10

latest telephone poll taken by the California Governor's office, asked whether people who live in California think illegal immigration is a serious problem:

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 month ago to Humor
82 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Now,,,having ALL the facts, we can understand the situation.

29% of respondents answered:
"Yes, it is a serious problem."

71% of respondents answered:
"No es una problema seriosa."


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  exceller 1 month ago
    Yesterday I had a revelation.

    You know of all those films depicting the "future" USA: bleak countryside, cities in ruins, criminal gangs marauding and controlling the frightened and impoverished population left.

    The democrats and the progressive left, of which California is a crying example, are driving the country to that end. It is not very far into the future: one or two generations.

    I am glad I won't be around by that time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 1 month ago
      I've had the same revelation except a bit longer ago than yesterday. I was extremely thankful to be born at the time I was and to have had the opportunity to make a good life at the peak of the greatest civilization the world has ever seen to date. And at the same time realized I will be dead just before it all crashes in on itself because too many of the generations coming after me are clueless as to why it was great or even how to keep it flourishing.

      A long time ago I read a story by Isaac Asimov where an alien race sent a ship to emit waves to psychologically mess up the human thinking process to crash their society and prevent them from getting off the planet. I don't remember the name of the story. It's working.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by hawk1776 1 month ago
      I personally would rather secure the liberty of my family and myself and branch out into my community. If we use sound Constitutional doctrine we can again build a free, productive, and profitable society, and be able to do it before our great cities are burned to ash.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month ago
        I think we should do away with cities. Cultural centers where one only visits but doesn't live there. They make people dependent, one's life depends so much on others, affected by others and when something breaks...you can't fix it yourself cause you own nothing.

        Cities were once useful for protection from the outside world but these days, the outside world needs protection from the cities.
        Walls should built to keep everyone in and they are not allowed to vote in national elections or at least we could use the 3/5ths clause to equal out the situation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      France is almost there already...

      All conscious, value creating and producing folks should leave the state and leave the useless left there to live with the consequences...

      What ever is left of hollywood could film the whole thing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 1 month ago
        Like Hollywood has been filming Venezuela and telling the truth about the reason for the collapse and how it foretells the result for socialist Amerika.
        It's all the fault of greedy white men who want to keep what they produce to support their own families without government assistance. Greedy white men who want to have a free fair exchange of goods produced by free people without government meddling. Greedy white men who just want to be left alone to be productive and raise their families in peace.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month ago
          More likely Hollywood will produce a spetacular feature film based on,
          “How Capitalists Destroyed Venezuela”
          https://www.accredited-times.com/2017...

          Also “Lego Venezuela” will be in production featuring Lord Business, for the Children.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccannon01 4 weeks, 1 day ago
            Interesting article. The big truth the author left out is the "golden age" of various socialist systems ended mainly because they ran out of other peoples money.

            I've said before, "Socialist policies can appear to work as long as there is a strong enough capitalist base to support them." Venezuela killed the base and ran out of other peoples money.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month ago
          "It's the fault of greedy white" [hu]men[oids]...not the "white" [conscious] [hu]men "who want to keep what they produce"...etc.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 1 month ago
            I wish the media's presentation was as fair as yours, OUC.
            I recall a previous occupant of the WH who wasn't lily white - not his policies, not his propaganda, not his skin, yet the media has always presented him as the perfect lord of all he surveys. Lying scum.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month ago
              Parasitical Humanoids come in all colors of the rainbow...[pun intended]

              Yes, I do too, but this understanding may only come long after I am dead...yet, I feel the drive to get it right and in a form inwhich, at least, future men might understand.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 4 weeks, 1 day ago
    I speak Spanish, but only when I am speaking to someone who doesn't speak English! I think it is rude to speak another language when English is our first language. When people do this, I know when they are talking about me and I can embarrass them easily. I do and I did. Two very penitent young ladies called me an ugly name and I corrected them in their language! Don't be deceived by blond hair and green eyes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 weeks, 6 days ago
      Green-eyed lady, lovely lady
      Strolling slowly towards the sun
      Green-eyed lady, ocean lady
      Soothing every raging wave that comes

      Green-eyed lady, passion's lady
      Dressed in love, she lives for life to be
      Green-eyed lady feels life I never see
      Setting suns and lonely lovers free

      Green-eyed lady, wind-swept lady
      Rules the night, the waves, the sand
      Green-eyed lady, ocean lady
      Child of nature, friend of man

      Green-eyed lady, passion's lady
      Dressed in love, she lives for life to be
      Green-eyed lady feels life I never see
      Setting suns and lonely lovers free

      https://youtu.be/i_i7PKdQJU4
      1971 as a 14 yr old my buddy and I hung out with this band for a week at the Minnesota state fair.
      We knew this one by heart.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ZenRoy 1 month ago
    I use to go down to Corona every couple of years during the summer. Its a days drive away and great beaches. Just a fun place to hang out. About 20 years ago it started to have a very unkempt look to some of the buildings, which slowly got worse. More and more people in the area spoke only Spanish. About 10 years ago I quit going, its become a place that is not safe. So yes its a real problem. I do not know if its still creeping north, but in the early 2000s it was and so were the associated gangs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rjkford 1 month ago
    In response to term2 comment on California, the best thing that CA could do is to separate from the Union, establish themselves as a 3rd world country(which for all intents and purposes they pretty much are) and then apply for foreign aid! Then they wouldn't have to worry about all of our silly laws. I imagine that Slang Spanish would be their language.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 4 weeks, 1 day ago
    What is Objectivism? I like the definition in Atlas Shrugged from the Judge:
    There is government but there is not much of it.

    To Objectivists the only legitimate function of government is to protect rights.

    Only? No. To protect the rights of who?
    Quick answer, all those who are legally present. Those who have 'standing' respecting those rights. A person not legally present has limited or no legal rights.

    Another legit function of government is to enforce contracts. Government has a contract with voters to protect borders and set rules determining who and how borders are to be crossed.

    Agreed, much land is not private property, but non-private land is not free-for-all. Such land is managed by governments on behalf of and for citizens thus governments can make rules such as- if a non-citizen, then no automatic right to enter, if an illegal- no right to enter at all.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month ago
    I think the federal government should be scaled back to have almost no power and control. Leave it to the states to lord over the citizens who reside there. AND, let California float free and not get subsidies from a federal source.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 6 days ago in reply to this comment.
    How did you determine that his a terrorist?
    Now on top of rejecting rights and a proper theory of government, you're also rejecting presumption of innocence.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 weeks, 6 days ago
      Do you know what a thought experiment is? For purposes of this discussion, it’s a method by which you set up a hypothetical situation with hypothetical people to see what would occur under certain hypothetical scenarios. In this instance, if a terrorist (or a group of terrorists) wished to enter the U.S. to kill or harm innocent civilians, what would be the outcome if your “open borders” policy were in place? They would be allowed to enter the country and carry out their destructive agenda. No government would leave its country open to such an outcome unless its leaders were suicidal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 5 days ago
        You don't need "thought experiments" on such simple, black and white issues.
        Do you need a thought experiment because you don't want to accept that 1+1=2?
        The fact is, Objectivist theory of government is that of rights protecting government and because immigration doesn't violate any rights, it should be perfect legal.
        The term "illegal immigrant" is nonsense.
        It's that easy.
        You're just evading this and are pretending you're engaging in "thought experiments".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 1 month ago
    To Objectivists the only legitimate function of government is to protect rights. Only rights violations should be illegal.
    Since the act of immigration isn't a rights violation, it should be perfectly legal and the term "illegal immigration" doesn't even make any sense, let alone represent any kind of problem.
    The only problem here, is the political illiteracy of the conservative movement, making the old-left, anti-immigrant policies mainstream again.
    Objectivists should know better.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month ago
      Entering property you don't own is a rights violation. It's called trespassing. Even if such property is not privately owned, it is still "publicly" owned by the American people and administered on their behalf by the American government. It is not owned by the prospective immigrants, and they have no "right" to set foot in it without permission of the owners.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month ago
        And there inlies the problem: respect for the property rights of others. That is the problem that open border advocates care not about, we can't have open borders until everyone is willing to knock upon your door before being "invited" in.

        I suppose that is why lefties, socialist,.. want to take property right away.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by PeterSmith 1 month ago
        "Entering property you don't own is a rights violation."
        Yep, which is in no way analogous to entering a country by crossing it's border, which is NOT "entering property you don't own" and preventing people from crossing the border IS a rights violation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 weeks, 1 day ago
          You’re right, entering property you don’t own is not analogous to entering a country by crossing its border. It’s an actual example of such trespassing. The land the prospective immigrant enters on the other side of the border is owned either by private citizens or by the government on their behalf. It is not owned by the prospective immigrant, and he has no right to its use. And that doesn’t even touch on the issue of national sovereignty, which is an integral element of limited government that Objectivism upholds. Ayn Rand was an immigrant, but she never stated or implied that there is an unrestricted “right” to cross a national border. Nothing in Objectivist ethical theory supports such a “right”.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -4
            Posted by PeterSmith 4 weeks, 1 day ago
            "You’re right, entering property you don’t own is not analogous to entering a country by crossing its border. It’s an actual example of such trespassing."
            No, it's not. A countries border simply denotes the jurisdiction that a particular governments laws apply. Crossing said border violates no rights and so should be perfectly legal.
            By your logic, since Objectivists support capitalism and the private ownership of ALL property, no one would be able to go anywhere without "breaking and entering".
            "And that doesn’t even touch on the issue of national sovereignty, which is an integral element of limited government that Objectivism upholds."
            Again, completely separate issue. I recommend Harry Binswangers latest post on his website which addresses this exact point, far better than I can.
            "Ayn Rand was an immigrant, but she never stated or implied that there is an unrestricted “right” to cross a national border."
            Yes she did. She was an advocate of what political illiterates today call "open borders".
            "Nothing in Objectivist ethical theory supports such a “right”."
            Then you need to learn what "rights" actually means. Objectivism is pro-"open borders," although that word is a packaged deal.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 weeks, 1 day ago
              Show me an instance of Ayn Rand advocating "open borders". And please give some evidence to back up your assertion that "Crossing said border violates no rights and so should be perfectly legal." How does one acquire a "right" to access and use the property of others without their consent?

              Of course people can access each other's property without "breaking and entering." They do it every day, with the property owner's permission, to engage in trade and other voluntary and mutually beneficial activities.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by PeterSmith 4 weeks, 1 day ago
                "How does one acquire a "right" to access and use the property of others without their consent?"
                That's like asking "show me how somebody going about their business, on their way to work or something, doesn't violate rights. Like I said, you need to learn what "rights" actually are.
                Also, the country and its border is not analogous to a property owner and his property, which you are still stuck on.
                And an example of Ayn Rand's support for Open Borders is:
                "You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. 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 borders had been closed? (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, p. 25.)"
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 weeks ago
                  How about answering the question I actually asked, instead of comparing it to an unrelated question. "How does one acquire a ‘right’ to access and use the property of others without their consent?"

                  As to Ayn Rand’s statement on immigration, context is important here. Her remarks were made during a question-and-answer session, and were not intended to be the Objectivist last word on the subject. Furthermore, her response was to a questioner that was advocating restricting immigration because he claimed it would lower the country’s standard of living. Clearly this position is inconsistent with Objectivism. But it would be overreaching to declare that her remarks constitute an endorsement of unrestricted immigration, with no objective standards or safeguards in place. In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand says, “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.” An immigrant crossing a national border will, by definition, be attempting to access and use property that does not belong to him. Since he has no right to the use and disposal of other people’s property, he has no right to cross the border. (He can certainly do so with permission, but we’re talking about unrestricted entry here.)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by PeterSmith 4 weeks ago
                    "How about answering the question I actually asked, instead of comparing it to an unrelated question. "How does one acquire a ‘right’ to access and use the property of others without their consent?""
                    Because that doesn't have anything to do with immigration which is not anyone accessing anyone's private property.

                    As to Ayn Rand, it's not really debatable. I gave you one example, you can find more.

                    You just don't want to hear the answer and don't seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals like "individual rights".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                      You still haven’t answered my question. "How does one acquire a ‘right’ to access and use the property of others without their consent?" The fact that the property is not private is irrelevant. As I explained above, the land the prospective immigrant enters on the other side of the border is owned either by private citizens or by the government on their behalf. It is not owned by the prospective immigrant, and he has no moral claim to its use and disposal.

                      Even as a U.S. citizen, I don’t have the right to, for example, set foot on a U.S. military base without permission, even though I would not be “initiating force” by doing so.

                      Regarding Ayn Rand’s statement on immigration, of course it’s debatable. I presented my views on her statement above, and you’re free to discuss them or not as you wish.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                        "You still haven’t answered my question. "How does one acquire a ‘right’ to access and use the property of others without their consent?""
                        One doesn't gain a right like that.
                        What does that have to do with immigration?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                          Answered above. The land the prospective immigrant enters on the other side of the border is owned either by private citizens or by the government on its citizens’ behalf. It is not owned by the prospective immigrant, and he has no right to occupy or use it without permission. If you don’t consider trespassing to be an initiation of force, please explain why.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                            And as I countered above to this terrible point, such an argument would mean you can't leave your house without "breaking and entering".
                            You're coming at this from the same point of view as politically illiterate conservatives, who have no theory of government and so have to try and determine policy through random means. In the case of immigration they arrive at their position by incorrectly deriving government policy from analogy to private citizens and their property. This is a false analogy as you have to have a theory of government to even have a theory of property rights and it doesn't work in reverse.
                            Objectivists on the other hand, DO have a theory of government and it is a rights protecting government.
                            That means only rights violations can be illegal and the act of immigration, crossing a border, is not a rights violation, so should be perfectly legal.
                            It's really easy.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                              And as I countered to your argument, of course people can access each other's property without "breaking and entering." They do it every day, with the property owner's permission, to engage in trade and other voluntary and mutually beneficial activities. I asked a straightforward and direct question, and so far your answer has been to compare my views with the views of others you (and I) disagree with, and to claim I’m drawing inappropriate analogies when I’m not drawing any analogies at all. Any reasonable theory of government will draw a distinction between the government’s obligations to its citizens and its obligations to individuals outside its jurisdiction. Even setting aside the property issue that you have not addressed, a government’s obligations to its citizens and legal residents includes protection from harm and potential harm originating outside the country’s borders. At a minimum , this includes screening potential immigrants for disease, criminal history and views on violence against the government or its citizens. A terrorist does not acquire a “right” to immigrate simply because he is supposedly not “initiating force” at the moment he crosses the border. And as I pointed out earlier, even a citizen does not have a “right” to enter a military base without permission. If you disagree, please explain why. People can legitimately disagree on the criteria and methods that a government employs in crafting and enforcing its immigration laws. But a blanket policy of “open borders” is not compatible with either a rational theory of government or a rational theory of individual rights.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                                That's not a counter to my argument because we're back to the fact that immigration doesn't involve your private property and doesn't require permission, just like you getting to work doesn't require permission from anyone.
                                As other posters arguing here, you don't have a correct understanding of the concept of "rights" and don't have a proper Objectivist theory of government.
                                You're ignoring it, even though I've explained it a few times now and are insisting on making nonsensical points, not based on rights or proper role of government.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                                  I suppose, then, that a terrorist does not require permission to cross the border (or even enter a government military installation) because such actions do not “involve my private property”. As I said earlier, a terrorist does not acquire a “right” to immigrate simply because he is supposedly not “initiating force” at the moment he crosses the border. And even a citizen does not have a “right” to enter a military base without permission. If you disagree, please explain why.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • PeterSmith replied 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                • Posted by  $  Dobrien 4 weeks ago
                  The question is not about immigration it is about illegal entry into this country. The second issue is the entitlements that encourages more mooches.
                  Ayn Rand did not sneak across the border. She entered legally. Her family was persecuted and she would qualify for asylum.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by PeterSmith 4 weeks ago
                    Ayn Rand lied on her application and then stayed after her Visa expired. She was absolutely what would qualify as an "illegal immigrant" until she got married.

                    But what you've missed, as have many posters here sadly, is that there is no such thing as entering a country "illegally". Only rights violations can be illegal and crossing a border is not a rights violation.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month ago
      I guess people in the future could create borders with private property, with no trespassing signs.

      Of course the real problem today is the Robbing Hoods.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      Not the old left Pete,...The original Liberal...you know, slightly right of center?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by PeterSmith 1 month ago
        The classic liberals did not have any issue with immigrants. They're the ones that support the phrase on the statue of liberty.
        Immigration only became an issue when the union movements wanted to cut down on cheap foreign labor.
        Hence, "old left" is the source of the immigration issue.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 4 weeks, 1 day ago
          Technically, the phrase I believe you are referring to is not on the Statue of Liberty and never was. It was put on the base, which was built after the statue. It was from a winning poem in a contest created to raise money to build the base. It is not national policy as allowed in the Constitution. I don't think the classic liberal had any problems with LEGAL immigration, including those who steamed passed the statue and were legally processed into the country, and I don't think anyone here does, either. The borders are open to LEGAL immigrants. The operative term here is "LEGAL" and each sovereign nation can set its own LEGAL immigration policy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by PeterSmith 4 weeks, 1 day ago
            You've missed the point entirely. Classic liberals and the "policy" of the constitution is rights protecting government, which means open borders.
            Immigration does not violate rights and so cannot be "illegal".
            This has nothing to do with national sovereignty and I recommend Harry Binswangers latest post on his website, which addresses this exact topic.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by mccannon01 4 weeks ago
              I don't believe I've missed any point.

              Please supply a link directly to what you wish me to read. A search "Harry Binswanger" came up with a long list and I'm not about to spend all night and all day tomorrow on this.

              Edit add: I have not down voted any of your posts. I wish whomever did would state why.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by PeterSmith 4 weeks ago
                https://www.hbletter.com/blog/
                You didn't search very hard did you?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by mccannon01 3 weeks, 6 days ago
                  Your condescending huff response is asinine at best. I will decide what to spend my time on, not you. I wasn't about to spend a lot of time exploring all the topics that resulted from the search I did make hoping to get the right one when you could have simply supplied the link without the snark. When requested, the onus is on you to supply the basis of your argument, not on others to go look for it.

                  In any case, a Gulcher named Lucky in this thread supplied the link before you even woke up and gave a decent response. I read the blog and agree with Lucky's assessment. Binswanger pulls his spin definition of sovereignty out of his butt and then attempts, poorly IMHO, to spoon feed it to the reader. Early on he admits that sovereign nations get to make their own laws and then wants to ignore the fact that immigration law is part of that legal system. He wants the reader to believe that the sovereign nation is initiating force against illegal immigrants when it is the illegal who is initiating the force.

                  His analogy with the Canadian tank force made me smile. I agree with stopping them, but I presume, according to Binswanger, a single Canadian citizen in his private tank should be able to roll across the border unquestioned. Multiply that by a million.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo