DennisLeeWilson
2014-September-02 04:30:47 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Click here for my public PGP key   Google Translate   Wikipedia Comparison of Language Translator programs   I use Firefox browser & add-on called "Google Translator for Firefox"
“I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” ~Thomas Jefferson
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge has its limitations, while imagination has no limits.” ~Albert Einstein
I love Arizona, I loathe its intrusive governments, especially the City of Phoenix.



Brainstorming!! Give it a try!   Subject Index to my Published Articles
Creative Commons vs Copyright Notice  Disclaimer


Donations? Hell, NO!*

Because robo-spammers outnumber real people by 20 to 1, you MUST register to post AND your membership MUST be approved.
SEND EMAIL with YOUR comments or a posting to Admin (at) DennisLeeWilson.com to prove that you are NOT an automaton.
Sure. It is a bother. But you only have to do it once to become a member. And you don't have to wade thru the spam.
 
   Home   Help Search Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: [2006-05-14] “Ask the Right Question” & Praise for ... from L. Neil Smith  (Read 9749 times)
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« on: 2008-November-18 10:02:48 PM »

Links to this article..:
http://tinyurl.com/Ask-Right-Question
http://tinyurl.com/6vtngzd
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=12.msg41#msg41    
[2006-05-14] “Ask the Right Question” & Praise for “Mr. Wilson's extremely interesting essay” from L. Neil Smith


From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo  (Original Message) Sent: 5/15/2006 10:19 A
From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo  (extended version) Sent: 2/18/2007 6:39 PM

Ask the Right Question -- extended version
If the wrong questions are being asked, then the answers don’t really matter, do they?

In my article, I credit my methodology, my approach to problems--as expressed in the title, to what I learned in the 1980s from Charles Moore, inventor of Forth. Today (2010-July-13) I discovered a quote that reflects nearly the same methodology used in my article.

Butler Shaffer wrote:

  • One of my favorite quotations comes from Thomas Pynchon: "if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers." Our world is in the mess it is in today because most of us have internalized the fine art of asking the wrong questions.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle367-20060514-03.html  

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 367, May 14, 2006

Ask the Right Question

An interview with a Neo-LINO

By Dennis Lee Wilson

DennisLeeWilson@Yahoo.com

 

Exclusive to TLE

First, libertarians became divided on the red herring issue of abortion, and then they were further subdivided on the issue of the US government’s initiation of Wars of Empire in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the few remaining libertarians are being even further decimated on the issue of Freedom of Travel, also known as the War against Immigration. These latest defections from libertarian principles qualify as “new” Libertarians In Name Only or “neo-LINOs”.

I would like to address some of the rationalizations that long time libertarians are using to abandon the principles of liberty.

Recently, Lady Liberty, (I’m not picking on her in particular, just using her summary) echoed and summed up what seems to be the major excuse (among libertarians and non-libertarians alike) for excluding people from the relative freedom that is still available in the United States.

    “The illegal immigrant population is literally costing American taxpayers billions of dollars in schooling, medical care, welfare payments, and law enforcement that we need not otherwise be spending. (Yes, I'm well aware that public schools should be privatized and that welfare should be abolished, but that's not happening next week.)”  

Hmmm. I remember when one of the libertarian arguments was to actually help the tyrannical US government bankrupt itself by arranging one’s taxable income to be as small as possible. It is quite an about face to be concerned that the welfare system et al might actually suffer higher costs, which in turn could actually hasten such a bankruptcy

But are immigrants really the problem, or are they just a scapegoat, a rationalization, a diversion, a cover for an objective that is being manipulated from Washington DC?

*******

"Restate the problem by asking the right question, and usually the solution becomes obvious and simple". (Paraphrase of Charles Moore in Thinking Forth).

For an excellent example of the principle of restating a problem, I point to Kenneth Royce aka Boston T Party, who did just that with his book Hologram of Liberty.

The usual problem statement was “How can the Constitution be fixed?”.  In 1957, even Ayn Rand addressed that question in the final pages of Atlas Shrugged. I picked up that challenge and spent months working on it. (See http://tinyurl.com/Judge-Narragansett ).  Many other people have expended energy on similar “new Constitution” projects.

But as early as 1870, Lysander Spooner had already RESTATED the problem by asking (paraphrased) “Is the Constitution really broken, or is it working as it was meant to work?” Ken Royce picked up THAT challenge, wrote Hologram of Liberty --which really answers the CORRECT problem statement--and changed MY life, saving me from endless hours, days and years that would have been lost chasing a solution to the wrong problem.


*******

Judging from the nature of numerous postings about “illegal immigrants”, it is apparent to me that the “immigration problem” has been stated incorrectly.

The problem is NOT “How do we protect our borders from immigrants?”

The CORRECT problem statement (until we can abolish the system) IS “How do we protect our WELFARE SYSTEM from people who are not entitled to receive benefits, namely immigrants who are not yet US Citizens?”

Once the problem is stated correctly, a workable solution can be more clearly identified. And it turns out that the REAL solution does NOT require spending more tax money erecting a police state. Such a solution SHOULD appeal to any libertarian who is not a Libertarian In Name Only (LINO). And what is this “magic” solution?


Since it is glaringly obvious that it is the WELFARE SYSTEM that is being defended, rather than “the border”, the welfare offices are where the defenses need to be erected. The procedure to prevent non-citizens from using the US welfare system (or medical aid payment system or public school system) could be and should be the same procedure that the US Government uses to prevent non-citizens from getting US passports.

That procedure is to require the individual APPLICANT to PROVE that s/he is a citizen of the US. The burden of proof is then upon the individual applicant, not on the public at large.

Please note that if a person does NOT WANT a passport or welfare or medical aid funds or public schooling, that person does NOT need to prove anything. When was the last time a roadblock was set up so that people could be asked to prove citizenship because they MIGHT want to apply for a passport? Yet roadblocks are regularly being set up to check for people who MIGHT want to use the welfare system! The checkpoints should be at the point of use, not on the freeway.


With the INCORRECT problem statement, any likely welfare “savings” will be more than offset  by the cost of setting up a new multi-Billion dollar, full time, (and un-Constitutional—for those who still care) standing army of armed border guards, electric fences on top of Berlin-type walls, moats and trenches to prevent tunneling, drug war-type snitches paid with tax money, more random, intrusive police searches of work places everywhere (not just on the border states), more new intrusive and restrictive “laws” to “protect” us, more random checkpoint roadblocks etc, ad nauseam.

Isn’t this a classic case of using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito? Certainly, the proposed solutions are way out of proportion to the significance of the problem. Clearly, the cost of the wrong solutions will vastly exceed the intended savings. The solution should match the problem. A simple solution is one that does not obscure the problem with irrelevancies—or create worse problems than the original—such as enlarging the police state.

And with the INCORRECT problem statement, we get the gross spectacle of “libertarians” actually defending the welfare system from misuse, and embarrassing themselves by using exactly the same arguments and rationalizations that racists use, and openly advocating the enlargement of the police state, openly abandoning the Non-Aggression Principle and belittling the Freedom to Travel principle as “purist” libertarian. And not only have long-time libertarians defected, this issue has even caused defections and renunciations of principles among that sub-set of libertarians who are signatories to the Covenant of Unanimous Consent!!


* * *

The remainder of this article is in the form of an interview between a Neo-LINO, who is not any particular person but rather a composite of many recent LINO arguments against freedom-seeking people (if the shoe pinches, perhaps you shouldn’t be wearing it), and me, a lonely “purist”.  I adopted that pseudonym for this interview because while there has been scattered opposition to the Neo-LINO, there is nothing approaching a comprehensive rebuttal of their position. Perhaps like me, other “purists” are in a state of shock at the number of former libertarians who have abandoned principles and jumped ship on this issue.


Neo-LINO: These black haired, brown eyed, brown skinned, “illegal” freedom seeking people from south of the US border (aka immigrants--or is it freedom that is “illegal”?) are not assimilating themselves into the American culture. (Well, yes. Perhaps I have embellished the Neo-LINO position a bit, by adding a few words that they mean, but don’t really say).

Lonely “purist”: Historically, the first generation members of ANY immigrant family are busy working their butts off, trying to keep themselves and their family from starving (which probably would have happened—or worse--if they had stayed in “the old country”). The immigrant generation consists mostly of people who have the initiative, will and burning desire to uproot themselves and seek freedom and a better life in a country that, in some cases is totally alien and even hostile to them. This happened to Scots and Irish and Germans and Poles and Chinese and Japanese and French. And some of these people with initiative, will and a strong desire for freedom and a better life were Mexicans who were already here and had developed farms and ranches long before the western states were even US territories. Some of those Mexicans even fought FOR Texas, against the Mexican dictator Santa Anna.

Historically the second generation is the assimilated generation, but the US has NOW guaranteed that they will receive their assimilation in the government run public school system. How disgusting is THAT? Perhaps we need LESS assimilation and MORE first generation people working their butts off and actually running businesses!

 

Neo-LINO: They are guilty of the effrontery of not learning the English language before they seek freedom from the tyrants under which they had the audacity to be born and raised.

Lonely “purist”: By this spacious reasoning, the Yankees who moved into Texas in the early 1800’s should have learned Spanish before moving. And the Orientals who came to North America to help build the first western railroads should have learned English before contributing to the railroad building. And how about the miners and tradesmen who came from Europe speaking not English, but Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, French, Italian, German and Russian—to name just a few—and settled in this country and created productive communities, far from the tyrants under which they were born?



Neo-LINO: The freedom to emigrate from Mexico is not a right to immigrate to the US.  A person has a right to leave his own house at any time, but that does not translate into the right to enter my house.

Lonely “purist”: This is a really bad analogy! Entering this country is NOT equivalent to entering your house. I am in this country, but I am not in your house, and never have been.



Neo-LINO: And it is a fallacy to argue for the libertarian notion of unlimited immigration while we have a welfare state for immigrants to take advantage of. If they never availed themselves of government programs (which they don't pay for), then they wouldn't be a net loss on the schools, hospitals, welfare and the country.

Lonely “purist”: It is a fallacy to restrict immigration because some thugs expropriated our money for taxes and then set up a welfare system. The blame for the welfare system rests with the US government, not the immigrants. The simple solution is to require welfare recipients, public school students and recipients of government medical care handouts to PROVE that they are US Citizens.

This very simple solution does NOT require new laws, nor snitches, nor penalties against employers, nor elaborate fences and guards; which, of course, guarantees that it will never be used because the State would have less to do and less reason to tax. The fact that the US government DOES NOT & WILL NOT require proof of citizenship—but proposes to make employers perform this function (!!), illustrates the enormous hypocrisy involved and reeks of a hidden agenda. Using the welfare system as an excuse for restricting free travel across a line on a map is absurd. Furthermore, it just gives more power to those who take our taxes and set up welfare programs and build new Berlin Walls. We certainly do not need more of this.



Neo-LINO: If Mexican illegal immigrants came here solely to work, and refused every penny of public welfare, then Americans wouldn't be so upset about the issue.

Lonely “purist”: Keep it simple. Require proof of citizenship for ALL welfare recipients.



Neo-LINO: If we already had a libertarian society with no public schools, hospitals, and welfare...then the libertarian notion of free borders could be actualized because there would be no welfare for unproductive immigrants to take advantage of.  

But the welfare state must be dismantled beforehand.  Until then, open borders cause the country more problems than not. Elements of freedom are not interchangeable in their timeline.  Some things must precede others. And unrestricted immigration is one of the last things to work for, not one of the first. When, and only when, we have achieved such a society, then and only then will open borders make any sense.

Lonely “purist”: Here I would like to quote Curt Howland from Smith2004 Yahoo discussion group who has views similar to mine (apparently I am not so alone):

  • ”The ‘issue’ is an illusion. There is no ‘issue’; every welfare/warfare program is evil in [and] of itself. The ‘conservative’ argument that ‘until or unless these other programs are abolished, we cannot afford to open the borders’ is merely a tool for violating their supposed principles and expanding their xenophobic program to use more tax money to set up Fortress America.  It's an ego trip on your tax dollar, nothing more.”


We cannot and will not become free by supporting Statist programs and Statist limits on travel. STRIKE AT THE ROOT!! The ROOT is in Washington DC. Nothing will be accomplished by allowing ourselves to get diverted into trimming around the edges of the issue by making “immigrants” a scapegoat.



Neo-LINO: Border porosity differs between the ingress and egress, and it should. It's why we all have locks for the outside of our doors. None of us need keys to exit our own homes...

Lonely “purist”: Good enough to keep *them* out is good enough to keep *us* in!

Given what we know of the current people in charge of the US government, after they build “The Wall” and force immigrants to use the (guarded) gates for entry, there is every reason to believe that those wanting to leave will be required to use the same (guarded) gates for exit. And you KNOW that you will need to have approved “keys” to exit. [NOTE: It has already happened! Proof is HERE... http://tinyurl.com/Deadly-USA-Border ]
 
The proper response is NOT an analogy about the door on your house, but the CURRENT REALITY of the inspections and the NO FLY lists at airports, railroads and bus terminals and the HISTORICAL REALITY of Nazi Germany and the communist Berlin Wall! It was easy to give the NO FLY list to the railroads and bus terminals; how hard will it be to give the NO FLY list to the armed border guards?

The problem of “illegals” crossing the border and trespassing on private lands would VANISH INSTANTLY if the armed guards and the gates were removed from the “legal” border crossings and people were allowed to freely cross in either direction. (It actually used to be that way—and guess what, there was no incentive to trespass on private lands.) Ask the “Minutemen” when the trespassing became a big problem and you will find that it coincides with a “tightening” of the border at the “legal” gates. I can only guess what their real agenda is, but the “Minutemen” are certainly not seeking real solutions, otherwise they would be calling for open immigration and removal of gates and guards. They seem to me (again only my guess, YMMV) to be Rambo wannabes looking for unarmed big game under the thin guise of protecting privately owned rangeland and open deserts. And they probably want government funding to do it! I’ve camped in those areas in Arizona with my Boy Scout troop; they are so wide open and empty that the concept of trespass has no meaning. These people are supporting our Statist government and are certainly the most naïve of dupes. Our neo-con masters in Washington DC probably stay awake nights laughing.

A bit of perspective: People seeking freedom crossed into private land at the Berlin wall, but they were NOT treated like trespassers, they were welcomed as heroes, freedom seekers who thwarted the wishes of dictators and tyrants. The difference on the border with Mexico, is that the fence (soon to be a Berlin-type wall) was erected by dictators and tyrants in Washington DC.  Only in America, land of the slave and home of the public school spawned ignorant, are freedom seekers accused of trespassing. After all, it follows in the great tradition of sending shiploads of people back to Stalinist Russia and certain death.

If I owned PRIVATE land on the border today, I would serve lemonade—but not to the jackboots.



Neo-LINO: Every country has the right to establish its own immigration rules, it's called right of association in our libertarian platform which I will invoke now and then entirely out of context just to prove that I am still libertarian.

Lonely “purist”: There is NO “right to establish immigration rules” at the country level—and certainly NOT IN MY NAME. No group has rights that exceed those of its individual members. You have a right of association, but you do NOT have a right to RESTRICT MY right of association—and that is EXACTLY what immigration “laws” restrict. A man cannot claim rights for himself while denying them to others!



Neo-LINO: My European grandparents did not snub the rules.  They applied for visas, learned English, adopted American culture, and pulled their own weight.  They came here without any pretext that America somehow "owed" them anything.

Lonely “purist”: I'm glad your ancestors came here “legally” and sorry they wasted valuable days of their brief lives (as did some of my ancestors) filling out unnecessary and useless forms for people who really don’t give a shit who they are as long as they pay their taxes or could be drafted into Lincoln's or Wilson’s or Roosevelt’s army for cannon fodder. Some of my ancestors came here before there WAS an “immigration law" that made some freedom-seeking people “illegal”. What is the point? When did a sovereign individual become an "illegal"? The Native Americans would consider all of us "illegals" if it would do them any good. I live in Arizona and I see the beneficial effects daily of people from Mexico who are willing and able to work at jobs that "LEGALS" shun. And they are willing to do so at rates that don't bankrupt whoever employ them.



Neo-LINO: Illegal aliens contribute to crime and welfare statistics.

  • [Actually, this charge is utterly false. The United States ranks first in the world in per capita incarceration––with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, but almost 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. The number of people locked up for U.S. drug-law violations has increased from roughly 50,000 in 1980 to almost 500,000 today; that’s more than the number of people Western Europe locks up for everything.]

Lonely “purist”: First of all, remove the “and welfare”, then consider what you have left. We “solved” the welfare “problem” earlier by simply asking for proof of citizenship. The real criminals operate from Washington DC. Has this LINO forgotten everything learned as libertarian?

Real criminal elements can be dealt with using the Glock on your hip. The Glock won’t care what race they are, but the criminals are most likely to be "Anglos" of European descent. You do still support the Second Amendment and are prepared to defend yourself, aren’t you?

Can you even imagine the impact of ALL 12 million alleged “illegals” being forcibly removed from this country? Those 12 million are workers not real criminals (although they are politically criminals by definition).  Be careful what you wish for, an early economic collapse may be the unintended consequence that you get. [NOTE: THAT prediction came true only 2 years later (in 2008). By 2010, Arizona government had a $3.3 Billion deficit because of reduced taxable money sources.]



Neo-LINO: When Mexico gets its act together, Mexicans won't feel compelled to flee, and that is precisely the point of why we need a tight southern border and, conversely, why a tight northern border is unnecessary.

Lonely “purist”: Sure, and when the Jews force Hitler to get HIS act together, there will be no need for the Jews to flee Germany either. Or the Russians and Poles and East Germans to flee across the Berlin Wall. And the Vietnamese should stay and die for their country.

And look at the wonderful job the libertarians are doing getting this country to abide by its Constitution. Sorry, LINO. Freedom loving people seek places where they can BE free. And that is PRECISELY why some of us choose to move to potentially “free states” instead of Washington D.C.!

Have you really tried to imagine what it would be like if YOU were FORCED to live in Washington DC? After all, when Washington gets its act together, you won’t feel compelled to flee. And that is precisely the reason why the current residents of our chosen “free states” should keep us out.

Everything said about the border with Mexico applies equally to the borders with New Hampshire and Wyoming and Montana and Idaho—except this time WE are the immigrants seeking a better life!

Voting with ones feet is a time honored and very effective way to deal with dictators, tyrants and their wannabes—even more effective than voting from the rooftops. OUR OWN ANCESTORS left their countries FOR THE VERY SAME REASON—the possibility of life being better elsewhere. They couldn’t change the government where they were born and raised, so they changed where they lived!



Neo-LINO: Immigration, measured and controlled by our wonderful geniuses in DC, is the proper way to do things. But that's not what’s happening with Mexican illegal aliens. We are being invaded, pure and simple. The Reconquista is practically official Mexican foreign policy.

Lonely “purist”: THIS is what is pure and simple: The Mexicans did NOT kill Gringos at Ruby Ridge or Waco or Oklahoma City or the Towers & the Pentagon. The common elements in all these events are thugs, employed by unconstitutional (i.e. “illegal”) agencies of the US government, funded by YOUR AND MY tax money. They--not Mexicans--did the attacking and killing (or failed to prevent it--if you still believe the Arab-9/11 conspiracy theory told by the US government).  We have more to fear from the people who have taken over the US government than from any other source. Again, focus on and STRIKE AT THE ROOT; do NOT waste time trimming the pretty, little, easy to reach, poor and unarmed Mexican workers.

The “Chicano Invasion” force is noisy and toothless, or noisy BECAUSE they are toothless. They know what the Japanese military knew in 1941: behind every blade of grass there is an American with a gun. These Reconquista and Raza militants are more like our own modern KKK and Neo-Nazis. They are no more representative of the 12 million “politically declared illegals” who are actually WORKING in this country than their counterparts are representative of you or me or Southerns or descendents of European origin.

These Chicano militants are no different from hundreds of black and Anglo racist, militant groups who are all full of talk—all except the one group who DID quietly manage to get control of the US government. Save your fear for the group that has succeeded in getting real power and is using it against Americans. We riflemen have nothing to fear from those who puff and posture and do nothing but march in parades. Did you ever see a neo-con parade?

Do we libertarians really want to focus our energy on the wrong group? The 12 million who are WORKING in this country are NOT the problem, they are representatives of Capitalism! They are being made scapegoats to divert our attention and energy from the real problem, which resides in Washington DC.



Neo-LINO: Illegal aliens have the temerity to protest in the streets. Actual guests wouldn't do that.

Lonely “purist”: Most of the marchers in Phoenix (where I currently live) were US citizens, not “illegals”. And I find their “demands” too limited. The current flap about changing immigration laws should be for the REPEAL OF ALL IMMIGRATION LAWS, not just a half hearted attempt to make some "adjustments" which, in reality, will only increase the power of our masters to control with whom we, as individuals, may trade and will enable our masters to erect—in very distinct phases--a very real, physical, "Berlin" type prison wall around us to prevent us from leaving.



Neo-LINO: Every nation on earth has some history of conquest. (And after what happened to Mexican Indians, Mexico is hardly blameless there.) The best thing that happened to 19th century northern Mexico was that we forcibly bought the place.  At least we returned to them Mexico City, but they've never forgiven us for that, either.  

Lonely “purist”: Let me see if I understand my history correctly.
 
In the early 1820s, Mexicans living in Texas openly welcomed and invited Yankees to homestead. Then the Mexican government changed rulers and changed the rules. Texicans (residents of Texas consisting of Mexican ranchers/farmers AND Yankee homesteaders) fought side-by-side and defeated Santa Anna and declared themselves an independent country. Then Yankee homesteaders confiscated property held by fellow Texicans of Mexican descent (an act that they promised would NEVER happen—but it even happened again in California), joined the United States, seceded from the United States and by force of arms were re-united with the United States.
 
Now today, Mexicans and US citizens of Mexican descent are seen as some vague kind of threat, even though it was actually employees of US government agencies that openly committed the Waco murders. Why do alleged libertarians continuously let themselves have their focus diverted from the real threat?
 
I, for one, would consider moving to Texas if it became an independent nation again; but only if the Texans/Texicans didn’t do something stupid, like joining some bigger nation.

* * *

In summary, we CANNOT make ourselves free by advocating and supporting Statist programs and views! The xenophobic obsession with immigration control blinds some “libertarians” to our real, common enemy.

The unhampered free market correctly allocates resources to their best use. Interventionism changes the allocation so that resources are applied to uses that are not beneficial to a society. Government loves to create roadblocks to entry into fields of choice. Control of freedom of travel and association are political as well as literal roadblocks. Immigration control, i.e. control of movement across lines on a map—such as the Berlin Wall, is a HALLMARK of Statist programs for prevention of liberty and free trade.

Furthermore, the obsessed "libertarians" have abandoned the Non-Aggression Principle and the principles of laissez-faire Capitalism. They have created two new and unnecessary enemies for themselves, the alleged “illegals”--who could be and should be recruited as valuable allies--and their former fellow libertarians whose rights they now tread upon.



How can a free, sovereign individual—of any race--be “illegal”?

Laissez nous faire!

Live and Let Live!

Creative Commons

Attribution Share Alike



From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 9/11/2006 4:26 PM

Note: Since writing the above, I have been informed that the Welfare system already has rules that only citizens can receive welfare, but that the Welfare supervisors violate the rules and do not require that Welfare dispensers confirm that the recipients are citizens.



THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 368, May 21, 2006

Ending The Warfare State
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org

Presented to the Libertarian Party of Larimer County, May 15, 2006

As I speak to you here this evening, ladies and gentlemen, our libertarian movement—in fact, what I have always referred to as the "general freedom movement"—is in the worst disarray I've ever seen it in, in my 44 years as an active, self-conscious member of it. The traditional American aspiration toward individual liberty is in greater danger at the moment than probably since the War Between the States.

As Dennis Lee Wilson put it last week, in an article in my online editorial journal, The Libertarian Enterprise (which has just begun its 11th year online), we first became divided on the issue of abortion—he failed to mention the original division of the movement over whether, in the future, there ought to be minimal government or no government at all—then we were further subdivided on the issue of the United States' government's initiations of force in Afghanistan and Iraq. And now the few of us struggling to remain consistent with libertarian principle are being divided even further on the issue of immigration.

You can read the rest of Mr. Wilson's extremely interesting essay by visiting The Libertarian Enterprise at www.ncc-1776.org. I'm not here tonight to debate any of these issues. As an adherent to the Zero Aggression Principle, I know which side of each of them is right, exactly as I know that the advocates for the wrong side of each of these issues almost invariably start their arguments by rejecting that Principle.

If an individual wishes to reserve some right he imagines he has to initiate physical force against me, then he is not any kind of libertarian, but something very different, and I will take appropriate precautions.

What I am here to do tonight is to begin a thought—a thinking process—that could solve many of our problems at once. What those libertarians who remain true to principle should be thinking about at this moment is what the world is going to look like after this war is over with, and, more importantly, how can future wars like it be prevented.

Continued at http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle368-20060521-06.html
« Last Edit: 2012-August-04 05:27:45 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: 2008-November-18 10:03:32 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 4/11/2007 9:40 AM

I consider this an excellent supplement to my article "Ask the Right Question" and it is an excellent way to illustrate the source of the most real, personal threat:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle410-20070325-08.html
 
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 410, March 25, 2007
"Every boy or girl should have a .410!"

Illegal Immigration Quiz
by Joseph Knight
nm_libertarian@yahoo.com

Credit The Libertarian Enterprise

(1) Who will remove you from your home, job, family, and community to lock you in a cage like an animal for no reason other than what you smoke in your pipe or grow in your garden?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(2) Who demands that you surrender a portion of each paycheck to be used for purposes that they decide on rather than you?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(3) Who demands that you render tribute annually or be evicted from your property?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(4) Who demands that you take no medicine or medical treatment without their permission?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(5) Who tells you whom you may or may not hire?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(6) Who demands that you turn your children over to them daily for indoctrination?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(7) Who tells you with whom and under what conditions you may have sex?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(8 ) Who claims the right to enslave you or your children to fight their wars?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(9) Who can seize your property for any purpose they desire?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(10) Who tells you what you may or may not read, look at, and listen to?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(11) Who can kick in your door and go through your stuff with impunity?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(12) Who is most likely to disarm you?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(13) Which group claims to work for you, gets exorbitant salaries, but can't be fired unless you act in concert with large numbers of like-minded individuals?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(14) Who created and perpetuates the welfare state?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants

(15) Which of these terms is the antithesis of "freedom"?

A. Government
B. Illegal immigrants


To further illustrate the source of the most real threat to you personally, perhaps the following--which have also been red herrings tossed to libertarians--could be added as possible answers to each of the questions:
 
C. Muslims and/or people from Islamic countries
D. Abortionists and/or women with unwanted pregnancies

« Last Edit: 2012-July-12 10:28:38 AM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: 2008-November-18 10:04:11 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 6/4/2007 3:05 PM

Here are some links to various discussion about immigration. I highly recommend L. Neil Smith's article.
[2007-04-08.1] (Immigration) Letter from Dennis Wilson, With Reply from Rex May, and Reply from Jim Davidson

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 412, April 8, 2007

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle412-20070408-01.html#letter5

Also a related letter from Jim Davidson published above mine.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle412-20070408-01.html#letter4
 
The whole works is reposted at my site:  http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=17.msg60#msg60 
 
L. Neil Smith responds:

"Recent exchanges here in the virtual pages of The Libertarian Enterprise have made it necessary for me to engage, once again, on a topic that I would really rather let others handle whenever possible. There's nothing I hate like repeating myself, so pay atttention this time.
"The topic is "illegal" immigration. I dislike dealing with it primarily because the very necessity to do so challenges my otherwise optimistic view of my fellow human beings. The rational position on this issue should be obvious—open and shut—to anyone calling him- or herself a libertarian, and the fact that it isn't depresses me".


THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 413, April 15, 2007

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle413-20070415-02.html

Reposted at my site: http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=17.msg63#msg63
« Last Edit: 2009-March-26 10:35:04 AM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: 2008-November-18 10:04:57 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 6/10/2007 3:46 PM

"Truth gets slaughtered, over and over again, every day."

Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!

A review of U.S. Constitution & immigration history

by Dennis Lee Wilson

DennisLeeWilson@Yahoo.com

Exclusive to The Libertarian Enterprise


In my article “Ask the Right Question, an interview with a Neo-LINO” [1], I made the case for immigration control being immoral and UN-libertarian. I neglected to make the point that it is also UN-Constitutional. During recent on-line discussions with a Neo-LINO, it became apparent to me that many people are unaware of the actual history of immigration in this country and are either unaware of or deliberately ignoring the fact that the Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE the U.S. government to control immigration. Even Dr. NO, the “Constitutional” Congressman and Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul misses this point. He recently said “Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection”. What happened to his oft repeated position that Congress should obey the Constitution?

continued at  
 
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=13.msg51#msg51
http://tinyurl.com/ILLEGAL-LAWS
« Last Edit: 2012-July-12 10:34:13 AM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: 2008-November-18 10:05:35 PM »

 Sent: 7/31/2007 3:03 PM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smith2004-discuss/message/96487

--- In smith2004-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <gpettigrew@...> wrote:
>
> George Phillies for President 2008
>
[snip]
>
> Earlier this week, the Phillies campaign released an extended statement on
> the campaign website (*http://philles2008.org* <http://philles2008.org/>)
> and a press release regarding Phillies' actual position on immigration and
> foreign worker.
>
> In the statement, Phillies said, " I support the Libertarian Party
> Platform. You cannot have open borders and a large-scale welfare system at
> the same time. You will go broke.
[snip]

THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE!!

In my TLE article of 2006-05-14 "Ask the Right Question", I point out that the problem is NOT "How do we protect our borders from immigrants?"

The CORRECT problem statement (until we can abolish the system) IS "How do we protect our WELFARE SYSTEM from people who are not entitled to receive benefits, namely immigrants who are not yet US Citizens?"

I further point out that since it is glaringly obvious that it is the WELFARE SYSTEM that is being defended, rather than "the border", the welfare offices are where the defenses need to be erected. The procedure to prevent non-citizens from using the US welfare system (or medical aid payment system or public school system) could be and should be the same procedure that the US Government uses to prevent non-citizens from getting US passports.

That procedure is to require the individual APPLICANT to PROVE that s/he is a citizen of the US. The burden of proof is then upon the individual applicant, not on the public at large.


Since writing the above, I have been informed that the Welfare system already has rules that only citizens can receive welfare, but that the Welfare supervisors violate the rules and DO NOT REQUIRE that Welfare dispensers confirm that the recipients are citizens.

Why does Phillies--and those who support him--chose to ignore these points? Why not simply insist that the government obey and enforce the laws regarding welfare that currently exist!


Dennis Wilson
 
« Last Edit: 2011-June-22 05:37:45 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: 2008-November-18 10:06:30 PM »

 Sent: 8/2/2007 2:16 PM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertarianEnterprise/message/13750
Re: Phillies Campaign to Nigel Watt: We Request A Retraction



--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "etherialsproing" <gpettigrew@...> wrote:
>
> --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Lee Wilson"
> dennisleewilson@ wrote:
> > Why not simply insist that the government obey and enforce the
> > laws regarding welfare that currently exist!
>
> Why not also insist that the government obey and enforce the laws
> regarding immigration that currently exist? The surest path to a
> corrupt government is selective enforcement. We need to enforce all
> laws that currently exist /and/ repeal those that infringe upon our
> liberties /and/ erect new legislation when appropriate.
>
> --
> - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
>
Thank you for the response.
 
Point #1: I was responding/objecting to the non-libertarian statement that attempted to justify immigration control because of the welfare system, which is a completely invalid argument.

Point #2: Putting aside (temporarily) the immorality of immigration control, there is the FACT that ANY AND ALL Federal "Laws" that attempt to control immigration are INVALID because, as I pointed out in The Libertarian Enterprise of 2007-06-10,  "Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!"    http://tinyurl.com/ILLEGAL-LAWS

Why do "libertarian" candidates chose to ignore libertarian positions?

Dennis Wilson
NEVER FORGET What Governments Do!
http://www.cafepress.com/artemiszuna/1951959  

« Last Edit: 2012-August-04 05:44:44 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: 2008-November-18 10:07:53 PM »

 Sent: 7/3/2008 3:56 PM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertarianEnterprise/message/14711

--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Zack Bass" <zakbas@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Lee Wilson"
> dennisleewilson@ wrote:
> >
> > ============================================
>>Welfare is NOT the problem. It is ILLEGAL for non-citizens "illegal immigrants"** to collect welfare!!
> >
>
> I think you are making the common mistake of confusing Citizens and
> Legal Aliens and Illegal Aliens. LOTS of Legal Resident Aliens
> receive Welfare in this country.
>
I think I am NOT making the common mistake of which you speak.

The following is from the Arizona Dept of Economic Security, I leave it to the reader to confirm for whichever of the other 49 states they have interest.

I have emphasized key wording with larger font size, bold and background highlight for those who read this on-line.

Dennis


FAA2.N Identity and Citizenship (IDCI) : 04 Citizenship Requirements

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

04  Citizenship Requirements

  REVISION 03
(01/01/08 – 03/31/08)

 
The PI or representative must attest to the citizenship of participants in the budgetary unit for whom benefits are requested.
This must be completed at new or renewal application and when adding a participant to the case. The signature on the application attests to the U.S. citizenship of all participants in the budgetary unit for whom benefits are requested. Participants for whom U.S. citizenship status is attested and who meet the U.S. citizenship criteria are potentially eligible to receive CA, FS, and full services MA.
 
All U.S. citizens MUST provide documented proof of U.S. citizenship.
 
NOTE  When the U.S. citizen participant is receiving full service MA or SSI benefits the citizenship verification requirement is met for CA and FS.

 
Document CADO with information on the document used to verify U.S. citizenship for each participant.
 
When the CA or FS participant does not provide verification of their citizenship, key DI in the PT field on SEPA for the participant. Key HB in the INELIG RSN field on SEPA. Key HB in the ALERT TYPE field of the PRAP screen. When all potentially eligible participants fail to verify their citizenship, the case must be denied. Key HB in the DENIAL CLOSURE REASON field on AFED and FSED.
 
 
 
« Last Edit: 2009-March-26 12:12:36 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: 2008-November-18 10:08:28 PM »

From: Voluntaryist                Sent: 7/3/2008 6:40 PM

Are you saying that welfare workers are illegally spending (paying out) our money? How can this be stopped? Isn't this a crime? What is the penality? Is no one enforcing the law?
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: 2008-November-18 10:09:11 PM »

 Sent: 7/3/2008 9:38 PM
>Are you saying that welfare workers are illegally spending (paying out) our money?
 
As I see it,

      EITHER non-citizens "illegal immigrants"** are being illegally paid welfare money,
 
      OR  someone is lying when they say that non-citizens "illegal immigrants"** are receiving welfare.
 
I have no way of validating either alternative.
Is there a third alternative?

 
 
>How can this be stopped?
I would entertain suggestions. Perhaps if we reduced our income below the level required for paying income tax, that would help. I wrote other suggestions in my article “Superstate North America vs. Individual Sovereignty”  http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty  starting below the three asterisks with "Well, what can an individual person do?"
 
>Isn't this a crime?
I used to think so, but Presidents get away with lying and with ignoring the limits imposed by the Constitution, and government agents killed citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco without being brought to trial, so what action by any government agent is really a crime?
 
>What is the penality?
Penalties? The Ruby Ridge & Waco agents got citations and promotions?
 
>Is no one enforcing the law?
You be the judge!
« Last Edit: 2012-August-04 05:49:33 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: 2008-November-18 10:09:52 PM »

 Sent: 7/4/2008 2:35 PM
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Zack Bass" <zakbas@...> wrote:
>
>
> I think you are intentionally picking shit out of context. Go to the
> link you gave! A couple of clicks away is this - which explicitly
> states, as I did, that NONCITIZEN LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS are
> eligible! And it is not believable that you were unaware of it.
>
Dear Zack,

I concede your point that it appears I was intentionally taking it out of context.

I do NOT relish spending time gleaning every detail from government rules and regulations and when I found and read the Citizenship requirements, it was crystal clear to me that without citizenship, benefits were supposed to be denied. Nothing was mentioned about exception, but foolish me, I actually believed what I read on a government site. (I don't do well with IRS rules either--they make my brain hurt trying to follow the twists and turns).

I do however note that no provisions are made for that class of non-citizens that are labeled "illegal immigrants".

I amend my previous assertion from
"Welfare is NOT the problem. It is ILLEGAL for non-citizens to collect welfare!!"   to
"Welfare is NOT the problem. It is ILLEGAL for "illegal immigrants" to collect welfare!!"

I do still maintain that "Immigration is NOT the problem. The government rules for who may collect welfare is the problem." which was the point that I originally made in my TLE article "Ask the Right Question" http://tinyurl.com/Ask-Right-Question

I will update the notes that follow that article accordingly.

Thanks for keeping me honest, Zack.

Dennis
« Last Edit: 2012-August-04 05:52:55 PM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: 2008-December-07 11:48:25 PM »

The following are copied from an earlier discussion (note the dates) based on my article "Ask the Right Question"

From: Voluntaryist Sent: 5/21/2006 12:12 PM

Imagine your neighbor is a thief. He spends the money he steals on drugs and whores. You judge him to be immoral. Would he be moral if he spent his boody on charity? No! Why? Because you will never let yourself forget the source of his revenue. Now imagine a group of thugs steal and spend some of the money on the poor, saying, "Someone has to help the less fortunate." Would you complain if they were careless and allowed people who did not really need the assistence to recieve it? Would you help them make their opperation more efficient? More fair? More legal? No! When you suggest requiring I.D. before getting welfare you forget the source of the welfare. THEFT!
We the people allowed restrictions of incoming travelers, "to protect our country from foreigners" as if they did not have the same human right of freedom of movement. Now we are restricted from leaving. In 1980, I was stopped leaving the country and searched without probable cause. The customs agents claimed they could search anyone crossing the border "to protect the sovereignty of the U.S." The Appeals Court agreed, The Supreme Court refused to hear my appeal. And so "we the people" who denied the right of others to travel freely are now denied the right.
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #11 on: 2008-December-07 11:51:12 PM »

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 5/21/2006 4:47 PM

Voluntaryist: Would you complain if they [the welfare system] were careless and allowed people who did not really need the assistence to recieve it?
 
Dennis: I'm not complaining, but as I point out in my article, many neo-LINOs use the welfare system as an excuse to impose travel restrictions.
 
Voluntaryist: Would you help them make their opperation more efficient? More fair? More legal? No! When you suggest requiring I.D. before getting welfare you forget the source of the welfare. THEFT!

Dennis: I never suggested "requiring I.D.". And I certainly have NOT forgotten the source of welfare. I suggested that until the welfare system can be eliminated, the recipients of welfare should be required to prove that they are citizens, and in the same manner as a person who wants a passport. Please keep the context of the article in mind.

Voluntaryist: We the people allowed restrictions of incoming travelers, "to protect our country from foreigners" as if they did not have the same human right of freedom of movement. Now we are restricted from leaving. In 1980, I was stopped leaving the country and searched without probable cause. The customs agents claimed they could search anyone crossing the border "to protect the sovereignty of the U.S." The Appeals Court agreed, The Supreme Court refused to hear my appeal. And so "we the people" who denied the right of others to travel freely are now denied the right.

Dennis: Thank you for that information. Obviously we are closer to building Prison-America than I knew, while using Fortress-America as the cover. That of course was one of the dangers I mentioned in the article.
 
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #12 on: 2009-March-26 09:49:23 AM »

States Consider Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

If State governments can demand intrusive drug tests, there is no reason why they cannot demand proof of citizenship as I pointed out in my 2006 TLE article "Ask the Right Question"

http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=12.0

Dennis


--- In smith2004-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Edward Britton <sulocco@...> wrote:

Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090326/D975MFE80.html

States consider drug tests for welfare recipients
Mar 26, 7:32 AM (ET)

By TOM BREEN


CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs.

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps,
unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out
the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy
could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and
making already desperate situations worse.

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern
for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more
solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents
concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for
nothing.

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig
Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a
Web site - notwithmytaxdollars.com - that bears a bobble-headed likeness
of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random
drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it
would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment
compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare":
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure
mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash
assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In
February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would
require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and
similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida
senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug
testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill
requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state
program there.

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns,
said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of
State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging
demand for public assistance, could change that.

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a
segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank
Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving
public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery
winnings for recipients at $600.

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these
bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal
welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such
proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly
engaged about who is getting public assistance.

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test
people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now
exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession,"
said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People
who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group.
Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find
themselves in need of public assistance.

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at
3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food
stamps have soared.

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp
benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the
Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to
implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed
for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th
Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said
Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At least six states - Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey,
Wisconsin and Virginia - tie eligibility for some public assistance to
drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to
case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for
drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also
threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch
a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results
with a follow-up test, she said.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #13 on: 2009-September-17 05:29:05 PM »

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/83_say_proof_of_citizenship_should_be_required_to_get_government_health_aid


83% Say Proof of Citizenship Should Be Required to Get Government Health Aid
Monday, September 07, 2009



The health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats contains many controversial items that divide the general public. However, one area of consensus among the public is the desire to restrict government health care benefits to U.S. citizens only.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of voters nationwide say that people should be required to prove they are a citizen of the United States before receiving government health care subsidies. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 12% disagree and five percent (5%) are not sure.

The desire to limit the benefits to U.S. citizens is found across demographic and partisan lines. It is held by 95% of Republicans, 70% of Democrats and 87% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is favored by nine-out-of-10 conservatives and moderates, along with 56% of those who consider themselves politically liberal. But 32% of liberals hold the opposite view.

There is a dispute as to whether or not the current proposals before Congress would allow illegal immigrants to receive benefits. Advocates of the congressional plan point to language saying that those in the country illegally are not covered. However, others note that there is no enforcement mechanism or requirement to check for citizenship.

In June, 80% were opposed to providing health care benefits to illegal immigrants.

As the president prepares for a major Wednesday night address to push his health care reform initiative, 53% of voters oppose the plan working its way through Congress. One reason is that 68% believe passage of health care reform will increase the deficit. Another is skepticism over whether political leaders even know what they are doing. Just 22% believe Congress has a good understanding of the health care legislation. The president fares a bit better: 47% believe he has a good understanding of the proposal.

Town hall meetings held by members of Congress this summer heated up with legislators often struggling to be heard. Most voters say that the town hall meetings should be for congressmen to listen, not speak.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
ShareThis

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ Premium Service offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports September 4-5, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence (see methodology).
Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
DennisLeeWilson
Creator of this site
Administrator
Forum/Blog Owner
*****
Posts: 1221


Existence exists & Man's mind can know it.


WWW Email
« Reply #14 on: 2010-June-26 12:00:24 AM »

In my 2006 article titled “Ask the Right Question” I said:

  • "I can only guess what their real agenda is, but the “Minutemen” are certainly not seeking real solutions, otherwise they would be calling for open immigration and removal of gates and guards. They seem to me (again only my guess, YMMV) to be Rambo wannabes looking for unarmed big game under the thin guise of protecting privately owned rangeland and open deserts. And they probably want government funding to do it!"

Today, I get to say "I told you so". And the guys even openly call themselves "National Socialists"!!!

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/210694-Citizen-s-group-taking-border-battle-into-own-hands

Citizen's group taking border battle into own hands

Dave Biscobing
E.W. Scripps Co
Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:35 EDT
© E.W. Scripps Co
Pinal County, Arizona -

This weekend, JT Ready and a group of armed men plan to take Arizona's border battle into their own hands.

"This is the Minutemen project on steroids," he said.

Ready is a member of the Nationalist Socialist Movement, and he and his citizen's militia group are tired of waiting.

"We're going to go all night and shut down the drug corridor that comes directly into Phoenix," Ready said. "We have guys that are going to be doing some covert stuff and we have some snipers coming out."

Though some people call what this group is doing extreme, they are far from alone.

As Arizona continues to be at the epicenter of the U.S. immigration debate, state law enforcement agencies and other departments are seeing a growing trend of people asking to help secure the border.

"With calling and writing emails, probably 100 plus a day," said Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu.

Babeu's county is one of the nation's worst for drug trafficking and human smuggling.

And Patrick Bray with the Arizona Cattlemen's Association said his office has been receiving a lot of calls as well from people asking to help ranchers patrol their land.

"It's been a pretty big response," he said. "We tell them 'Thanks, but no thanks.' This is something for the federal government."

But that's why Ready said his group feels the need to act.

He said the federal government is not doing enough, and that now is the time to act.

"Defending our nation is dangerous," Ready said. "We have some brave patriots that are willing to put their lives on the line."

But Babeu said he's worried about what could happen.

"There's more to this than just going out there with a gun," he said. "People are getting killed out there, and we have drug cartels at war with each other."

Well congratulations to the Arizona politicians. They have just unleashed the worst kind of human behaviour. Too bad their grandparents are no longer around to remind them of what happened during the government's War against Alcohol. The Arizona government run education system certainly won't teach them THAT lesson of history.


« Last Edit: 2010-June-26 12:08:12 AM by DennisLeeWilson » Logged

Objectivist & Sovereign Individual
Creator of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day & Artemis Zuna Trading Post
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!