[mQb0aVZe]

Right. It goes both ways, of course.

A bunch of tyranny-loving people will embrace tyranny. A bunch of liberty-loving people will embrace liberty.

Importing a bunch of tyranny-lovers into a liberty-loving community is going to create problems...

Furthermore, the people of Vermont have different cultural notions than the people of New Mexico, and each should be free to govern and live by those notions. There is no reason to try to force people to live by some "national culture"...

Would you expand states rights to include immigration? is it OK if California allows unfettered immigration and Arizona places stringent laws against all immigration? How about gay marriage and pot? how about polygamy and beastiality?

and I think we do have a national culture at some level. Americans do not think and act like Russians or Koreans or Brazilians.

you are on the right track with the states rights thing, but you need to think it all the way through.

[Tndfpcin]

The States are sovereign nations. They always have been.

The Union is a treaty-based federation of allied nations.

Of course States can make any laws they wish, regarding immigration.

[duawLauff]

The States are sovereign nations. They always have been.

The Union is a treaty-based federation of allied nations.

Of course States can make any laws they wish, regarding immigration.

OK, then the next step would be militarized state borders, where you had to show papers in order to cross. Is that what you are advocating?

[DoctorNiCYDEn]

OK, then the next step would be militarized state borders, where you had to show papers in order to cross. Is that what you are advocating?

I'm not advocating that, but it would be an available option.

[Arrectiff]

I'm not advocating that, but it would be an available option.

So you would be OK with a border stop between Virginia and west virginia where you had to show papers and get permission to cross the state line? don't be foolish.

[Adeniinteme]

So you would be OK with a border stop between Virginia and west virginia where you had to show papers and get permission to cross the state line? don't be foolish.

Movement from nation to nation has been quite simple in Europe for decades.

But, I don't see why it would be necessary, assuming the union remained in place.

As to immigration problems, they are easily solved, but they are not solved at any border.

[Emedgella]

Movement from nation to nation has been quite simple in Europe for decades.

But, I don't see why it would be necessary, assuming the union remained in place.

As to immigration problems, they are easily solved, but they are not solved at any border.

You said it would be OK if the states had different immigration laws, so an illegal could be allowed to stay in Cal, but would be subject to deportation in Az. the ony way to enforce such different state laws would be to check everyone at the border.

you just need to think your ideas all the way to their logical conclusion before writing them down.

[Sydrothcoathy]

You said it would be OK if the states had different immigration laws, so an illegal could be allowed to stay in Cal, but would be subject to deportation in Az. the ony way to enforce such different state laws would be to check everyone at the border.

you just need to think your ideas all the way to their logical conclusion before writing them down.

That would be up to California and Arizona.

Immigrants will not go there if there is no welfare state or the ability to find a job. So all of this border talk, and deportations, and everything else, is just nonsense. It's not important.

[WapSaibiar]

That would be up to California and Arizona.

Immigrants will not go there if there is no welfare state or the ability to find a job. So all of this border talk, and deportations, and everything else, is just nonsense. It's not important.

you just don't get it. my immigration example was just that, an example.

you say that it would be up to CA and AZ, so we would end up with a mish mash of state to state laws that would vary between every combination of states? who would enforce that?

[wgX44EEn]

you just don't get it. my immigration example was just that, an example.

you say that it would be up to CA and AZ, so we would end up with a mish mash of state to state laws that would vary between every combination of states? who would enforce that?

There is no reason that the states can't agree to have some immigration controls at the federal level, but that shouldn't supercede the rights of the states themselves to create any laws that they choose above and beyond that.

[MARMELADINA]

And, as I said, if the federal government were disabled, any state that wanted to eliminate any threat of illegal immigration could simply eliminate the welfare state, require proof of citizenship for the right to work, and punish employers who break the rules. Problem solved. No more immigrants!

[Vkowefek]

http://youtu.be/uhtabJn7ilg

http://youtu.be/ML8IH7F8P-k

http://youtu.be/RdVMQbZwP-0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SEND THE IMMIGRANTS TO COMMONSHITS.

[SerycegeBunny]

There is no reason that the states can't agree to have some immigration controls at the federal level, but that shouldn't supercede the rights of the states themselves to create any laws that they choose above and beyond that.

We need a federal code of laws in order for interstate commerse to operate. We cannot just do away with federal law and let the states have it all.

I agree that about 80% of federal law could be eliminated and turned over to the states. But there has to be some overarching federal statutes or we are not a country but rather 50 seperate countries.

[timmybrown]

We need a federal code of laws in order for interstate commerse to operate. We cannot just do away with federal law and let the states have it all.

I agree that about 80% of federal law could be eliminated and turned over to the states. But there has to be some overarching federal statutes or we are not a country but rather 50 seperate countries.

Yeah, that's what I'm shooting for. 50 separate countries. Or more.

[OccumCymn]

Yeah, that's what I'm shooting for. 50 separate countries. Or more.

If you are serious, you are delusional.

[Heliosprime]

GET CALIXICO OFF THE FEDERAL TIT, AND THEY'LL

SLAM THEIR BORDER SHUT.

[Broker15015]

UNITED....STATES.....


GET IT?

NO, OF COURSE YOU DON'T.



YO DON'T KNOW A FEDERATION FROM A FUCK-HOLE.

[TolleyBoymn]

Yeah, that's what I'm shooting for. 50 separate countries. Or more.

I think the word "united" in united states of america is pertinent.

[Helloheshess]

I think the word "united" in united states of america is pertinent.

Nothing wrong with maintaining a loose union for common defense and free trade.

I don't want a President. I don't want federal taxes. I don't want "federal lands". Interstate commerce should be governed by a consensus among the states, regulating the rules.

There needn't be any standing federal army. The states should raise/maintain their own militias/national guard, and the US military should function in a manner somewhat similar to NATO...

[realnilkless]

Nothing wrong with maintaining a loose union for common defense and free trade.

I don't want a President. I don't want federal taxes. I don't want "federal lands". Interstate commerce should be governed by a consensus among the states, regulating the rules.

There needn't be any standing federal army. The states should raise/maintain their own militias/national guard, and the US military should function in a manner somewhat similar to NATO...

you are in a dream state, my little injun buddy. got some bad weed in the peace pipe.