A sorry state indeed! According to the Heritage Foundation, the average illegal alian gets $24,721 in benefits and pays $10,334 in taxes. After the immigration billis passes, they will be eligable for more freebies and this imbalance will explode.
We currently own close to 17 trillion dollars in debt and our mandated obligations are roughly 90 trillion.
I hope we always give immigrants the opportunity to succeed by their intelligence and effort.
However, the econmic lifeboat has sprung too many leaks. How many more before it sinks?

Lol apparently this Friedman is the goto guy for immigration I can't wait to watch this.

There are just too many generalities, you can't deny that at least one immigrant came here for the sole purpose of having an easier life granted by our welfare programs, just as at least one is coming over for the larger economic freedom we have. Attempting to label every foreigner as a particular thing whether it's positive or not is a form of racism.

This is music to my ears khalling. It's a kind of slippery slope where one bad policy forces us to make another and another, trying to fix a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place. We need to fight these issues at the root and stop arguing over the bandaid we apply to the symptoms.

There is a clear agenda on the part of mexican national to settle in the southern half of the US, overwhelming communities refusing to learn the language purposefully- in an effort to reclaim US states for Mexico. I have firsthand knowledge of this. The vehicle in the success of this mission, is to take advantage of all federal programs of assistance. Islamist extremists are also using this tactic. The solution would be to limit the poor policies of the US that allow this to happen. Therefore, an immigrant has to play by all of the same rules as a US citizen, learning English, providing for one's own family and person. Where do criminals go when their country no longer wants them or has warrants out for their arrest? Do they suddenly become peaceful citizens of a new country? I'll bet they don't. The Mexican govt encourages its citizens to go to the US, send money back home where labor pays much less than in the US, and educates them about all of the services available in the US for free. Our country has rules for immigration. This is due to us maintaining a welfare state. Any welfare state will eventually be overrun with individuals voting collectively to take more welfare. Eventually, that state will collapse. Whether or not you have immigrants who do not choose collectivism, does not negate the fact that many do follow a strategy with the intent to invade. It works the other way as well. Americans retiring and want to take advantage of lower costs of living tend to group in communities in central and south America, with the effect of that community becoming a little US. Most of these citizens learn little to none of that country's language, actively seek and promote for other US citizens to join those communities. Culture changes over time in those communities. Call any pharmacy, customer service number etc. and tell me if you have to choose a number to hear the official language of your country spoken. The US was made great by assimilation. That is no longer encouraged by over half of the country. The fault lies not with an immigrant who is not guilty of violating property rights, but by bad policies-which have the power to destroy assimilation and eventually a country founded on principles that made it attractive to immigrants in the first place.

I'd like to have a very leftist person who supports corporeal punishment pointed out to me. That said, if everyone is born with an inherent sense of right and wrong it is rarely seen in any society. Studies show that adults believe they grew up in a normal family and view another family's actions as strange. This is not to say they don't 'learn' later their family was the strange one. An abused child is more likely to grow up and abuse their children. Is this learned action or simply them ignoring their inherent sense? How many children say to their parents, "I'll never treat my kids this way!" and later in life say "OMG! I've turned into my parents!" Did they suddenly start acting on their inherent sense or mimicking their parents style because it is the one most familiar to them? At what age does this sense kick in? Surely by 10 a child should know not to kill another person, so should they be imprisoned for life or given death if they do so? How about a very low IQ person who is 25 with the mind of a 5 year old who kills someone? How long if any should either of them be imprisoned for their crime?

You learn right from wrong. You decide if you want to do right from wrong, most of the time with the knowledge that punishment will come if you are caught. Of course, most criminals would never commit a crime if they thought they would be caught. So I would say it is more likely we learn right from wrong, and for way too many to be an aberration, if the odds of not getting caught look in our favour, will do wrong in order to satisfy our wants. Not everyone is born with a conscience. I'm guessing here this is what you really mean by an inherent sense. If all humans are born with an inherent sense of right and wrong, we should destroy any who later demonstrate a lack of it. They would have to be genetically flawed and should immediately be removed from the gene pool
l
l
l
l
l
ouch, hit a slippery slope there =p

You did not address it. You made a statement with no proof or examples. The UN is not a government it is a meeting of governments. I'm very insulted you would call me an altruist. I'm insulted you marked my initial post as spam. I'm insulted you would call yourself an objectivist and then place the burden of proof on every statement you make on anyone but yourself. I'm done reading your constant ad hominem attacks. I came to this website to find like minded individuals I could bounce ideas off of and strengthen my ability to defend my philosophy from the people you're accusing me of conspiring with. I'm going to ask you civilly to not comment on anything else I post on this website.

If they are born with it, then they always have it from birth. Does a 3 year old have an inherent sense of right and wrong? He sees a toy, he wants toy, he takes toy. He sees nothing wrong with this. Other 3 years old has toy, toy is taken away, he cries OR he hits other boy and takes it back causing the other boy to cry. Neither cries because loss of the toy was wrong, but because they don't have it. They are taught what is right and what is wrong, but this does not mean they are moral still except in the definition of they have been forced to accept the morals of those stronger than them.

My dog knows when he has done something I don't approve of him doing. He will act guilty or ashamed when I go around, put his tail between his legs if I scold. Does he know right from wrong? No, he knows what I allow and do not allow.

In order to test if humans are born with such inherent sense, we would have to remove any outside stimuli that influences their decisions....or maybe take a look outside and see where a lack of acceptable corporeal punishment is taking us.

it was contemplated in England. not fully implemented. Our Bill of Rights is english bill of rights, but it was statutory, and therefore it usually overturned.
If govts used objective morality as their basis, such as natural rights, they would end up with essentially the same conclusions, and if their were one world order or 10 or 10000, it wouldn't matter. It is not as though algebra varies depending what country you are in. Which brings to mind patents. :)
You are the inventor. Period. Just as with a novel, your rights should be protected across borders. That's reality. There can only be the inventor. Everyone else in the world is not the inventor.

agreed. way to start a debate and bug out! lol

I think that the ideal should be the practical lest you encourage wishing for the impossible or the inefficient. I'll watch your video later in the day I promise but I agree with everything you said, and practically we have to take things one step at a time.

We should definitely control the border, we should gaurd it and moniter what comes in, but without a suspicion of malicious intent we shouldn't deny anyone access. No Country on earth contemplated individual rights before America either.

I'm curious, do you believe in any form of government? And if there is a form of government you preferred, would you oppose that form being in control of the world?

I am pretty sure what you are referring to is part of the is-ought gap. I'll try to define why you can have an objective view on morality but I'm not fully honed in on this.

Morals exist as a way to decide the difference between what is good and what is bad. But good and bad are a subjective thing, unless you are using parameters such as whether something is good for your health or bad for your health, then you can measure it and it becomes objective.

When talking about the morality of a human, you have to look at what he values. I would state that the most important value is the individuals life, for without life you can have no consciousness or value system of any kind. So with life being the highest moral value, you can objectively measure what's good for individual life and bad for it. Now we look at how human beings are the only creature in existence who has the ability to knowingly make a decision to hurt itself. Also we have no instinct for survival, no pre wired program to tell us how to hunt or farm or play tetris or anything, we have to use our mind and we have to use reason to survive. I'm sorry I'm going to have to cut short here I'm working and will have to finish later. Promise I will though!