Open Borders - Bill Clinton

Posted by j_IR1776wg 3 years, 7 months ago to Government
29 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The following is quoted from Breitbart.
"Clinton asked his audience to consider the two choices the “us vs. them” sentiment fosters, asking, “Are we going to live in an us and them world, or a world that we live in together? If you got that, in every age and time, the challenges we face can be resolved in a way to keep us going forward instead of taking us to the edge of destruction.”

The ex-president’s comments are clearly aimed at Donald Trump, though Clinton didn’t utter Trump’s name during the event. Critics of President Trump have accused him of pushing a policy of “nationalism.”

These statements may not be surprising from a figure who has called for wide open borders.

On that terrible day in 2001 that radical Muslim terrorists launched the most devastating attack on the U.S.A. in history, Bill Clinton was in Australia giving a speech before a group of businessmen. In comments made only ten hours before the towers fell in New York, Bill Clinton said he felt the wold would be a better place if there were no national borders."

I wonder how many in the Gukch agree with him?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 7 months ago
    Bill Clinton wants one thing and one thing only: the means and opportunity to pursue his debauchery. Any statement of his can be accurately looked at through this singular lens.

    Bill Clinton has no concept of borders, or even propriety and decency. To value his opinion on any such is sheer foolishness.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 7 months ago
      Clinton's motive in politics is ideological, not personal debauchery.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 7 months ago
        You are confusing Bill with Hillary. Hillary is ideological. She was the one who married Bill because she saw in him the way to get power she couldn't get alone. His entire career, however, has been about leveraging his position for sexual gratification. Every time the scandals about him broke, she wasn't ever mad at him for what he did, but that he got caught doing it. Why? Because it threatened her ability to get power.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 7 months ago
          Bill Clinton's "entire career" has not been about using political position to get sex. Who needs to be elected to high office to get what any prostitute can do? Both of them have been ideological collectivists since they were students. The difference between them in this respect is that Bill takes his personal debauchery everywhere he goes and Hillary has nothing personal to offer even for debauchery.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 7 months ago
    Clinton is full of $h-t. A nation, Like the individual who acts in his own ethical self interest should not be put in a context of me or us vs them, Our nation has the moral right to act in our best interests just as every nation should. Because I lock my doors to my house doesn't mean I am opposed to my neighbors, it means I will determine their entry.
    Anything that comes out of his mouth should be reversed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 7 months ago
      It depends on what you mean by self interest, which must mean the rational self-interest of individuals, wherever they are from. That certainly includes protecting the country from those who would destroy it through sharia law, terrorism, coming here for welfare at our expense, or one-world socialism. It doesn't include government "protection" in the name of economic "self interest" that many conservatives today package with the self interest of the nation.

      As Ayn Rand put it in 1973: "No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or force, which is what you're suggesting [in the question 'doesn't open immigration have a negative effect on a country's standard of living?'] You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living -- which isn't true, though if it were true, you'd still have no right to close the borders. You're not entitled to any 'self-interest' that injures others, especially when you can't prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can't claim that anything others may do -- for example, simply through competition -- is against your self-interest. But above all, aren't you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn't be alive today if our border had been closed?"

      Every individual no matter where he is born has the same moral rights -- but they do not include the kinds of mass illegal threats we see today but which were not an issue in 1973 and not related to the question she answered.

      This was previously discussed on this forum at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jimjamesjames 3 years, 7 months ago
        AR: " You're not entitled to any 'self-interest' that injures others....."

        You are also not obligated to consider the 'self-interest' of others that injures you.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 7 months ago
          You are obligated to respect the rights of others that out compete you. The very concept of rights requires that you "consider the 'self-interest' of others". Without that there is no principle of rights of the individual. Government force to protect you from injury means protecting you from physical force, not everyone pursuing his own interests that you don't like.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 7 months ago
        You should read my comment again .I don't want to forbid immigration . Ethical self interest would never injure others. That would be unethical.
        Please explain how I have suggested immigration has a negative effect on a countries standard of living.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 7 months ago
          You didn't say what you meant by a national self interest.

          Many conservatives, including Mark Levin, are promoting restricting immigration for economic protectionism in the name of 'our nation has the right to act in our best interests'. The question Ayn Rand answered in 1973 was asked at The Ford Hall Forum.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 7 months ago
            " Our nation has the moral right to act in our best interests just as every nation should" that is what I said.
            I know we have a disaster related to the flood of illegal aliens and border control. I want the govt to know who is here that is not a citizen . If that is what Levin said it is news to me as I have no thoughts to him or who he is.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 7 months ago
              It is well known that conservatives demand to restrict immigration on behalf of "jobs" in the name of national interest and that that is a widespread view. Mark Levin is one of the more prominent spokesman, explicitly advocating it daily on his popular three hour nationwide radio program and 1 hour internet TV program. They also insist that they are not opposed to immigration: They say it should be limited in accordance with the interests of current citizens, in which they openly include protectionism -- The say they are for immigration but don't want anyone coming to the country for a job that a citizen wants but can't compete for.

              When you say in the context of opposing the Clintons' advocacy of "open borders" that a nation has a right to and should act in its own interests just like any other nation it only emphasizes the ambiguity in both what you mean by self interest and what immigration policy you had in mind, which you didn't specify, and which is why I wrote "It depends on what you mean by self interest". Look at all the things nations around the world do in the name of their own interest. You can't take the meaning of self interest for granted, which is why Ayn Rand had to emphasize the distinction when she answered the question in 1973. So do we. She had to begin with "You don't know my conception of self interest".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 7 months ago
                I am glad you follow the Mark Levin show and their discussion of an immigration policy. Do you agree with Clinton? My point was and is that our nation has the moral right to control our borders and that it is in the citizens interest to do so and vette the folks we let immigrate here.

                You falsely claimed that I said " 'doesn't open immigration have a negative effect on a country's standard of living?'] You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living -- which isn't true, though if it were true, you'd still have no right to close the borders. You're not entitled to any 'self-interest' that injures others, especially when you can't prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can't claim that anything others may do -- for example, simply through competition -- is against your self-interest. But above all, aren't you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn't be alive today if our border had been closed?""
                A Lot of speculation of what I think and innuendo that is UN warranted.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by blackswan 3 years, 7 months ago
        A nation has certain cultural norms and mores that it's obligated to protect, based on that nation's founding and ongoing traditions. To allow a foreigner into the country who is committed to destroying those cultural norms and mores and imposing antithetical cultural norms and mores is stupidity in the extreme. No foreigner has the "right" to come here to destroy what's here. He has an obligation to follow the laws of this land, and not to attempt to impose the laws of another. If the foreigner is not here to assimilate into this society, as it is, then they should stay where they are; they're obviously more comfortable with the culture where they're living. Assimilation is the issue, not immigration. Bringing alien ideologies here that are hostile to what this country is founded on is not immigration, but an invasion committed to destroying this country, and hiding behind the so-called "rights" of the alien. Suicide isn't something enshrined in the Constitution, and I certainly didn't sign up for that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 7 months ago
          There is no right to use force to impose "cultural norms" and "traditions". If someone coming into this country respects the rights of others he has a right to be here. He has no obligation to become a religious conservative. If his "culture" means commitment to imposing sharia law or some other form of sacrifice and collectivism, or mindlessly living off the welfare state in part or whole, then that is another matter. When large numbers of such people swarm into the country then that is tantamount to invasion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 years, 7 months ago
    All one has to do is look at a person's own residence. There is a "border" right there that is enforced, and for good reason. Look at a "gated community"- that has a border also, and for good reason. Extrapolate to a country of like minded people- whats wrong with a border there that is enforced. Check out "Canada border security" to see how its done there (Netflix). USA border security has been a sham to say the least. Un vett-able syrian refugees would have no chance in Canada. A DUI will keep you from entering Canada for 10 years.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 7 months ago
      A national border is not a private property border.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 3 years, 7 months ago
        Currently the USA isn't comprised of like minded people who agree about property rights and a border. Unlike a gated community where each resident agrees as part of the purchase process that a border of their community exists and will be maintained. Maybe the USA should be run the same way, with citizenship earned and not given by birth
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 7 months ago
          Lack of understanding or property rights has nothing to do with the distinction between the geographical area of a nation versus private property.

          Being born in a country with no citizenship would make no sense. But there are many options for establishing a civil right to vote as if it is an intellectually serious matter.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 7 months ago
    I not only agree, but I think it's inevitable the world's boundaries will stop being geographical.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 7 months ago
      No political system is inevitable, let alone world government. "A world that we live in together" is not possible without respect for the rights of the individual and government that protects them. The kind of government any people gets is dependent on its dominant philosophy. With savagery, primitivism, tribalism irrationalism, and collectivism dominating all over the world, it would certainly not "be a better place if there were no national borders", subjecting us all to the same savagery. The Clintons want one helpless neck controlled by one brutal leash.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 3 years, 7 months ago
        Your right, I've said it myself, without respect for one's property, we can never have a borderless world.
        That's why they want to eliminate Property rights...which includes your Person!

        There is no "one size fits all" and will not likely be for a very long time...if ever.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo