Comments on: Burlison Proposes Anti-Illegals Measure http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/ Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:20:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: The Libertarian Guy http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-194192 Sun, 27 May 2007 04:44:38 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-194192 http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com/2007/05/councilman-burlison-responds.html Response from Councilman Burlison regarding his libertarian credentials. http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com/2007/05/councilman-burlison-responds.html

Response from Councilman Burlison regarding his libertarian credentials.

]]> by: The Libertarian Guy http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-193760 Sat, 26 May 2007 17:35:49 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-193760 Do we use a #2 pencil for the litmus test? Do we use a #2 pencil for the litmus test?

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192919 Fri, 25 May 2007 22:34:58 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192919 I say deport this loser to France. I say deport this loser to France.

]]> by: Austin Cassidy http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192881 Fri, 25 May 2007 21:38:47 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192881 It's clear in the article. He's a Libertarian and a City Councilman... but the office is officially nonpartisan. It’s clear in the article. He’s a Libertarian and a City Councilman… but the office is officially nonpartisan.

]]> by: tom http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192871 Fri, 25 May 2007 21:20:17 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192871 By the way I might suggest to this website that a little research might be in order. Our council races are party neutral therego Doug isn't an elected libertarian council member. He is however a sitting council member that attends local libertarian meetings. By the way I might suggest to this website that a little research might be in order. Our council races are party neutral therego Doug isn’t an elected libertarian council member. He is however a sitting council member that attends local libertarian meetings.

]]> by: tom http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192850 Fri, 25 May 2007 21:02:05 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192850 the article seems to say it was looked at once before and many believe it is a moot point, ergo don't look for it to be introduced anytime soon. A bunck of kneejerk reactionaries the article seems to say it was looked at once before and many believe it is a moot point, ergo don’t look for it to be introduced anytime soon.
A bunck of kneejerk reactionaries

]]> by: Joseph http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192640 Fri, 25 May 2007 16:32:03 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192640 I would like to see an angry mob of real libertarians at the Springfield City Council meeting when this is introduced, if not to shout it down altogether, to at least make it clear where libertarians stand. Knapp is right - it's more about involunintary servitude of businesses than immigration - but both crows should be shooed from the garden. I would like to see an angry mob of real libertarians at the Springfield City Council meeting when this is introduced, if not to shout it down altogether, to at least make it clear where libertarians stand. Knapp is right – it’s more about involunintary servitude of businesses than immigration – but both crows should be shooed from the garden.

]]> by: Ghoststrider http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192607 Fri, 25 May 2007 15:34:19 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192607 I'm surprised that this guy is a Libertarian. And besides, this isn't a city matter anyways; the feds take care of that. I’m surprised that this guy is a Libertarian. And besides, this isn’t a city matter anyways; the feds take care of that.

]]> by: Kn@ppster http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192121 Fri, 25 May 2007 01:38:47 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/24/burlison-proposes-anti-illegals-measure/#comment-192121 I'm pro-immigration, but this isn't really even an immigration matter. Even if one supports stricter immigration controls, presumably most would agree that every businessman in Springfield should NOT be forced to turn his enterprise into a permanent substation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement at his own expense, under threat of fines and closure. If someone introduced an ordinance requiring every business owner to follow each of his employees to and from work to make sure they don't break the speed limit, that ordinance would be laughed out of the meeting (well, hopefully). If someone introduced an ordinance requiring every business owner to accompany each employee whenever said employee visits a bank, to make sure the employee doesn't rob it, ditto (please, tell me this is true). So, why should every business owner be required to make sure that each of his employees has the appropriately punched ticket from the US government vis a vis his immigration status? That's not the business owner's job -- that's what he pays taxes to the GOVERNMENT to do, right? Tom Knapp I’m pro-immigration, but this isn’t really even an immigration matter.

Even if one supports stricter immigration controls, presumably most would agree that every businessman in Springfield should NOT be forced to turn his enterprise into a permanent substation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement at his own expense, under threat of fines and closure.

If someone introduced an ordinance requiring every business owner to follow each of his employees to and from work to make sure they don’t break the speed limit, that ordinance would be laughed out of the meeting (well, hopefully).

If someone introduced an ordinance requiring every business owner to accompany each employee whenever said employee visits a bank, to make sure the employee doesn’t rob it, ditto (please, tell me this is true).

So, why should every business owner be required to make sure that each of his employees has the appropriately punched ticket from the US government vis a vis his immigration status? That’s not the business owner’s job—that’s what he pays taxes to the GOVERNMENT to do, right?

Tom Knapp

]]>