertarian.
In my opinion it comes down to the nonaggression axiom, which essentially defines libertarianism. The Arizona bill aggresses against the right of privacy of anyone in the state by allowing the police to ask for anyone's papers at anytime. Therefore, a "real" libertarian would oppose this bill on that basis alone, regardless of their view on immigration.
I agree: Libertarians would have a very well controlled border, however, if you weren't a criminal, then you could enter the USA with no fear of being asked for proof of citizenship.
Though, regardless of whether or not you are Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican: WTF kind of government allows just anyone, criminal, terrorist, or babymama to cross the border, much less THOUSANDS, and TENS OF THOUSANDS??
The problem with using the Libertarian Party as basis for what libertarians believe is that the Libertarian Party has worked very hard to make itself more attractive to the mainstream by becoming more conservative than libertarian.
In my opinion it comes down to the nonaggression axiom, which essentially defines libertarianism. The Arizona bill aggresses against the right of privacy of anyone in the state by allowing the police to ask for anyone's papers at anytime. Therefore, a "real" libertarian would oppose this bill on that basis alone, regardless of their view on immigration.
I agree: Libertarians would have a very well controlled border, however, if you weren't a criminal, then you could enter the USA with no fear of being asked for proof of citizenship.
Though, regardless of whether or not you are Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican: WTF kind of government allows just anyone, criminal, terrorist, or babymama to cross the border, much less THOUSANDS, and TENS OF THOUSANDS??
One that makes money off the tens of thousands of people coming in?
I agree: Libertarians would have a very well controlled border, however, if you weren't a criminal, then you could enter the USA with no fear of being asked for proof of citizenship.
Though, regardless of whether or not you are Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican: WTF kind of government allows just anyone, criminal, terrorist, or babymama to cross the border, much less THOUSANDS, and TENS OF THOUSANDS??
One that makes money off the tens of thousands of people coming in?
Hey, only a couple of guys mow and edge my yard.........and then there's the maids, my butler, and valet.........I think Cook is Italian, but I've never heard him speak......then there's my driver.
This would be really expensive if I had to buy another utility shed in which they lived.
One that makes money off the tens of thousands of people coming in?
Hey, only a couple of guys mow and edge my yard.........and then there's the maids, my butler, and valet.........I think Cook is Italian, but I've never heard him speak......then there's my driver.
This would be really expensive if I had to buy another utility shed in which they lived.
Not much of a problem here, yet. All this talk of illegals here has been getting my field hands all rowdy though.
They're starting to demand actual currency for their labor instead of just being paid in beer.
The 14 Amendment speaks not to Citizenship, better read it before you comment upon itShow where it conflicts with US law.You would be wrong for saying no. The US Constitution is the law of the land, not a political party. It establishes US borders and the laws for enforcing those borders.
Voting no amounts to nothing less than voting against enforcement of the law.
Perhaps you folk on the left should spend more time and energy on enforcing the laws we have rather than writing new ones out of the Communist Manifesto?
Oh me, oh my are you being funny? If the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, what business is it of the State of Arizona to enact legislation in conflict with it? Or, if you disagree (and believe 1070 does not violate Amendments 4 and 14) then anyone stopped for a burned out tail light or other infracton, and must submit to a search because the officer or deputy has a "resonable suspicion" of their status, and who is here legally, or is a citizen, will sue the shit out of the agency.
It does not violate the 4th amendment because reasonable suspicion of criminal activity has been upheld by ALL courts for over a century. It is usually the minor infraction that discovers the major one. Do you think it's bad to remove a kidnapper from the street because he was caught with a burnt out tail light?
If an officer/deputy/agent, etc. has a reasonable suspicion, the officer, etc. goes to his supervisor for approval to get a search warrant, wherein the agency requesting the SW signs an affidavit under penalty of perjury that there is probable cause to search for a specific item.
Race cannot be the ONLY reason to pull someone over. There must be a suspicion or evidence of criminal activity. The same way if you get pulled over for a burnt out headlight and the cop sees the joint behind your ear and then calls for the drug dog and finds the 20 keys of black tar heroin in the spare tire compartment.
If an officer is so inclined, s/he can follow most vehicles for a very short time and find an infraction, no one knows what is in the heart of the officer
And just so you know, you do not automatically get US Citizenship by crossing the border, therefore they cannot be protected as citizens under the 14th amendment. You are a guest. And if you aren't legal, you're not even that... you're a trespasser.
I say its pretty simple to determine whether or not Libertarians support Arizona's 1070 Law:
Since 1070 controls entry of foreign nationals who pose a threat, then you could say Libertarians support it.
On the other hand, since 1070 also may represent an "Unreasonable Constraint" then some Libertarians may NOT support it.
Why are we even concerned about whatever Libertarians may think?
The problem with using the Libertarian Party as basis for what libertarians believe is that the Libertarian Party has worked very hard to make itself more attractive to the mainstream by becoming more conservative than libertarian.
In my opinion it comes down to the nonaggression axiom, which essentially defines libertarianism. The Arizona bill aggresses against the right of privacy of anyone in the state by allowing the police to ask for anyone's papers at anytime. Therefore, a "real" libertarian would oppose this bill on that basis alone, regardless of their view on immigration.
I agree: Libertarians would have a very well controlled border, however, if you weren't a criminal, then you could enter the USA with no fear of being asked for proof of citizenship.
Though, regardless of whether or not you are Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican: WTF kind of government allows just anyone, criminal, terrorist, or babymama to cross the border, much less THOUSANDS, and TENS OF THOUSANDS??
Hey, only a couple of guys mow and edge my yard.........and then there's the maids, my butler, and valet.........I think Cook is Italian, but I've never heard him speak......then there's my driver.
This would be really expensive if I had to buy another utility shed in which they lived.
Not much of a problem here, yet. All this talk of illegals here has been getting my field hands all rowdy though.
They're starting to demand actual currency for their labor instead of just being paid in beer.
So YOU'RE the one that started the Beer thing: For Christssakes, mine were doing just fine on Tortillas and Beans!
Libertarians believe that drug dealers ought to go about unmolested but day laborers supporting their families shouldn't.
What does that say about the movement?
