Emails: Cal State activists target conservative student group

[Cerus]

The free market approach would be to not make illegal immigrants illegal, to allow them to enter freely and compete in the labor market alongside American citizens.

The entire point of a free market is to limit/eliminate these kinds of impediments to open competition. And no, pointing out that there would be negative consequences is not a counter, it's you demonstrating that you do not hold a free-market-based viewpoint on this issue.

And that's fine; I don't agree with free-market concepts to begin with, either. Market action is valuable, but not left to manage itself; the Invisible Hand is blind and stupid and has no idea what it's doing. But don't talk about extensive marketplace controls on the labor market, as you're doing above, and then claim you're making a free market argument. If the market were free, it would be open to anyone who wanted to participate. It would also have to allow people to walk away from the table, which current labour markets cannot, because not being employed creates hardship for all but the already-wealthy.

- - - Updated - - -



Because when they're presented with the idea that "maybe we should just grant everyone amnesty and provide a quick path to citizenship for any who want it, rendering none of them "illegal"", they drum up reasons that they won't accept that.

Even though it DOES clearly end illegal immigration. So if the illegal part was what really mattered to them, they'd be all for a blanket amnesty.

They aren't. Because it isn't really about that.

Wow you pulled that logic out of a martians ass. Let’s make murder legal so we won’t have a murder problem. Or make all drugs legal to end the illegal drug problem. No harm in anyone being high on crack meth. Sound about right?

This country can neither afford nor support the 10s of millions that want to immigrate. The system is slow but that’s what happens when you have a handful of people working a system that sees millions of applicants. Making them all legal with the stroke of a pen does not solve the problem. Illegals abuse the system, pay no taxes, commit crimes and in general do not contribute to society.

We need a system to determine who will be a productive and contributing member of society. Like all counties, we have a right to say who can and cannot come into our country. Immigration is not a right. Just try immigrating to Mexico or Australia.

Even legal immigrants hate illegals because they committed to entering the country legally. Illegals are a kick in the balls to every immigrant.

[Ahovv]

. Or make all drugs legal to end the illegal drug problem. No harm in anyone being high on crack meth. Sound about right?

I assume you want alcohol to be illegal as well, then? You would be a massive hypocrite if you don't.

[Deleted]

When I was studying all we did was focus on getting our degree and partying in the weekends.

Maybe it was because it was a uni with almost only economical studies and zero social junk, but still. Go to school to learn and keep that political crap out of it.

[Machismo]

Like all liberals you conveniently leave out the illegal part. They don’t want limited immigration. They want an end to ILLEGAL immigrants. Why is this distinction so hard to grasp? As if the US is the only country with costly, time consuming and restrictive immigration procedures.

Like all conservatives, you conveniently leave out that saying you want "legal" immigration is just a dodge to avoid talking about exactly what that entails. They do want to limit immigration, which is why they support things like the travel ban. Having immigration be illegal at all is support for limited immigration.

Once again, that stance is opposed to the core concepts of limited government, freedom, and free markets that they claim to support.

- - - Updated - - -

You are confusing free market with laissez faire capitalism. Allowing and promoting illegal immigration supports laissez faire capitalism (see how farm/migrant workers are practically slaves) by allowing American employers to higher laborers and pay them less than they are worth and less than the labor merits. Enforcing immigration laws doesn't hurt the free market -- it hurts American employers who want to higher illegal workers so they can get away without paying a fair wage. Allowing employers to higher illegals at a wage that is a fraction of what they would have to pay an American citizen is NOT beneficial to any one, except greedy Americans who love laissez faire and care more about their bottom dollar than the well being of their laborers.

You are wrong on almost every single point you tried to make.

We have seen that the free market can not only grow, but in fact, it can flourish without laissez faire. History has shown us that laissez faire is arguably one of the most harmful things for the American labor force. Enforcing immigration laws deprives American employers of cheap labor, forcing them to pay fair wages and thereby forcing them to compete on an even playing field with their competition who pay fair wages. This in fact supports the free market. It seems that you may be confused about the impact of illegal immigration on the free market because perhaps you understand that this would, at least in the short term, result in higher prices for domestic goods and services because illegal immigration and imported goods that are sold at a fraction of the price drive prices down. Perhaps you see higher prices as harmful to the free market? I see capitalizing on illegal immigrants by paying them sub-minimum wage as harmful to immigrants, not the free market.

I'm not supporting anyone's bigotry here, just wanted to point out the fallacy of the notion that wanting immigration laws enforced is somehow antithetical to the American free market and/or good for anyone except employers who don't want to obey the law.

Actually, placing limits on immigration is a limit to the free markets. It prevents the free exchange of labor and capital, something that is pretty damn important to the free markets. People are worth exactly what they earn. Both parties agreed to the price, which is no different than you choosing to buy something at a store. You are demanding a limit to the competition, a limit to the supply. That's not a free-market system, not even close.

You are basically saying that a company choosing to buy materials from another seller, because their product is cheaper, is a hindrance to the free market. Illegal immigrants are actually the workaround to the attempts to stifle the free market.

- - - Updated - - -

I, and many other on the libertarian right, have no intention to impose our will on to you. I would just as soon see balkanization of the union so that you guys can have your multicultural socialist utopian experiment, while people like me are free to live somewhere with extremely limited government.

The only issue with so many people who claim to be for limited government, is that they really aren't. Most of the people who claim to be for such things, are the ones who push to restrict and ban cultures they don't like. They are the first to call for limits to things like immigration, and even gay marriage. If you don't want to restict those things, I applaud you, but you would be in the very tiny minority of those who claim to want limited government.

- - - Updated - - -

Really, I wasn't trying to counter anything, simply pondering if perhaps the other commentor viewed temporary price increases as harmful to the free market because it hurts the consumer in the short term and discourages consumer spending and could be perceived as harmful overall.

I do believe in a free market and hold free market values (I also value capitalism, despite its inherently corruptable nature), unfortunately as things stand and legislation being what it is and what it has been in the US, illegal immigration is not beneficial (it helps keep wages low for labor sector jobs, which is bad for the laborer) nor is enforcing immigration laws harmful to the free market as it stands. Exclusion based on legal status is about access to the free market, not about an impact on its function. I wasn't arguing for exclusion, simply stating that enforcing standing immigration laws doesn't harm the function of the free market -- the concept of America's free market wasn't that anyone could hop the border and capitalize, but rather that all citizens have free, unfettered access. Not that it matters, and likely not that anyone will believe me, but I wasn't born in the states, so I do have something of a unique perspective as an American.

However, I won't argue in hypotheticals, like the what-ifs regarding amnesty (even if the US grants amnesty to all illegals currently in the country, it wouldn't eliminate the problem of future illegal immigration and there would be still immigration laws to be enforced -- also, it may be worth seeking the viewpoint of legal immigrants who busted their asses to pass a test that the vast majority of Americans are too stupid to pass), nor will I discuss here why enforcing immigration is the most basic premise of protecting national boundaries and therefore protecting national sovereignty, which in turn is good for the individual nation's economy and by extension, its free markets. But I digress, I absolutely agree that allowing a means for fair wages, regardless of national background, is beneficial for the free market. Higher wages across the board (especially across the lowest tiers) means greater volumes of consumers which results in a stronger consumer economy, and so long as America's economy is a consumer-based, capitalistic econmy, more consumers with money to burn = better for the country.

Once again, placing limits on immigration is a limit to the free markets. Illegal immigrants are the natural workaround to government interference in the free market. They are there to meet the demand that still exists in spite of attempts to limit the supply of labor.

In essence, they are no different than a drug dealer, selling marijuana to someone, even though it is illegal. They are attempting to adjust for government-mandated limits to the free market.

I understand that illegal immigrants depress wages, that's natural when there is an increase in supply. Once again, that is how the free market actually works.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow you pulled that logic out of a martians ass. Let’s make murder legal so we won’t have a murder problem. Or make all drugs legal to end the illegal drug problem. No harm in anyone being high on crack meth. Sound about right?

This country can neither afford nor support the 10s of millions that want to immigrate. The system is slow but that’s what happens when you have a handful of people working a system that sees millions of applicants. Making them all legal with the stroke of a pen does not solve the problem. Illegals abuse the system, pay no taxes, commit crimes and in general do not contribute to society.

We need a system to determine who will be a productive and contributing member of society. Like all counties, we have a right to say who can and cannot come into our country. Immigration is not a right. Just try immigrating to Mexico or Australia.

Even legal immigrants hate illegals because they committed to entering the country legally. Illegals are a kick in the balls to every immigrant.

Then your statement underscores the fact that you do not support the free market. Honestly, that's fine, almost nobody does. Turning Point USA clearly does not. If you want to hold such a stance, that is your choice. But, you don't get to say you support freedom, the free markets, or limited government. After all, you just supported the opposite of all three of those ideals.

[primalmatter]

Yea, so what, I could see that being an issue if you had evidence the ones doing the targeting had never listened to the other groups views. Simply not liking another said group not including them based on their ideology or beliefs is totally fine.

I don't have to agree with that, but an ideology or a belief system can change and not all views are equal. I am in the greater minority that does NOT believe, entertaining every idea, or debate is a good idea.

I don't believe in safe spaces at college, but unless some group is targeting another specifically for harassment or hatred, if this group does that, well then I can also understand wanting to banish them.

See when you start this bullshit of forcing your views on colleges where people don't agree, or you get into the game of legitimately trying to frame your opponents as terrorist because they express their views, THIS is the kind of shit you get.

The right or rather the Alt-Right started this shit!

Welcome to the new world of hostility. Who knows maybe they can go grab some tiki torches and protest. Don't dress in black though, might get mistaken for a terrorist.

- - - Updated - - -



I like this stance you seem to have where people aren't responsible for their own decisions or reactions to others. It's very interesting the way you apply that.

There is nothing about this E-Mail or behavior that isn't par for the course then now too, based on the same kind of thinking you know tit for tat. Rightwing conservatives have any access and opportunity to do the same thing.

I find the mental gymnastics you perform impressive...

How exactly did the old guard challenge the established order? It seems absurd to even speak aloud...

As for the second part your right they do have the ability to forcefully inflict their will and opinions on other people just as what is being done to them. How you don't see that as leading us to some really fucking dark places baffles me.

[Endus]

Wow you pulled that logic out of a martians ass. Let’s make murder legal so we won’t have a murder problem. Or make all drugs legal to end the illegal drug problem. No harm in anyone being high on crack meth. Sound about right?

That's not my "logic". It's your "logic". If you find it offensive and misinformed, this is a grand opportunity to stop parroting it and actually start to think about this issue.

I was underscoring the ridiculousness of the "it's not immigration I oppose, just illegal immigration" position. It's like saying "I'm not against killing people for annoying you, I'm against illegally killing people for annoying you." Or "I'm not against using meth, I'm against using meth illegally."

To use your examples against you.

The point is, you've stated it isn't the underlying issue that you have a problem with, but the illegality. And if that's the case, legalization solves your complaint.

Now, if you've got actual reasons to oppose immigration, by all means, I'm not saying those can't exist. I'm just pointing out one specific internally inconsistent argument. The point was that supposed "free market" advocates do not want a free market in labour, and actively oppose it by restricting immigration for work purposes.

This country can neither afford nor support the 10s of millions that want to immigrate. The system is slow but that’s what happens when you have a handful of people working a system that sees millions of applicants. Making them all legal with the stroke of a pen does not solve the problem. Illegals abuse the system, pay no taxes, commit crimes and in general do not contribute to society.

Pretty much none of that is true, except the first, and only if you're defining "abusing the system" by their overstay itself.

They're paying taxes.
They're committing less crime than Americans.
Not only do they contribute to society, they boost the economy.

Predicating your position on misinformation isn't a great way to start.

[Cerus]

That's not my "logic". It's your "logic". If you find it offensive and misinformed, this is a grand opportunity to stop parroting it and actually start to think about this issue.

I was underscoring the ridiculousness of the "it's not immigration I oppose, just illegal immigration" position. It's like saying "I'm not against killing people for annoying you, I'm against illegally killing people for annoying you." Or "I'm not against using meth, I'm against using meth illegally."

To use your examples against you.

The point is, you've stated it isn't the underlying issue that you have a problem with, but the illegality. And if that's the case, legalization solves your complaint.

Now, if you've got actual reasons to oppose immigration, by all means, I'm not saying those can't exist. I'm just pointing out one specific internally inconsistent argument. The point was that supposed "free market" advocates do not want a free market in labour, and actively oppose it by restricting immigration for work purposes.



Pretty much none of that is true, except the first, and only if you're defining "abusing the system" by their overstay itself.

They're paying taxes.
They're committing less crime than Americans.
Not only do they contribute to society, they boost the economy.

Predicating your position on misinformation isn't a great way to start.

You’re really reaching with this aren’t ya? Immigration is already legal. But like most things, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Want to come here legally, prove you deserve it and be a productive member of society? Fine by me and every other conservative. Doing it any other way makes you a criminal and makes you unworthy of living in this country.

We have the right to control our borders like every other country does. Why aren’t you saying the same thing about those countries instead of singling out the US?

I can link just as many articles that show illegal immigrants get paid under that table, commit crime after crime and drain our already drained welfare system. What your links fail to mention is that they can’t possibly have real statistics because illegals aren’t in the system to be tracked in the first place. They’re assuming all those unclaimed tax returns are from illegals and assuming all the crimes without a suspect aren’t illegals.

That’s kind of the point of why we have a problem with illegals. They can vanish without a trace like a fart in the wind. No the solution isn’t to declare them all legal because many seeking entry don’t deserve to be here.

- - - Updated - - -

Like all conservatives, you conveniently leave out that saying you want "legal" immigration is just a dodge to avoid talking about exactly what that entails. They do want to limit immigration, which is why they support things like the travel ban. Having immigration be illegal at all is support for limited immigration.

Once again, that stance is opposed to the core concepts of limited government, freedom, and free markets that they claim to support.

What does a travel ban have to do with immigration? Terroism is a major issue these days. Innocents get caught up in it but we can’t risk the lives of millions of Americans because someone will be inconvenienced. Might want to take a look at what countries are on that list too.

Obama had a travel ban too btw.

- - - Updated - - -

I assume you want alcohol to be illegal as well, then? You would be a massive hypocrite if you don't.

If people can’t start acting responsibly then maybe it should be illegal. But the majority of Americans don’t cause problems when they consume alcohol. Meth or crack are never good and neither is murder.

[primalmatter]

That's not my "logic". It's your "logic". If you find it offensive and misinformed, this is a grand opportunity to stop parroting it and actually start to think about this issue.

I was underscoring the ridiculousness of the "it's not immigration I oppose, just illegal immigration" position. It's like saying "I'm not against killing people for annoying you, I'm against illegally killing people for annoying you." Or "I'm not against using meth, I'm against using meth illegally."

To use your examples against you.

The point is, you've stated it isn't the underlying issue that you have a problem with, but the illegality. And if that's the case, legalization solves your complaint.

Now, if you've got actual reasons to oppose immigration, by all means, I'm not saying those can't exist. I'm just pointing out one specific internally inconsistent argument. The point was that supposed "free market" advocates do not want a free market in labour, and actively oppose it by restricting immigration for work purposes.



Pretty much none of that is true, except the first, and only if you're defining "abusing the system" by their overstay itself.

They're paying taxes.
They're committing less crime than Americans.
Not only do they contribute to society, they boost the economy.

Predicating your position on misinformation isn't a great way to start.

I think it comes down to can they contribute to our society or do they simply add to the miseries of the poor?

Illegal immigrants are not skilled workers...maybe one in a thousand is but lets not pretend its a significant number. All they do is drive down the buying power for the poorest of the poor in our society while providing ways to circumvent the minimum wage laws for those who employ...

Legal immigrants for the most part are skilled workers. They provide a service society is lacking and enrich it by applying their craft.

One actively harms citizens the other enriches them. That I think is the heart of the argument.

[Endus]

We have the right to control our borders like every other country does. Why aren’t you saying the same thing about those countries instead of singling out the US?

Because I'm not actually making an argument in favor of unrestricted immigration. I'm pointing out the internal logical failures of claiming to support free markets while at the same time wanting to strictly control the labour market because you understand that free market action isn't likely to be beneficial.

I can link just as many articles that show illegal immigrants get paid under that table, commit crime after crime and drain our already drained welfare system.

Those "articles" would be biased opinion pieces that abuse logical errors and cherry-pick data to misrepresent the facts. Because the facts are as I described them. Having to trying and manufactured your own fake "facts" to shore up your viewpoint is just a desperate attempt to refuse to admit that you're wrong.

What your links fail to mention is that they can’t possibly have real statistics because illegals aren’t in the system to be tracked in the first place. They’re assuming all those unclaimed tax returns are from illegals and assuming all the crimes without a suspect aren’t illegals.

And that's another false claim. If this were true, then you would have to admit that there are no illegal immigrants at all, because by your own argument here, they can't be tracked and nobody knows the numbers. You can't seriously make that statement and then claim that you magically know a bunch of stuff about them.

I think it comes down to can they contribute to our society or do they simply add to the miseries of the poor?

Illegal immigrants are not skilled workers...maybe one in a thousand is but lets not pretend its a significant number. All they do is drive down the buying power for the poorest of the poor in our society while providing ways to circumvent the minimum wage laws for those who employ...

Legal immigrants for the most part are skilled workers. They provide a service society is lacking and enrich it by applying their craft.

One actively harms citizens the other enriches them. That I think is the heart of the argument.

Again; I am not actually arguing for open borders. I am pointing out that if you base your position on A) internally inconsistent arguments, such as when you claim to be in favor of "free markets" but oppose free market action in the labour market like this, and/or B> making up false "facts" to justify your antagonism, then your position isn't one that should be given any credibility whatsoever.

That isn't the same thing as saying there ISN'T an argument to be made, just that THOSE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS aren't making one, and their choice of misinformation demonstrates how little they actually believe in their own supposed ideology.

[primalmatter]

Because I'm not actually making an argument in favor of unrestricted immigration. I'm pointing out the internal logical failures of claiming to support free markets while at the same time wanting to strictly control the labour market because you understand that free market action isn't likely to be beneficial.



Those "articles" would be biased opinion pieces that abuse logical errors and cherry-pick data to misrepresent the facts. Because the facts are as I described them. Having to trying and manufactured your own fake "facts" to shore up your viewpoint is just a desperate attempt to refuse to admit that you're wrong.



And that's another false claim. If this were true, then you would have to admit that there are no illegal immigrants at all, because by your own argument here, they can't be tracked and nobody knows the numbers. You can't seriously make that statement and then claim that you magically know a bunch of stuff about them.



Again; I am not actually arguing for open borders. I am pointing out that if you base your position on A) internally inconsistent arguments, such as when you claim to be in favor of "free markets" but oppose free market action in the labour market like this, and/or B> making up false "facts" to justify your antagonism, then your position isn't one that should be given any credibility whatsoever.

That isn't the same thing as saying there ISN'T an argument to be made, just that THOSE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS aren't making one, and their choice of misinformation demonstrates how little they actually believe in their own supposed ideology.

Alright sorry I misunderstood your position. You are right you can't really support a unrestrained market and then get annoyed that labor isn't regulated the way you wish it would be.

[Machismo]

You’re really reaching with this aren’t ya? Immigration is already legal. But like most things, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Want to come here legally, prove you deserve it and be a productive member of society? Fine by me and every other conservative. Doing it any other way makes you a criminal and makes you unworthy of living in this country.

We have the right to control our borders like every other country does. Why aren’t you saying the same thing about those countries instead of singling out the US?

I can link just as many articles that show illegal immigrants get paid under that table, commit crime after crime and drain our already drained welfare system. What your links fail to mention is that they can’t possibly have real statistics because illegals aren’t in the system to be tracked in the first place. They’re assuming all those unclaimed tax returns are from illegals and assuming all the crimes without a suspect aren’t illegals.

That’s kind of the point of why we have a problem with illegals. They can vanish without a trace like a fart in the wind. No the solution isn’t to declare them all legal because many seeking entry don’t deserve to be here.

- - - Updated - - -




What does a travel ban have to do with immigration? Terroism is a major issue these days. Innocents get caught up in it but we can’t risk the lives of millions of Americans because someone will be inconvenienced. Might want to take a look at what countries are on that list too.

Obama had a travel ban too btw.

- - - Updated - - -



If people can’t start acting responsibly then maybe it should be illegal. But the majority of Americans don’t cause problems when they consume alcohol. Meth or crack are never good and neither is murder.

It's literally restricting travel from multiple countries, including those who wish to immigrate from there. Obama also didn't support the free markets. Of course, he never claimed to support them. That's what Turning Point USA claims to support. Their immigration stance runs against freedom, free markets, and limited government. If they want to have that immigration stance, fine. Of course, that means their claims to support those three principles are complete bullshit.