Left and Right against war

[ns3]

I posted the same link in the oligarchy thread.

I've always agreed with Pat Buchanan on a lot of things since the days of Crossfire on CNN. He's the only presidential candidate I can think of who believed in both minding our business abroad and controlling our borders at home. I wasn't even so sure about Ron Paul on the last one.

[MachineGhost]

I've always agreed with Pat Buchanan on a lot of things since the days of Crossfire on CNN. He's the only presidential candidate I can think of who believed in both minding our business abroad and controlling our borders at home. I wasn't even so sure about Ron Paul on the last one.

I still don't see what the problem with open borders are that we've had for 200 years or so of our history.  Its up to a state whether or not to give benefits to undocument immigrants.  Even here in CA, extremely limited scope Medi-Cal is all that can be gotten.  If no state did offer benefits, would there even be a problem?    Why do we expect the Feds to solve the so-called magnet attractors when it is a state-level issue?  Seems to me red states just dont ideologically like blue states giving out welfare.  May I suggest they mind their own business and limit it to their own borders?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_ ... immigrants

Please don't bring up the terrorism issue.  There wouldn't be one if we weren't in the consistent habit of formenting blowback around the globe.  Obama may be a real chicken hawk, but its still better than taking a hardline and formenting even more blowback that's gonna bite us on the ass down the road.  Clinton was very lucky that all he had to deal with was that feeble WTC attempt of 1993.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!

[ns3]

I never thought I'd agree with Pat Buchanan on so much. 

I felt similarly when I first discovered Buchanan's anti-war stuff back in the early aughts.

Lots of articles here: LINK

Pat was actually having a good run at the Republican nomination once upon a time, even winning the New Hampshire primary, something Ron Paul was never able to do.

This was too much for the neo-conservatives unfortunately. Shortly thereafter, the long knives came out and a hit piece in National Review charging him with anti-semitism pretty much sealed his fate. I'm sure Ron would have gotten the same treatment big time if he had ever attained the status of a serious contender.

So the charismatic and exciting Bob Dole got the nomination and with the help of Ross Perot we got 8 (16?) years of Clinton instead.

I was never a big fan of Pat's "culture wars" thing or his protectionism but I loved how he coined the term "The War Party" for the Republicans (even though I think this term applies to both parties). They say if you are at a dinner party with him you have to watch the karate chops while he's speaking. Same thing with his sister - must be an inherited mannerism.

[RuralEngineer]

I still don't see what the problem with open borders are that we've had for 200 years or so of our history.  Its up to a state whether or not to give benefits to undocument immigrants.  Even here in CA, extremely limited scope Medi-Cal is all that can be gotten.  If no state did offer benefits, would there even be a problem?    Why do we expect the Feds to solve the so-called magnet attractors when it is a state-level issue?  Seems to me red states just dont ideologically like blue states giving out welfare.  May I suggest they mind their own fucking business and limit it to their own borders?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_ ... immigrants

1.  Money is fungible.  You might have more of an argument if the federal government wasn't in the business of wealth redistribution between states.  I'm not saying that the blue states that favor lax or no immigration regulation are universal leechers and the red states that want tight border security are universal donors, but the reverse isn't true either.  It's a mix.  You're always going to have money going from states that don't support these kinds of policies to prop it up in the states that would allow it if we had open borders with state by state residency laws.

2. People are transient and open borders plus legal status = a big freaking magnet.  You're dreaming if you think that people would stay only in the states where legal status was granted.  They would enter those states and then move to the states where there were job openings, same as they do today where we don't have open borders.  The behavior wouldn't change a bit.  People are driven by economic needs and once the open border states filled their economic vacancies, people would overflow into the other states.  It is very much "their fucking business."

The answer has been and continues to be a well regulated immigration system that fulfills our economic needs while avoiding being a draw for illegal immigration by removing all of the "magnets," which is easy to do by restricted benefits and work privileges to legal residents (be the citizens or otherwise).

[Kshartle]

I've always agreed with Pat Buchanan on a lot of things since the days of Crossfire on CNN. He's the only presidential candidate I can think of who believed in both minding our business abroad and controlling our borders at home. I wasn't even so sure about Ron Paul on the last one.

I still don't see what the problem with open borders are that we've had for 200 years or so of our history.  Its up to a state whether or not to give benefits to undocument immigrants.  Even here in CA, extremely limited scope Medi-Cal is all that can be gotten.  If no state did offer benefits, would there even be a problem?    Why do we expect the Feds to solve the so-called magnet attractors when it is a state-level issue?  Seems to me red states just dont ideologically like blue states giving out welfare.  May I suggest they mind their own fucking business and limit it to their own borders?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_ ... immigrants

Please don't bring up the terrorism issue.  There wouldn't be one if we weren't in the consistent habit of formenting blowback around the globe.  Obama may be a real chicken hawk, but its still better than taking a hardline and formenting even more blowback that's gonna bite us on the ass down the road.  Clinton was very lucky that all he had to deal with was that feeble WTC attempt of 1993.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!

I found myself nodding a lot at this post MG.

If you want to attract leeches then steal from workers and hold it out for anyone to grab. Don't be mad when they grad it though.

If you want to attract hard workers to build up the economy and community then offer economic freedom like the US did for decades.

Immigration problem solved.

Terrorisim? Give me a break. When a drone strike kills 50 people at a wedding party in Pakistan it's "ooooooops colateral damage". When an America reporter gets his head cut off it's terrorisim.

You are about 50 times more likely to die by slipping your tub than from a so-called "terrorist".

When I get letters from the government they always have really nasty threats attached like fines if I don't complie with what they want and being kiddnapped and held in a rape cage. That's real terrorism.

[Kshartle]

Crap, now I'm scared of my damn tub.  I'm going to start a war on bathing.

You will get supporters from both self identifying liberals and conservatives no doubt.