With credit of monies already paid in?

Eveything I have been reading about Europe lately indicates the citizenry from individual countries are feeling quite swamped by mass immigration from the Middle East. Many seem to be expressing verbally and in writing that they are equally frustrated by their politicians allegiance to political correctness. Based on the articles I have read Europe has a huge immigration problem now due to open borders. Of course I do not live in Europe so I do not know this as fact.

I agree with your fix. It is horribly broken and as long as we keep electing idiots to DC, it will never get fixed.

That said, when I signed up for SS it was called insurance whether it was or not - it has been a rip off since day one. I do not feel badly at all for collecting it today. Once I discovered what a rip off it was I looked for a way out but could never find and acceptable one.

Well practically that is incorrect. There is cheap healthcare and a base wrlfare for citizens. Americans become "permanentes " to get the healthcare. It is more um present down here than US. You don 't wait a month for an appt. The costs are a maybe 1/3 of US. It is an attractive lure

YES

Tom it was never an insurance program. Benefits have always been paid for with the present revenues. So that makes it a wealth transfer program - welfare.

I have paid in for food stamps forever that does not entitle me to food stamps.

That said the answer to social security is to make it a real insurance program first, as was done in Chile and I believe in Britain. Simultaneously phase out SS. Then make the insurance program voluntary.

It is an even worse investment for me and will be infinitely worse for my children.

The answer to social security is to make it a real insurance program first, as was done in Chile and I believe in Britain. Simultaneously phase out SS. Then make the insurance program voluntary.

Hello DB:
You'd better grandfather in social security for those who have had the money taken from them by use of force. You realize, of course the opposition to your suggestions would be overwhelming. Mainly because most folks, never having experienced it or intellectualized it, haven't a clue as what freedom really is.

Naturalization = granting citizenship. A power to establish rules for naturalization does not imply a power to prevent entry.

Perhaps to young people such as yourself SS is a welfare program, but to those of us who paid into it for 52+ years it is a very poor return on our 'investment.' Note that we made that 'investment' at the point of a gun.

DBHalling is right. On a practical level, the European Community is an international model one can observe regarding immigration. I am in France at the moment. Driving from France to Spain was no different from driving from Arizona to California. Well, a little different. The road signs changed from French to Basque / Spanish. No stopping. No visas. No customs. Any of the citizens of one country can travel to and work in any of the others. Too bad the whole world isn’t this way.

As Ron Paul says in his new book, “Why not start promoting trade, friendship, diplomacy, and travel among all willing countries?”

I have traveled extensively, and I agree with the description Halling gives about entering the country. The U.S. is not the country you believe you live in. Do not make any controversial statement. Your goal is to get past immigration and customs without being arrested. Think I am kidding? I can give you many stories which would make your hair stand on and which you would yell "these things cannot happen in America." They can, and do.

We should have work permits and one condition is they agree to support and defend USA Citizenship is another thing and should not be granted by birth but by passing some investigations like peikoff suggests. That's done now and should be the "path to citizenship". Let the Hispanics come here and work , but no welfare, free health case etc.

The idea of a test for ideology is ridiculous because, for one thing, there's no way to verify the test. But given our reality, e.g., that the elimination of the welfare state will not happen until after the next American Civil War, having a fence will at least greatly slow down the flood of illegals. Of course, if you eliminate the incentive for the riff raff to come here in the first place, e.g., the welfare, that would be an ideal solution, but how realistic is that without a civil war?

However, one test for ideology that I would support is to eliminate any Islamic immigration. America has thrived in the past through assimilation of freedom loving people that wanted to work and earn an improvement in their lives; Islam does not assimilate (by it's own definition) and it's primary goal is to conquer other cultures. As such, it is a mortal threat to any society that it comes into contact with.

just because they waited 10 years does not mean the years of wait are reasonable! GHBs J!!!!!!!!

This has been an excellent exchange; I've enjoyed reading it. Regarding point #2, I have honest questions about the concept of "National Property Rights," as it were.

Suppose I own 5 acres with a small farm (I don't). If "immigrants" come onto my property, claiming they are "free to travel freely," and have a "right" to be on my property, I will not be pleased. If I allow migrants to glean, that is good, but should be my voluntary choice. Otherwise, they are trespassing, violating my individual rights, and I have a right to defend "me" (including my property) against them. So even if "freedom to travel freely" is a real thing, it is limited by citizens' private property lines. And the primary job of the Government is to protect the property rights of its citizens.

May not a parallel be made between this private property and "national property rights"? We want the land claimed by USA citizens (whether private or "public") to not be Mexican just because Mexico claims it; we (our Government) defends it as our own.

I believe that our immigration policy should be much easier than it is. (I love The New Collosus.) That needs reform, you will have no debate from me. That said, I think our sovereign nation should have absolute sovereignty over who is allowed in, even temporarily, even if this means building a big wall.

Six years is not an unreasonable amount of time. Most of the international professors I know have waited for > 10 years.

ok. let's streamline the process and make it easy to become a citizen within a few years. Most take 6 or longer. When Db swore in as a lawyer, there were 40 or so immigrants in Jefferson City MO who did there own swearing in to become citizens. tear were streaming from my eyes. They were so happy and celebrating in the halls afterwards. Our system is broken but people are free.

What do Mazlish and Amy Peikoff disagree on? They both agree we should deny entry to immigrants who have acted criminally, but Mazlish extends this to ideologies accepting of criminal acts. This seems, to my naive reading, to be a distinction without a difference. We can only judge by people's actions.

People who are against liberty or the US Constitution but have taken no action in that regard are difficult to detect. It's easy for them to recite whatever shibboleth we set up to detect those who don't respect rights.

The article confuses immigration with citizenship. The solution to immigration is to first eliminate all welfare programs including social security and medicare. Second legalize all drugs (including getting rid of FDA). This will ensure that the US attracts the right people. Then we eliminate the need for Passports, drivers licenses and any other form of government ID.

A free person can travel where ever and when ever he wants to. A government can only stop them if they have probable cause that he committed a crime. Any sort of government ID or compliance test violates the Constitution under the fourth and fifth amendments at least

Those of you arguing for a wall, or a test, or a background check are arguing against freedom and against the constitution. Benjamin Franklin's quote is appropriate here "those who would trade a little liberty for a little safety will get neither and deserve neither.

The "young and white" claim is no longer accurate. Those preferences ended in Australia in the 1970s, and in NZ in the late 1980s. Australia has a similar percentage of Chinese, Indians, and Vietnamese as the US does.

A big reason why the world is much more dangerous than it was prior to 1900 is that the air travel that makes our lives more free also makes transportation for evil people more free. Obviously, this is not an argument to restrict our travel, but it is an acknowledgement that "It's a Small World After All".

While I think that the limits in the web site below are higher than I think is appropriate, this is in the direction of a policy that will reward production and keep moochers out.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...

The following from Wikipedia is also reasonable.

Introduction of points-based systems[edit]
Along with New Zealand adopting a radical direction of economic practice, Parliament passed a new Immigration Act into law in 1987. This would end the preference for migrants from Britain, Europe or Northern America based on their race, and instead classify migrants on their skills, personal qualities, and potential contribution to New Zealand economy and society. The introduction of the points-based system came under the National government, which pursued this policy-change even more than the previous Labour Party administration. This system resembled that of Canada, and came into effect in 1991. Effectively the New Zealand Immigration Service ranks the qualities sought in the migrants and gives them a priority using a points-based scale. As of 2009 this framework continues to control immigration, however from 2010 the new Immigration Act will replace all protocols and procedures.

The Government published the results of an immigration review in December 2006.[10]

Regulations provide that immigrants must be of good character.[11]