Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) "Anchor Baby" B.S. (Read 11773 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 47787
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #150 - Oct 1st, 2015 at 10:42am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 29th, 2015 at 11:13pm:
Secondly, crossing the border illegally is not aggression. When you deport the mum, this is not mere defensive force. It's a punishment for a crime, but according to libertarian principles, it's aggression.

As you keep saying, you just can't seem to grasp libertarian principles...

Entering my home illegally is aggression punishable by law. Ejecting a trespasser from my home is not aggression, it's my right, and a proper response to the illegal trespass.

The same libertarian principle applies to entering a country illegally, it's trespass, and deportation is not aggression.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11250
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #151 - Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:57am
Print Post  
Alan Jones wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 6:11pm:
Already addressed. It's either aggression or not independently of such criteria. And you seem to say below that it's aggression either way, making the presence (or absence) of the child irrelevant.


It's an additional instance of aggression.

Do you admit that when imprisoned or deported, a mother keeps her parental rights? In other words, do you admit that she still has say-so about how her child is treated and by whom?

Jeff wrote on Oct 1st, 2015 at 10:42am:
As you keep saying, you just can't seem to grasp libertarian principles...

Entering my home illegally is aggression punishable by law. Ejecting a trespasser from my home is not aggression, it's my right, and a proper response to the illegal trespass.

The same libertarian principle applies to entering a country illegally, it's trespass, and deportation is not aggression.


It's you that doesn't understand in this case. The government doesn't properly have those kinds of rights. If Bob wants Pedro on his land to mow his grass, the government cannot tell either man no. If Bob wants to sell Pedro his house, yet again the government has no right to say no.

If you want closed borders, you're a conservative, not a libertarian.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 47787
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #152 - Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:12am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:57am:
It's you that doesn't understand in this case. The government doesn't properly have those kinds of rights. If Bob wants Pedro on his land to mow his grass, the government cannot tell either man no. If Bob wants to sell Pedro his house, yet again the government has no right to say no.

If you want closed borders, you're a conservative, not a libertarian.

I understand that Congress has the power to pass immigration laws, and the Executive has a duty to enforce laws passed by Congress.

That doesn't mean I like our immigration laws, I don't.

What I also understand is that open borders and a welfare state require productive people to support even more unproductive people. As a libertarian, I want to end the unconstitutional transfer of wealth by government.
Even then, I prefer an immigration policy that requires potential immigrants to 1)Speak English, 2)Have a job waiting for them here and 3)Have a significant amount of real assets, i.e. money.

Good immigration law will never be created on the back of lies like the one that babies "anchor" their mothers in the U.S. Good immigration law, like any good laws, can only be created on the basis of truth.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11250
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #153 - Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:26am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:12am:
I understand that Congress has the power to pass immigration laws, and the Executive has a duty to enforce laws passed by Congress.


That's our constitution, not the libertarian ideal. They're close, but in this case, they differ.

Jeff wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:12am:
That doesn't mean I like our immigration laws, I don't.


I don't think there's anyone alive who finds those laws right or fair. I find them unfair and insane on the basis that they reward those who break the law over those who follow it. It would be like having prizes for speeding instead of fines.

Jeff wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:12am:
What I also understand is that open borders and a welfare state require productive people to support even more unproductive people. As a libertarian, I want to end the unconstitutional transfer of wealth by government.


The welfare state won't go away until the government is broke. Open borders will make that happen. And the lefties can't say a thing against you because you're being even "nicer" than they want to be. You're being more progressive than they are. When you say you want to let everyone in, they will hang their heads in shame, and stare at their feet, for they will have nothing to say.

Jeff wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:12am:
Even then, I prefer an immigration policy that requires potential immigrants to 1)Speak English, 2)Have a job waiting for them here and 3)Have a significant amount of real assets, i.e. money.


That's nice for maintaining a State you want to keep.

Jeff wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:12am:
Good immigration law will never be created on the back of lies like the one that babies "anchor" their mothers in the U.S. Good immigration law, like any good laws, can only be created on the basis of truth.


It's not a lie. If the mother is aggressive in some other way, perhaps threatening your life, and actually holding up her baby as a shield (or carrying it in one of those front-packs you see sometimes) can you shoot her, even in self-defence?

If the babies anchor illegal mothers in the US on the basis of being citizens, it is simply better that the babies not be considered citizens.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 47787
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #154 - Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:13pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:26am:
That's our constitution, not the libertarian ideal. They're close, but in this case, they differ.

You, who constantly reiterates that you don't understand libertarian philosophy or policies, are going to lecture on the "libertarian ideal"?
Piss off.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 47787
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #155 - Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:18pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:26am:
The welfare state won't go away until the government is broke. Open borders will make that happen. And the lefties can't say a thing against you because you're being even "nicer" than they want to be. You're being more progressive than they are. When you say you want to let everyone in, they will hang their heads in shame, and stare at their feet, for they will have nothing to say.

By working to eliminate the "welfare" state, I'm more 'progressive' than the 'progressives'?

You're right, human liberty, including the right to keep what you earn and not have the government take it and give it to someone else is a huge contributor to human progress.
The "welfare" state is Medieval barbarism enshrined in government.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 47787
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #156 - Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:22pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 8:26am:
It's not a lie. If the mother is aggressive in some other way, perhaps threatening your life, and actually holding up her baby as a shield (or carrying it in one of those front-packs you see sometimes) can you shoot her, even in self-defence?

When I was younger, I was quite skillful with guns. Depending on the exact situation, yes, I probably could have shot someone threatening my life, even if they were holding a baby in front of them.

But as always, this is not to the point. Babies don't anchor parents in the U.S.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alan Jones
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2721
Joined: Apr 19th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #157 - Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:54pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 7:57am:
Do you admit that when imprisoned or deported, a mother keeps her parental rights? In other words, do you admit that she still has say-so about how her child is treated and by whom?

No, of course not. The child would necessarily have a different legal guardian.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11250
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #158 - Oct 2nd, 2015 at 10:01pm
Print Post  
Alan Jones wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 6:54pm:
No, of course not. The child would necessarily have a different legal guardian.


If the decision of who is to take care of the baby now is not the mother's, it is no one's, because when the mother loses guardianship, there could be no guardian at all.

Jeff wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:18pm:
By working to eliminate the "welfare" state, I'm more 'progressive' than the 'progressives'?


Yes. Fight fire with fire. The oxygen gets used up quicker and no one can cry foul.

Jeff wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 5:22pm:
When I was younger, I was quite skillful with guns. Depending on the exact situation, yes, I probably could have shot someone threatening my life, even if they were holding a baby in front of them.

But as always, this is not to the point. Babies don't anchor parents in the U.S.


It's very much to the point because it illustrates that a baby can make a NAP-approved shield. Unless you can pick off mum, you can't shoot. Shooting through that baby is aggression.

Think about how the police deal with hostage situations. Even though the criminals would unilaterally be causing the harm, the police don't ignore the fact that there are hostages, even though a policy of ignoring hostages' lives would mean no one ever takes hostages again.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alan Jones
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2721
Joined: Apr 19th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #159 - Oct 3rd, 2015 at 4:59am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 2nd, 2015 at 10:01pm:
If the decision of who is to take care of the baby now is not the mother's, it is no one's, because when the mother loses guardianship, there could be no guardian at all.

That's obviously false. Are you off your meds again?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy