Vertigo

No you do not. You cannot get a commission or even a security clearance- but all that is required is to be a resident alien, be between 17 and 35, meet the mental, moral, and physical standards for enlistment; and they must speak, read and write English fluently.

Ah, but remember this whole thing started with non-immigrants who looked to oust President Viktor Yanukovich- who is pro Russian. Those Ukranians seized public buildings and attacked police lines. Pro-Russian forces didn't attack until the new Kiev government was formed. So the first action was ok because they weren't immigrants but the second action wasn't because those people weren't born in that country originally? Even though they have the same rights as those who are native born?

Militias aren't illegal here. Once they act against the nation or others in a criminal way they become criminals and should be dealt with as such. Until then they are innocent and should be treated as such. The fact they are or are not immigrants is of no importance.

Can we agree there is a difference between an immigrant and a standing army?

Yeah, that part had me scratching my head as well. Must've been something going on in 2008 that I don't remember. If they aren't taking from you- what are you protecting and defending? Why would allowing immigrants to enter mean we are no longer sovereign?

Would it surprise you to know I haven't read any of her stuff? I've more than likely read material by others who were influenced by her writing, no doubt. Funny that sentence number 2 in the paragraph is describing everyone else in this topic.

Then obviously you haven't been reading for comprehension- see my post above where I quoted myself from two days ago. And this isn't how our current system is supposed to work- at least that's not how it's designed to work. You mean they realize they're too lazy to fix the system and instead go along with the status quo, ever eroding our freedoms.

Hmm...

Still don't have a clue as to what private property is, do you? No one is forcing you to give up your private property- so your analogy is faulty at best. I suggest you, an others, read this which states my position much more eloquently than I ever could. I doubt you will though. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights/

Again for the fourth of fifth time- if immigration was open to all, there would rarely be any illegal immigration. I never said there would be no negative consequences. Almost everything we do as a nation has negative and positive consequences. Do we raise or lower taxes? Do we increase or decrease the speed limit? Do we legalize drugs or crack down even harder? All these questions have both pros and cons no matter which way you decide. But ultimately the most important question, in my mind, is does it restrict or does it increase human freedom and liberty?

You might not have but Clark essentially did. And when I called him out on it you defended his position. Who determines what is a " good addition"? Someone now having to compete for a job with someone willing to work harder, faster and cheaper may say that person is not a " good addition" . Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

So restrict freedom because someone of your race might commit a crime. That sounds like a legit excuse. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

In other words, you want to restrict another human's freedoms for your own selfish greed. So it's ok for me to stop you from coming into my city looking for a job because I'm protecting my available resources.

And my whole argument has been to open immigration, thus disincentivizing illegal immigration. So that everyone who wants to immigrate can do so legally. Yet every argument against has either been of pure selfishness in the opportunities and resources here, or racist statements equating immigrants with killers and rapists. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Nice that you label all immigrants like that. Your true white robe colors are showing Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

There should be no restrictions. And if the border was open to all but still managed, what incentive is there to trek through miles of open desert when you can come through a checkpoint legally, with no restrictions? Comprende mi amigo? By you keeping out those who you don't want in, aren't you infringing on my private property rights to sell, or rent to whomever I choose to enter into a contract with? Or as a business owner, whom I can hire to work for me? So your "right" to possibly feel crowded supersedes my rights as a property owner or business owner to run my businessour home in its best interest? Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Are you saying no one would rent or sell to an immigrant, tree? Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Sigh. Another who can't distinguish the difference between private property and public property. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! I said free (i.e . open) immigration that is managed. Work on the reading comprehension. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

You're not listening. Who said anything about socialism? What does government run industry have to do with allowing immigration to whomever wants it? If a person immigrates here and is now included in our "tax base" (isn't that the gop mantra? Increase the tax base) then how are they not included in the "we" when it comes to supporting the educational and housing needs? You voting no to pay for something is ok, but when I say no I'm some raving lunatic. Funny how hypocrisy works. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

And you want to limit human freedom for your own selfish reasons. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

They deport themselves from their home country for that reason, yet it's absurd to think that people would do the same here. Yep, it's delusional. Tree are you trying to make the case the entire u.s. is private property? If so, who holds the title? If you're not, why would you try to make a comparison with my private property? Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Thanks for proving what I said earlier- The problem is self correcting. When too many immigrants come the resources and available jobs become very limited and with it the incentive to immigrate. Many would even choose to self deport at that point! Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Legal, free immigration to all. Sounds just like what I'm advocating. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

That's not a disincentive, that's an obstacle. So you are in favor of opening the border to all who want to enter. Great! Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

If the system was set up so that there was no incentive to be here illegally, but rather legally, which route do you think they would take? This isn't rocket science. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! And if immigrants were given the opportunity to come in and contribute to that burden rather than the current system that makes it more appealing to be here illegally, who do you think would be paying for it? Themselves. Every other reason anyone has mentioned has been a complete "I got mine, fuck anyone else that dreams of obtaining the same." Is there limited resources and opportunities? Yes, and that makes it self correcting, just like a free market. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

So change the system that incentives them to not pull their load. Quit being lazy and think of alternate ways of doing business. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!