Since when are the citizens of one country morally or legally obligated to care for the citizens of another country, when the other country hasn't suffered a catastrophe?!? If Mexico wants to maintain a conquistador economy over its people, why do those people have ANY right to invade the US, especially when some of them are talking about reconquista?!? If Mexico won't throw you in jail for entering Mexico illegally, and allow you to live there "undocumented," then there might be something to talk about, especially after NAFTA, but I don't hear that conversation.

But, the globalists are telling us all isms, cultures, religions and ideologies are good for us without concern! Right?!?!
"Ultimately" we must protect ourselves, our rights and our property. The cops only show up after the fact.
Of course, I don't really think any nation with wealth for looters or victims for thugs can have completely open borders. I believe we can one day have more freedom to cross at check points as easily as I onced crossed from Detroit to Windsor a few decades ago. I don't see all of humanity singing kumbaya any time soon. That world requires quite a bit of "Soma" (Brave New World). No... we are going to need some technology and customs gateways for the foreseeable future. Two of the 9-11 terrorists overstayed their visas... We need to ask why someone has overstayed, and it would seem to me to be negligent if borderstates didn't make some attempt to keep known threats from entering. Otherwise ...Wild west justice? Shoot horse thieves on the spot? ... Or be sheep waiting for the sacrifice? No, All of Humanity is not ready to live and let live...

"If [IL residents] go spend it in Iowa, then Iowa has my money."
That FIB you paid probably drove his Lexus 80mph to WI for this long weekend and is spending that money here right now. :) :)

"I would go for Johnson because spending a wasted vote for the lesser authoritarian is the right thing to do."
He's about as libertarian as you can be and have a shot at winning. I think he has a real shot if some sort of major scandal or upset were to occur. It would have to be something like positive proof that Trump paid underage Mexican boys to sleep with him. Obviously that didn't happen, but something like that would cause him to lose the redneck vote. The conservatives who would vote for him b/c he has the best shot at winning would go to Johnson. Then a bunch more Democrats like me might go to Johnson, esp in a year like this when the Democratic nominee is not that popular. Johnson has a slim but real chance of winning. I have a sign up in my front yard, which is on a major commuter road 3 blocks north of a high tech park with 3,800 employees, just the kind of people who might vote Johnson.
"is giving me the mental picture of brown shirted jackboots "
I get that image from his rhetoric, but I think (hope) he couldn't execute it effectively, and he's just saying that to fire up the scared, confused, and angry rednecks of the US.

"Clinton, with her anti-economic stance,"
I think she's a master of the status quo. In a country where gov't is a big chunk of the GDP, she'd make sure everyone gets a little slice and the gov't machine keeps its high taxing and spending. I don't think she's really anti-economic. That's just for the scared and confused handout-seekers, who are similar to rednecks Trump seeks but slightly less angry.

I try not to get caught up in it. These are amazingly good times, and politicians gear their message to people who have a problem that they can offer to solve. It's similar how ads try to suggest you have some failing or something missing that their product/service can fix. So if you listen to politicians and commentators you get this idea of how everything is miserable, even though this is an amazingly prosperous and peaceful time in human history.

Not saying they don't have the right to defend its borders. Just saying they need to be intelligent about it. Trump wants to deport millions. Many of those millions entered here on a work visa, and tried to get legal citizenship. They couldn't and are still working, being good citizens, etc, and hoping for legal citizenship. Millions have families. Trump wants to rip those families apart and deport the ones that don't have citizenship or some piece of paper saying they are legal. Johnson sees those people as being valuable citizens and is doing his best to make them LEGAL. And I want to help. Are the two of us taking illegal action? Are we abusing our right to free speech?

One way of looking at it is that once over the border, either way, you are in a sense legal again by being under the legal system on that side of a border. Suppose I drive about seven miles south, I will be no longer be Wisconsin legal but suddenly Illinois legal but if I spend money for something there I will have caused a balance of payments problem because all I got is some Illinois goods and they got my more valuable money. If they go spend it in Iowa, then Iowa has my money. See how strange it gets when going by Trump's economic beliefs.
Now for Johnson: We are presented with several candidates for POTUS. A left authoritarian with progressive leanings, a right authoritarian with conservative leanings, and a somewhat libertarian with some live and let live leanings ( sorry for leaving out the Greens and others). The left wants authority over business economics, the right wants authority over mental economics, and the libertarian wants to free up economics. I mean by economics the human action used to obtain both mental and physical values.
Personally, I would go for Johnson because spending a wasted vote for the lesser authoritarian is the right thing to do. A wasted vote is a vote that is one that over votes for the winner or is a vote for a loser. There are always more than 50% if the votes that are wasted votes.
Trump, with his extreme pro law abiding rhetoric, is giving me the mental picture of brown shirted jackboots coming to US streets to root out the illegals and real criminals along with others who may in the near future be considered to be vermin.
Clinton, with her anti-economic stance, brings a mental picture of what Rand saw from her window in the early days of the soviets.
So be brave and use the wasted vote for Johnson.

By the way, did I hear right the other day? I wasn't recording and heard something in a Trump speech about everyone to be required to take an oath of allegiance. I guess I will be off to rock breaking in some gulag for those who do not easily bend to authoritarians.

You can Only have open borders when EVERYONE respects private property, property rights and the individual's person.

Right now, less than 1/2 the world gets it.

I know. I was wondering the same thing.

How do you justify a soverign nation not having the right to defend its borders ?

Why are you being marked as 'hidden' on several posts lately?

Hello Herb,
Does not what you just wrote clearly demonstrate that the terms liberal, libertarian or conservative are utterly meaningless? To me, clearly, they are. They ended up meaning whatever one wishes them to mean, when used.
All the best!

Hello bobsprinkle,
I believe many will follow the same path and take chemo in an effort to avoid the cancer which is Hillary.
Respectfully,
O.A.

I have to comply with laws about who comes into the nation, but I can help change the law when I believe they are wrong. In MY house, I MAKE the law!

CG is not yet O. He is a trainee. ;-)

I don't think Johnson is an O... Those that have paid into SS should get their money. Those that have snuck in under the wire should get no benefits. If we did away with the welfare state we could have open borders- only screening for criminals. Friedman was right- you can't have both.

Show me an independent non-partisan professional polling source and I might give it some consideration.

Well, wouldn't Immigration fall under the auspices of "national security " which is enumerated in the Constitution ? I don't know, just asking. I'm all for states' rights, but how can immigration effectively be carried out by individual states ? Every state would have huge borders to control ( their state's perimeter) and the feds can't even control an international border. Which imo puts the country at large at risk, ergo it is a national security issue and a fed responsibility for "providing for national defense". No ?

Then let them into YOUR HOUSE.
Actually I believe OUR CONSTITUTION and OUR LAWS decide. If you want to STOP being a nation of laws and become a nation merely of men you will quickly descend down the path of every previous nation that did not have and adhere to a Constitution such as ours which protects the rights of its CITIZENS. ( see the current thread about Venezuela ) Neither Illegals nor anyone else is ENTITLED TO ANYTHING. Frankly, if you feel otherwise I think you might be in the wrong place.

As with any jointly owned property, decisions on it's use are made by polling the owners based on their share of ownership. This is typically modified by the bylaws or other governing documents of the organization.

Thank you !! Exactly.

So, who decides? As a current citizen, I say let them in.

Hillary 70% Trump 19% among Latino voters
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...

and Trump may lose even some of that weak support
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09...

The current citizens.

The US Constitution says: "and to exercise authority over all Places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings; . . .}

It does not say for parks or other purposes. Nor does it say the federal gov't owns' all land not deeded to individuals.

That land control would fall to the States.

Just one more way the States are supreme to the Feds.

Nor does the U.S. Constitution use the word immigration, ever, at all. The reference to migration refers to a State power, not a federal power.

Why do we cave whenever the feds overstep their powers?

No one paying attention at first and, after the fact, we simply accept unconstitutional laws.

I agree !!!

Trump has no support among ILLEGALS, who arent supposed to be voting anyway, but....
LEGAL immigrants however he is supported by, albeit still not in high numbers. But people who went through the process according to the law don't want to see cheaters jump the line.