Open Borders

Econ: Should I support the drug war until Medicare is abolished? I say no. I have to adhere to my principles even when it becomes costly to do so. The tax itself is exploitation. The American people are being taken advantaged by the government. The immigrants aren't the ones who will imprison you if you don't pay their taxes. Yes, I want total anarchy where there are no taxes. It doesn't matter if it's for military or welfare; FBI or public education; law enforcement or healthcare; taking money that you don't own is immoral, Where you funnel that stolen money is beside the point. National Security: There's no compensation when the government restricts who I'm allowed onto my property or who I let work for my company, So eminent domain doesn't apply to immigration unless it's seizing land for borders. Eminent domain is immoral because it seizes property from innocent people without their consent. I don't see much difference between eminent domain and socialism. Many times throughout your response you make a logical fallacy called Appeal to the Law. [1] I don't care whether something is legal. Legality does not equal morality. "Impeding on foreign property" the state does not have property rights because it stole its property. "by immigration enforcement alone, Government cannot become tyrannical" Yup, There's no possible way that checkpoints, Mandatory identification, Unclimbable walls, And police on borders and airports can ever possibly be used against its people. That's about as naive as liberals saying that nothing bad can happen when only the government has guns. "Enforcing laws on non-citizens moving into this country is not government overreach" If I invite my girlfriend from Mexico over to my house for dinner, What gives anyone the right to stop us? Shouldn"t free people be able to associate or not associate with whoever they wish so long as those interactions are voluntary, Consensual, And do not harm a third party? Culture: "By enforcing laws, We respect American Culture by endorsing precedent and the rule of law; we do not tear it down and replace it with morally unacceptable values of tyranny. " Blindly enforcing laws is what leads to tyranny. The value of "endorsing precedent and the rule of law" is the value of arresting Rosa Parks for refusing to sit in the colored section because it broke the law. That value of "endorsing precedent and the rule of law" would be on the side of the British during the American Revolution. "But the moment that I as a United States citizen can't get services, Can't get a job, And can't get a lesson taught in the language of my our country is when I have an issue. " Learn Spanish. Wow, That was easy. The idea that there are no English jobs, Education, Or fast food restaurants in America is just a fantasy, But even if that was the case, What rights does it restrict? How are your rights to life, Liberty, And property violated by Spanish speakers? If no one's rights are violated, It is not a crime. 1. Examples: "The Government cannot take guns away from you, But they can take your property through Eminent Domain [because it's legal]. " Guns are illegal in the majority of first world countries, And I'm sure you don't think that's right. Just because it's legal for the government to take your property doesn't mean it's moral. "Immigration control enforces the law, Not breaks it by restricting freedom" Just because something is the law doesn't mean that it doesn't tread on individual liberty. https://www. Logicallyfallacious. Com /tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/73/Appeal-to-the-Law