illegal gets welfare benefits for the past 20 years.

LOL

The Libertarian Party is VERY Progressive when it comes to the Inalienable Rights of the Person and Immigration.

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration

The Libertarian Party supports abolishing the restrictions upon immigration that are based upon "economic protectionism" because they violate the Right of Liberty of the Person and economic freedom in our nation.

As a polilical party the Libertarian Party opposes "Conservativism" which perpetuates the injustices of the past into the future which is what the "social conservatives" of the Republican Party advocate. My signature reflects the "social conservative" beliefs of today and the Libertarian Party rejects that "conservative" political position when it comes to immigration, marriage equality, and abortion Rights of the Woman.

Calling a Libertarian a Progressive is actually a compliment as we believe we should "progress" as a nation and not continue the injustices of the past which violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person based upon a "conservative" ideology. The Libertarian Party has always been "progressive" when it comes to the Inalienable Rights of the Person that "conservative ideologies" oppose. .

 

In fact it does not based upon the Libertarian Party Platform which states:

http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare

The Libertarian Party goes on to express ways of addressing welfare but what it tends to advocate a means of converting our government welfare programs to private welfare (charity based) programs but that does not end the necessity for "welfare" but merely changes the nature of the welfare state.

I've gone much further in making proposals that pragmatically reduce and would eventually eliminate the need for welfare regardless of whether it's provided for by government programs or private charities.

I've addressed federal and state taxation that would increase the upward economic mobility of the bottom 50% of American workers while establishing a tax code that would would impose fair taxation across the board regardless of the source of income or whether that income is individual income or income to enterprise and that would also balance the budget.

I've addressed the two most expensive forms of federal welfare (Social Security and Medicare) with a plan that would transition Social Security from an income welfare program to a personal wealth building program that operates outside of government through privatization. The proposal would eliminate Medicare completely and yet would still retain a very small safety net that is four-times better than the current safety net inherent in our current Social Security welfare program. It would, at the conclusion of the transitional period, reduce the size and cost of the federal government by about 1/3rd and does so in a pragmatic and responsible manner.

Going further than the Libertarian Party I note that if the "employers" provide enough compensation in wages and benefits to meet the basic necessities of the worker then it eliminates any need for "welfare assistance" regardless of whether it's based upon government programs or private charities. I "solve the problem" by eliminating the need for working Americans. I impose the financial burden on those that are directly profiting from the labor of the workers (the employers) as opposed to society that does not directly profit and that even the Libertarian Party states would have to be responsible for providing the worker welfare albeit, in their vision, through private charities.

I go further in also addressing "invidious discrimination" that denies economic equality that serves no legitimate purpose of enterprise although I admit that this problem is problem for the People to solve as government is next to powerless to address it. Individual prejudice that results in discrimination and economic oppression exists in all political parties albeit to different levels according to scientific studies. For example in a study measuring anti-black racial prejudice in 2012 it was found that 56% of those studied across the board expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice that results discrimination and denial of equality of economic opportunity but it wasn't equal when comparing the political party of the person. Of self-professed Democrats 32% expressed explicit anti-black prejudice. With self-professed Republicans it was over double that with 79% expressing explicit anti-black racial prejudice. The study didn't address Libertarians but based upon comments from other self-professed Libertarians I would state they fall somewhere in between Democrats and Republicans and possibly higher than the 49% of Independents that expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice in this study.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-poll-majority-harbor-prejudice-against-blacks

The problem of prejudice, because it varies across political party lines, is something I believe the individual political parties should be addressing. They know best how to address issues within their own political ideology and would be the most effective in dealing with it. We certainly can't expect a "Republican" to listen to a "Democrat" or visa versa when addressing the prejudice within a political ideology. What I do believe is that the different numbers reflect how well each political party is in addressing the issue of prejudice within their own political party. Basically the lower 32% percentage of Democrats expressing explicit anti-black racial prejudice reflects that they are better at addressing it than the Republican Party that has the much higher 79% percentage expressing anti-black racial prejudice.

The difference between my position and others is that while I acknowledge that eliminating individual prejudice is not a responsibility of government it is a responsibility of the People. We have a responsibility to reduce and eliminate prejudice and the political parties provide a means for accomplishing that. Where I disagree with others is when they deny that they have any personal responsibility to address the problem of individual prejudice.

Additionally I accept that until we do assume our individual responsibility to reduce and eliminate prejudice the government does have a responsibility to mitigate the effects of the problems we create with our individual prejudice. If we, as the people, eliminate the problem then there is no necessity for government to mitigate the effects that would no longer exist.

In truth I'm far more "Libertarian" than even the Libertarian Party when it comes to addressing the issues that face us today.

 

Art1 Sec 9 the word migration pertained strictly to slaves, it had nothing to do with immigrants. Migration meant the movement between the states.

So now with all your babble, you fail to support your previous claim and admit I am correct.

The Huffington Post an exceptional statement of facts? UVEGOT2BFUKNKIDDNG They took quotes from Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin, removed the context in which they were talking to simply spin it to their own agenda, you did the same with your claim.

A poem placed into the pedestal of the statue that has no bearing on the statue itself, really?

The US has always been restrictive to open immigration, they have always had to register, from the time of the colonies to the present, there has always been laws to deny people entry, from the colonies to the present, some states still have in their original constitutions this denial, the Articles of Confederation recognized it in Art 4. The USC gave Congress the power over naturalization and immigration in Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 4.

Your poor attempt to re-write history is hilarious at best.

 

Because they get it wrong on immigration? EXAMPLE from your link:

The H2A has no quota, the farmers can bring in the worlds population if they can show they need them, yet they don't, why not? You do know also that that link is to an article written, and is not the bylaws of the Libertarian Party, right?

?HUH? Libertarianism and Conservatism are brothers, they don't "oppose" one another. Hell, Libertarians stole their ideology from Classic Liberals, which are today's Conservatives. Libertarians simply went extreme with the Classic Liberal ideology.

SMFH. No, you simply are a Progressive.

 

So you take the position of something more than what your link claims and then claim thats what a Libertarian is?

Exactly, your a Progressive.

 

This should read: A poem placed into the pedestal of the statue that has no bearing on the statue itself.

 

To just address this false statement Congress is not delegated a role or responsibility to control immigration in Article I Section 8 that only establishes that Congress is to create uniform laws of naturalization. As argued by the founders there was or should be a logical requirement for "residency" under the statutory naturalization laws but nothing mandates that an immigrant to the United States become a citizen of the United States. We cannot assume nor should we force immigrants to become citizens of the United States. That is a clear misreading of the US Constitution and the enumerated roles and responsibilities of the federal government.

We can also note that the Inalienable Rights of the Person subjected to the authority of the US government supercede the Constitutional Authority of our Government. The 9th Amendment clearly establishes that the Rights of the Person, even if not expressly enumerated or protected, are still a Protected Right of the Person. The Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person which includes their Right to Immigrate to and from the United States supercedes any statutory authority of Congress granted under the US Constitution.

No where in the US Constitution is there an enumeration of the role or responsibility to regulate immigration and is only implied related to the protections of the Rights of the People of the United States which includes both immigrants and citizens of this nation. Open and free immigration, as supported by the Libertarian Party Platform, does not violate the Inalienable Rights of any person while restrictions related to immigration do violate the Right of Liberty which is clearly established under the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence of the United States.

 

The poem itself expressed the National Character of the United States and does so with or without a statute.

 

I acknowledge exactly what the link expresses but go further by addressing the actual elimination of the need for welfare assistance, that the Libertarian party acknowledges must be mitigated but does not eliminate, by proposing solutions that end the necessity to mitigate the effects of poverty by reducing and eliminating the poverty that welfare, public or private, mitigates.

Yes, all libertarians are "progressive" but instead of being "progressive liberals" we are "progressive libertartians" in our political ideology. "Social Conservatives" are, in fact, "regressive conservatives" seeking to re-impose the injustices of the past.

By way of example Texas Republicans, as soon as the Supreme Court allowed it, immediately passed a new "Jim Crow" voter ID law to reinstate the Jim Crow voting laws of the 1960's that were outlawed by the Voting Rights Act. Today's law, just like the previous Jim Crow voting law, was designed to disenfranchise the Right to Vote for African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans because they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. The "voter ID laws" being passed in Republican controlled states are addressing a problem that doesn't actually exist and that will disproportinalely deny the Right to Vote for US citizens that are predominately poor and black or Hispanic that overwhelmingly vote for Democrats because of the anti-black racial and anti-Hispanic agenda of the Republican Party. For example, in Texas, there were only four cases of voter identification fraud at the polls prosecuted between 2004 and 2010 from what I recall but tens of thousands of African-American and Hispanic Americans will be disenfranched because of the new Texas voter identification law. This law is, of course, being challenged in federal court because to even the casual observer it's clearly a racist Jim Crow law.

 

Immigration falls under Naturalization, nothing I have stated is false. AOC Art 4, and the USC Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 4.

You are now confused. A USC has the right to leave and enter the US, a Mexican has the right to leave and enter Mexico, nobody has an inherent right to enter another country without authorization.

To ourselves and our posterity, ring a bell? Why else do you think the USC distinguishes between class/status of people/person? Libertarians propose less restrictions on immigration, they don't propose/support open and free immigration.

 

The poem was written based on the persecution of Jews in Russia and expresses NO national character of the US, Progressives have been attempting to do what you claim since the 1920's.

 

Not all Libertarians are Progressive, you are a mere faction of the libertarian ideology, which still places you as a Progressive.

The rest of your babble is nothing more then proving my point of your Progressiveness in labeling voter ID laws as "Jim Crow".

 

Am I more progressive than many libertarians? I won't argue that point as I'm far more progressive in promoting the Inalienable Rights of the Person than many libertarians I know.

Every libertarian I'm aware of advocates the Inalienable Right of Liberty and, in fact, the very word Libertarian is based upon the person's advocacy for the Right of Liberty of the Person. They do not support the proposition that "liberty" is a "privilege" granted to the person which is what our current immigration laws are based upon. We grant the privilege of "liberty of the person" to immigrate to the United States under statutory law while denying the Right of Liberty to those that are prohibited to immigrate to the United States under statutory law.

Always remember that if a nation can limit immigration under statutory law it goes both ways. Not only can the government deny entry to the country it can also deny the ability of the person to leave the country because immigration of all forms becomes a privilege and not a Right of the Person.

In fact the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the imposition of a poll tax and in the Supreme Court decision of Harper v Virginia Board of Elections the Supreme Court expressed the following in it's decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=383&invol=663

This decision not only abolished the direct poll tax under review but also abolished any de facto poll tax based upon a requirement to pay a fee to obtain the Right to Vote. Under the new Texas Voter ID law all of the documents required to obtain a "free" voter ID card from the State of Texas must be purchased from the government and that establishes a de facto poll tax that is unconstitutional.

As noted the Texas Voter ID law, which imposes a de facto poll tax, is no different in effect than the prior Jim Crow laws that effectively targeted blacks in the past. The law is under review by the Federal Courts and logically is going to be struck down based upon the Supreme Court decision in Harper v Virginia Board of Elections that prohibits the imposition of any government fees that would prevent a person from voting.

 

Of that I have no doubt.

Liberty is generally considered a concept of political philosophy that seeks to identify the conditions in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority. Every person has the liberty to make their own choices, to be free from coercion and oppression; inalienable means nothing more than non-transferable rights. Nobody has the right to immigrate to another country, they do have the right to seek asylum in another country based on their liberties being oppressed. The country to which the asylee seeks to enter doesn't have to accept the asylee and can deny entry.

Immigration is not a right of the person. Nobody has an inherent right to immigrate from one country to another, in some instances even inside the US a criminal can be denied the ability to move from one state to another until their debt to that society has been paid. In divorce, a parent can be denied the ability to move outside of the county in which they reside if it will hamper the other parents rights to their children.

The rest is immaterial for this thread.

 

The poem itself was written because of the persecution of the Jews in Russia in the 1880's. The poems meaning is for the Jews to leave Russia (their home) and to seek asylum in the US (Mother of Exiles). Asylum and immigration are 2 different things. This expressed national character is mis-understood and mis-applied.

 

No documents need be purchased in Texas to obtain a voter ID card.

SCOTUS has already allowed the Texas voter ID law to go forward. 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder strikes down Justice Department's ability to reject the Texas law. This nullifies your inept claim:

Again, you are simply incorrect and not as informed as you imply.

 

I find this interesting because today's Republican Party is advocating virtually the identical ideological concerns expressed by the Immigration Restriction League when it comes to the immigration of Hispanics from Mexico and Central America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Restriction_League

We should also note that the head of the Immigration Restriction League, Prescott F. Hall, was a closet WASP supremacist that openly supported eugenics that was later adopted by Nazis that used it to rationalized the Holocaust as the elmination of "undesirable" people that included millions of Jews. Hall considered the Jews as well as Catholics to be "undesirables" and avocated restictions and quotas on their immigration to the United States.
.

 

That doesn't imply that the documents necessary to obtain the "Election Identification Certificates (EIC)" (i.e. Voter ID Card) in Texas. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety that issues the cards the following documents must be presented to obtian the EIC:

[/quote]A.U.S. passport book or card; or
B.Birth certificate issued by a U.S. state, U.S. territory or District of Columbia; or
C.For U.S. citizens born abroad—Certificate of Report of Birth (DS-1350 or FS-545) or Consular Report of Birth (FS-240) issued by the U.S. Department of State; or
D.U.S. Certificate of Citizenship or Certificate of Naturalization (N-560, N-561, N-645, N-550, N-55G, N-570 or N-57; or
E.U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service U.S. Citizen ID Card (Form I-197 or I-179) [/quote]

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/eicDocReqmnts.htm

If the person doesn't happen to already have one of these documents on hand then they must purchase them from the government. That imposes a "fee" paid to the government in order for the person to obtain the EIC so they can vote and the Supreme Court has already ruled that no government fees can be imposed, either directly or indirectly, that would restrict the persons Right to Vote.

In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court merely struck down the requirement for the State of Texas to obtain preauthoization from the federal government to change the voting laws. It did not address the actual Constitutionality of the Texas Voter ID law that has subsequently been challenged.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...challenge-texas-voter-id-law-in-federal-court

 

I gave you the link directly to SoS of Texas website, which states that if you do not have those particular documents you only need check a box on the form stating you don't have them, so again, nothing need be purchased.

You seem to be arguing simply for the sake of argument, throwing every bucket of (*)(*)(*)(*) you can at a wall hoping something sticks.

What of the other 29 states that have these voter ID laws already, are they "Jim Crow" like too, or is it just Texas that has you making this inane claim?

So Obama is going to throw another bucket at the wall using a different section of the 1965 law hoping that something sticks. Seems you and the admin are on the same page, good luck with that.

 

Yes, they are Jim Crow laws. The sole purpose of these laws are to disenfranchise the poor, predominately African-Americans and Hispanics, that typically vote for Democrats. Every study conducted reveals that "voter identification fraud at the polls" is NOT a problem in the United States and every study ever done confirms that millions of American citizens, overwhelmingly of African-American and Hispanic descent will be disenfranchised from voting because of these laws.

Even several top Republicans that have been involved in the crafting of these laws have admitted that the real purpose was to suppress the black vote. It's not that this has been a secret or anything. Republican lawmakers know that there are few cases of actual voter identification fraud at the polls. Republican Texas lawmakers knew that only four cases of voter identification fraud at the polls in Texas had been identified between 2004 and 2010.

YES, THEY ARE JIM CROW LAWS INTENDED TO SUPPRESS THE VOTE OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND HISPANICS IN AMERICA.

They are no different than our immigration laws that target Hispanics and deny them immigration to the United States based upon a quota system.

If you want to know why then read my signature.

 

The sole purpose is not to disenfranchise citizens. Voter fraud isn't considered a problem due to the low percentage of it. Only Citizens are allowed to vote in Federal elections, the state can allow whom they want to vote in local elections. So the other 29 states are "Jim Crow", too? The issue here is that Texas was a Southern state, for which it is no more, the reason why SCOTUS overturned the 1965 Law.

Yet I can't find a single claim by any such Republicans, but, what i did find was a Black Democrat making the claim that Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters he can't attribute any such phrase to a Republican at all. Its only his assumed opinion based on phrases he chooses to come to the theory he claims.

Democratic assumption. So you can't move beyond the Jim Crow era? Looks to be nothing more than an excuse by Progressives.

Yet, Hispanics are the greatest number allowed in with authorization, that alone makes your claim inept.

Worthless.

 

Any voting law that doesn't address an legitimate interest of the state (Texas can only document about one case of voter identification fraud at the polls per election cycle) and that disenfranches tens of thousands of "minority" citizens ( poor predominatly African-Americans and Hispanics citizens living in Texas) is a Jim Crow law.

To state that it is acceptable to disenfranchise tens of thousands of poor black and Hispanic citizens in the State of Texas to stop a single case of voter idenfication fraud at the polls in an election cycle is an absurd propostion. I don't know how anyone but a racist could even make the proposal but that is exactly what Texas Repulican legislators passed into law. If Texas Republicans aren't racists then no one is in America today.

Texas Republicans are just as racist today as they were in the 1960's based upon their advocated political agenda that is anti-Hispanic and anti-black (as well as anti-women).

 

I'll ask again, what of the other 29 states that already have voter id laws on the books? Texas is no different than any of them. Only Citizens can vote in Federal elections, the state can allow whom they choose to vote (usually residents/citizens of said state). Every resident of said state has a state issued ID, otherwise they can not obtain utilities, rent, purchase homes or cars, etc. Those that do not have a Texas ID can still vote, they sign an affidavit affirming their identity and their vote is considered provisional.

The only one "stating" anything is you with your claim, you have yet to substantiate it.

They are racist because you don't like voter ID laws? Well color me surprised.