Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I haven't been involved in many discussion pertaining to immigration, so I haven't been privvy to all of the perspectives coming from all the posters. I'd like to pose one that some may not be familiar with. This is directed primarily toward Libertarians and true Conservatives who believe in limited government.
Libertarians, such as me, support the rights of consenting adults to enter into a binding contract without the interference from any government entitiy, providing the contract does no intentional,direct harm to any other person. These adults are not limited to Americans, but to ALL adults. Therefore, should we not extend this same right to a land purchase contract between an owner and a buyer regardless of race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation? If a landowner in Kansas would like to see his/her land to a Columbian, why should the U.S. government become involved in any respect?
Therefore, should we not extend this same right to a land purchase contract between an owner and a buyer regardless of race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation? If a landowner in Kansas would like to see his/her land to a Columbian, why should the U.S. government become involved in any respect?
Foreigners purchase land in the US all the time. But that's a separate issue from immigration. For example, many illegal aliens in America own homes.
I do believe in limited government. But securing our borders is one of those issues that the central government needs to be responsible for. It goes to protecting the American people. Also, if too many foreigners come to the United States it could drive up land prices.
Open borders Libertarianism works in a vast uninhabited new land. Maybe Antartica would be a good place for it.
The USA cannot support a limitless population and with very generous welfare programs, we attract far too many immigrants who come mainly for that.
Employers will bring in unlimted numbers of dirt cheap workers because obviously it's about the profit motive. These cheap workers and the unemployed Americans will demand services like free health care from the government.
Most of the illegals for example are actually Socialist big government types. They vote, they will not vote for limited government types who would cut their food stamps, free lunches in free schools and so on. Billions of starving people brought in will not achieve any liberty for this nation.
Foreigners purchase land in the US all the time. But that's a separate issue from immigration. For example, many illegal aliens in America own homes.
I do believe in limited government. But securing our borders is one of those issues that the central government needs to be responsible for. It goes to protecting the American people. Also, if too many foreigners come to the United States it could drive up land prices.
Yes -- doubling the population every couple of decades by bringing in large foreign populations of failed nations will only increase our need for oil and other resources to support those fast growing populations. That means wars in the Middle East. There's no way around that. Bringing millions of peole up from tropical nations where they will need hundreds of gallons of heating fuel, gas for their transportation and so on just makes us that much ore oil-desperate.
Libertarianism is dangerous, I may leave the Republican party because of it. That said, foreigners purchasing homes in the US drives up real estate prices, and prices many Americans out of a house.
A limited amount of government is needed to prevent the chaos and anarchy of individuals who exert little or no good judgment and wisdom in cases such as this. "Limited" certainly a relative term, but as limited as possible and still keep law and order. It seems a Libertarian view takes the stance that the person perpetrating their "right" is the ONLY person on earth that matters, and in a reality based world, is just not the case. Take off blinders and get vision checkup.
I haven't been involved in many discussion pertaining to immigration, so I haven't been privvy to all of the perspectives coming from all the posters. I'd like to pose one that some may not be familiar with. This is directed primarily toward Libertarians and true Conservatives who believe in limited government.
Libertarians, such as me, support the rights of consenting adults to enter into a binding contract without the interference from any government entitiy, providing the contract does no intentional,direct harm to any other person. These adults are not limited to Americans, but to ALL adults. Therefore, should we not extend this same right to a land purchase contract between an owner and a buyer regardless of race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation? If a landowner in Kansas would like to see his/her land to a Columbian, why should the U.S. government become involved in any respect?
Just one point here - you can only enter into a binding contract provided there is a governmental entity that will enforce that contract, with that entity backed up, if necessary, by machine-guns. Enforcement of contracts is in fact the prime responsibility of government.
This is the downfall of Libertarianism, or should I say that version that want's no government at all. At best it's idealistic, at worst it's anarchy.
Frankly, I don't believe there ARE any Libertarians..at least not in the truest, purest sense of the word. Just as I don't believe anyone is a 100% pacifist. Eventually something will happen to make the Libertarian demand society's "help" (i.e., interference), and the pacifist, at some point, will be willing to fight.
The plain fact is, all human interaction is subject to human flaws. And if we NEVER, EVER submitted to the "tyranny" of government, we'd find ourselves under the "tyranny" of our neighbor. And those who vow NEVER to fight, under any circumstance, will either find themselves "run over" by more agressive types---OR will have to allow someone ELSE to fight, on their behalf.
That's just human nature. We simply do not have the option to "leave other people alone, and they'll leave US alone"....it doesn't work that way.
And even the "limited-government" folks run into problems in day-to-day life. Working with your fellow man on the "honor system" is fine, 95% of the time--but what do you do when someone comes along WITHOUT honor?----Answer?----You either "call the cops"---or you "clobber" the person---or you walk away, and he prevails. But in no case, can you just "leave him alone"..or ignore him. In human society, no one can truly "go it alone"---all you can do is CHOOSE your favorite "tyranny"---
foreigners purchasing homes in the US drives up real estate prices, and prices many Americans out of a house.
Foreigners are responsible for the market going up? Guess not many foreigners buying now. Geeeez
In Miami, rich South Americans are probably the only thing keeping that overrated and overvalued city from hitting the skids real estate wise!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
