CONSTITUTION PARTY STANDS ALONE AGAINST AMNESTY
We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens.
We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion.
The Constitution Party has always been the only national political party to stand firmly against the proposals for a “Pathway to Citizenship/Comprehensive Immigration Reform/Amnesty” that come out of Washington.
While many of these schemes by all shades of Republicans and Democrats seek to address the out of control situation of illegal immigration, all fail to address the Rule of Law. They ignore the fact that illegal immigration is just that: illegal.
“It is somewhat analogous to redefining laws against breaking and entering so that those engaging in such conduct would no longer be treated as criminals”, noted Darrell Castle, Constitution Party 2008 Vice Presidential Candidate.
Current proposals fail to address the negative impacts such legislation would have on entitlement spending, Obamacare, unemployment, sustainability, etc. Washington elitists will not admit that there are a variety of constituencies from environmentalists to Tea Party activists that oppose such legislation. America’s best interests are not being put first in immigration reform debates.
Castle also observed, “There is a current pathway to citizenship, it is called ‘legal immigration.’ The Constitution Party supports a sensible legal immigration system in the United States. However, this support should not be piggybacked, combined or confused with illegal immigration. We support and demand legislation a legal immigration system that complements and promotes the best for the United States of America and its citizenry, one that denies a pathway for those who have successfully, many with full pre-meditation, ignored our rule of law.”
Frank Fluckiger, Chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee added, “The Constitution Party supports lawful solutions, including initiatives, such as ‘attrition-thru-enforcement’ programs, as a means to address illegal immigration, not a free pass to reward criminal behavior. We support programs, such as E-Verify, to put millions of Americans back to work. We must have strict enforcement and compliance of any and all common sense visa programs, and we demand security of our borders and ports to ensure that illegal immigration is a diminishing problem for the future.”
Darrell Castle is available for further comment at (901) 327-2100 or at [email protected]
35 and 36 are entirely correct, regardless of sin (original or copycat). Smaller parties exist in large part to increase public awareness of some ideas from the fringes to the mainstream, making it possible for larger parties to move incrementally in their direction. Thus, it is perfectly valid for smaller parties to discuss their differences, just as it is perfectly valid for them to work together where they agree.
When the New York and Oregon state affiliates of the LP are “without sin” then 35 and 36 above can cast the first stones. Otherwise I suggest you focus on the major parties who are inflicting all the damage and ignore minor parties with whom you take issue. Just my $0.02 worth.
MA @35
Because hypocrisy is commonplace … 😉 And holy temples and churches are often where you find much of it.
I seem to recall a certain new testament that people in the constitution party that floats around in the hands of many of their members that has much discussion about this hypocrisy thing…
As far as the Bible is concerned, we are instructed to welcome the widow and stranger.
Jews such as I are reminded that we were once strangers and slaves in Egypt, and therefore we are commanded to be welcoming to outsiders who are guests in our land.
Significantly, these commands come from God and they are instructive on how to live in a way God wants us to behave. They do not depend on government coercion.
So…………………
If the Constitution Party is devoted to following the dictates of Jesus Christ, who would give of his entire being for strangers from foreign lands, how can they possibly oppose people who come here with a dream of improving their lives and those of their families?
Erik,
That sounds about right. You are also known for annoying everyone else equally as well 🙂
If you or anyone else wants to discuss that, please take it to
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/debate-on-debate-parameters-plus-should-paulie-stay/
It is not welcome in unrelated threads.
Steve M., your comments are off topic and are being removed. There is no “lead contributor” here and the topic you want to discuss is here:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/debate-on-debate-parameters-plus-should-paulie-stay/
You are welcome to post about it in that thread as much as you want.
Comments on that topic are not welcome in other threads and will be removed. If you persist, you will not be welcome to comment at IPR at all. Please consider this your first and last warning.
@31, my observation that someone might say something does not mean that someone was me. I have a history of being free with the F-bombs. I speak fluent Stagehand.
Your mention of the other paulie “ites” suggests that I am one. I am usually perceived as being faction-free because everybody annoys me equally. Tell me more about this accusation?
off topic comment removed
off topic comment removed.
Someone might say go Fluckiger yourself but that would be too Frank.
off topic comment removed
“If thy fingers be too clumsy for thy keypad thou shalt be mocked for making errors in thy satire.”
– – First Consonants 2:%-4¿
TK @23
Was Jesus really a communist? anarcho-communist maybe… but he never said give someone else your coat or we will kill you.
How about:
“uppity anarcho-communist Jewish immigrant rabble rouser” ?
They’d vote for a Jew for sure. Some of them seem to have a feverish love for Israhell. Howard Phillips was Jewish by birth.
http://www.openbible.info/topics/immigration
EV @15,
“Their platform says they want Jesus Christ to rule the nation, but there is little indication that Jesus would agree with their immigration position.”
Positions aside, I doubt that many CPers would vote for a mouthy communist Jewish immigrant for president.
I have it under Wingnuttians rather than Winguttians.
Lol, Erik.
That book seems to be missing from my copy of the Bible.
“And Jesus said unto them, use government to oppress others with your superstitions.”
– -Winguttians 6:66
Yep, see link @16 if you haven’t read it already (or lately).
EV @ 15: “Their platform says they want Jesus Christ to rule the nation, but there is little indication that Jesus would agree with their immigration position. ”
Judging by the hatefulness exhibited by Don Grundmann, I’d say that might apply to some other areas as well.
Or, for that matter, many of the others.
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
Their platform says they want Jesus Christ to rule the nation, but there is little indication that Jesus would agree with their immigration position.
The following is also on the CP front page. Clearly this appears to be their #1 issue right now, at least judging by their website:
Let’s get back to immigration and the position of the Constitution Party, which I believe is to support the Constitution.
Please advise where in the Constitution the word “immigration” appears.
Or what interest the federal government has in immigration.
As far as I know, the Supreme Court created that interest in the late-19th century to stop those damn Chinese from stealing our jobs (on the railroads) which no one else wanted.
Sound familiar?
@10 Argument by repetition. I already answered that above:
” I should have said Libertarian rather than libertarian to make it clear I am referring to the official platform position of the Libertarian Party and not the only view all people claiming to be libertarians hold.”
The same holds true for immigration.
No matter how many “paleoconservatives” start calling themselves libertarian or join the LP, statist border fascism is never going to be a truly libertarian view…and thankfully it is not the LP’s official position, at least yet, despite the unwise watering down of the platform’s immigration plank.
@9 Inane arguments.
1) I was alive before I got in your car, so it’s not an analogy that works.
2) Appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
3) Appeal to popularity, another logical fallacy.
It’s true that libertarianism has been watered down in a misguided attempt to appeal to conservatives, and thus there are many people who claim to be libertarians who hold such misguided views. It’s also true that there have been a few oddballs like Doris Gordon around before that – but VERY few.
Libertarians used to proudly say we are pro-choice on everything, a slogan we would do well to bring back.
I actually don’t care that much where a Libertarian candidate stands on abortion, because I think that there are bigger issues which are more pressing, but I think that it is dishonest for people to act like supporting abortion is the only libertarian view on the issue.
“Murray Hill // Apr 3, 2013 at 4:12 pm
‘First off, this falsely ASSUMES that pro-choice on abortion is the legitimate libertarian view, as in the only libertarian view, because it is not.’
Supporting state force to enslave women as baby-making factories is about as anti-liberty as it gets, ”
One could just as easily make the claim that executing unborn babies is as anti-libertarian as you can get.
Just ask Doris Gordon of Libertarians for Life. Also, ask Ron Paul or Andrew Napolitano. Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik both said that abortion was immoral as well.
Take a trip with me somewhere in a car and let me decide that I don’t feel like carrying you through to the destination and instead throw you out on the highway at 65 mph. When you object I’ll say, “Hey, it’s my car, I can throw you out whenever I feel like it. So what if you die, it’s my car so it’s my right to chose whether to deliver you safely or not.” So instead of slowing down and pulling over and letting you out, I just push you out the door and your body rolls on the concrete highway, then a tractor trailer runs over you. You are now dead, but who cares, it was MY RIGHT TO CHOSE! It’s all about me, your life be damned!
Any HONEST Libertarian – regardless of where they stand on the issue of abortion – KNOWS and will admit that it is an issue which the Libertarian Party has been divided on for a long time.
“First off, this falsely ASSUMES that pro-choice on abortion is the legitimate libertarian view, as in the only libertarian view, because it is not.”
Supporting state force to enslave women as baby-making factories is about as anti-liberty as it gets, but I should have said Libertarian rather than libertarian to make it clear I am referring to the official platform position of the Libertarian Party and not the only view all people claiming to be libertarians hold.
“Second of all, he said that he likes the Libertarian Party, and that the main reason that he’s not in the Libertarian Party is because the party will not take a 100% pro-life stance on abortion.”
Apparently he is not very fond of our immigration plank either.
“Murray Hill // Apr 3, 2013 at 3:40 pm
Didn’t Castle claim at some point that he is a libertarian on everything except abortion?”
First off, this falsely ASSUMES that pro-choice on abortion is the legitimate libertarian view, as in the only libertarian view, because it is not.
Second of all, he said that he likes the Libertarian Party, and that the main reason that he’s not in the Libertarian Party is because the party will not take a 100% pro-life stance on abortion.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=titcr
for anyone, who, like me, was wondering.
@1: TITCR
Didn’t Castle claim at some point that he is a libertarian on everything except abortion?
“Keep out your tired, your poor, those who want to make a better life for themselves and their families.
We only want real Americans. None of us came from families that emigrated here.
We only want our kind here.”
“CONSTITUTION PARTY STANDS ALONE AGAINST AMNESTY”
Is anyone surprised? WHO let THESE guy’s fore- fathers into the country??
Headline should be corrected to “Constitution Party ‘Stands Alone Against Constitution.”