Jump to content

Let_Freedom_Ring

Charlie Kirk challenges immigration activists in Chicago

Recommended Posts

Charlie Kirk challenges immigration activists in Chicago
 



What a bunch of mind numb robots!  It's really sad there are so many people in this country that really don't have a clue about anything or what is going on in the back ground.  They've been programmed over the years by the education system, main stream news media, the entertainment industry, and they just follow them as lambs led to the slaughter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people should not be allowed to live in this country! They don't deserve the freedoms they have and there are plenty of people trying to get here through the Legal Path to Citizenship who can take their place. Let these piss poor Americans go live in Cuba or Venezuela. Yeah... I'm pissed 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, ImTexan said:

These people should not be allowed to live in this country! They don't deserve the freedoms they have and there are plenty of people trying to get here through the Legal Path to Citizenship who can take their place. Let these piss poor Americans go live in Cuba or Venezuela. Yeah... I'm pissed 

 

FWIW, I'm not on either side.  But the right runs away from the tough questions.  The left is unabashedly doing what they can to destroy America.  The right generally destroys Freedom and Liberty via ignorance.  If you'd be so kind:

 

1)  What gave the colonists the "right" to displace the native population?

 

2)  The anti-immigrant lobby has this "house" analogy and being invited, etc.  So, if in this house, each state represents a room in the house and taxes represent the rent, how can I, way over here in Georgia,  presume to tell Californication who they can and cannot invite into their state (room in the analogy)???

 

3)  Citizenship is much like a marriage.  Did you force your children to marry the first person that darkened your door?

 

4)  Can you point me to that part of the Constitution that prohibits states from inviting guests?

 

5)  Let's look at this legal v. illegal argument (a very questionable argument at best.)

 

Now, you saw the public's reaction to the government separating undocumented children from their parents.  Suppose we could build a wall around America and deport every undocumented foreigner in America.  You cannot "uncitizen" the children they had, born in America.  Bear in mind, the Constitution prohibits the passing of ex post facto laws. Now, again, you saw the reaction when undocumented foreigners were separated from their children.

 

What do you think the reaction would be if you could build a wall and deport MILLIONS of parents from their "legal" citizen children when you commence to separating those families?  Okay, let me go along with the standard anti -immigrant line here.  They can take their "anchor babies" with them.   Well, the foreigners are being deported and their American born children didn't "anchor" those children here, so the John Tanton nonprofits must have lied to you.  Be that as it may, let's say you deport them too.

 

Well, a few years go by and those children start becoming of age.  They show up at the border with their National ID Card, Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number," and a birth certificate.  They show up by the MILLIONS.  You cannot keep them out - they're Americans.  And here they come with no education,  job skills, or family support system (you kicked them out.)  Many - maybe most won't even be able to speak English.  Can you tell me what your plan is then?

 

6)  FWIW, the government does not operate on a first come, first served basis.  Some people get into this country faster depending upon where, in America, they make their application at.  Additionally, we are operating on a quota system that is over a half century old.  Demographics have changed; the way employers utilize employees has changed; the labor force is completely different than it was fifty plus years ago... in short, there is no "legally" viable avenue for a lot of people.

 

There are willing employers and willing landlords along with a willing consumer base that makes it viable and inviting for foreigners to be here.  How are your interests more important than those who choose to knowingly do business with foreigners?

 

7)  The anti-immigrant lobby makes much ado about citizenship.  Yet they cannot show me where, exactly, it is required that one become a citizen in order to participate in the free market.  THAT is what makes a person anti-immigrant.  Admittedly, that is an inaccurate term since the Constitution only gives Congress authority over Naturalization - Citizenship and has NOTHING to say about states inviting foreigners in.

 

Okay, I have many more questions. As you recall, I am opposed to this wholesale citizenship argument.  So, the next time, I'll ask questions from my personal perspective.  Thanks in advance.

Edited by The Resister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Resister said:

 

FWIW, I'm not on either side.  But the right runs away from the tough questions.  The left is unabashedly doing what they can to destroy America.  The right generally destroys Freedom and Liberty via ignorance.  If you'd be so kind:

 

1)  What gave the colonists the "right" to displace the native population?

 

2)  The anti-immigrant lobby has this "house" analogy and being invited, etc.  So, if in this house, each state represents a room in the house and taxes represent the rent, how can I, way over here in Georgia,  presume to tell Californication who they can and cannot invite into their state (room in the analogy)???

 

3)  Citizenship is much like a marriage.  Did you force your children to marry the first person that darkened your door?

 

4)  Can you point me to that part of the Constitution that prohibits states from inviting guests?

 

5)  Let's look at this legal v. illegal argument (a very questionable argument at best.)

 

Now, you saw the public's reaction to the government separating undocumented children from their parents.  Suppose we could build a wall around America and deport every undocumented foreigner in America.  You cannot "uncitizen" the children they had, born in America.  Bear in mind, the Constitution prohibits the passing of ex post facto laws. Now, again, you saw the reaction when undocumented foreigners were separated from their children.

 

What do you think the reaction would be if you could build a wall and deport MILLIONS of parents from their "legal" citizen children when you commence to separating those families?  Okay, let me go along with the standard anti -immigrant line here.  They can take their "anchor babies" with them.   Well, the foreigners are being deported and their American born children didn't "anchor" those children here, so the John Tanton nonprofits must have lied to you.  Be that as it may, let's say you deport them too.

 

Well, a few years go by and those children start becoming of age.  They show up at the border with their National ID Card, Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number," and a birth certificate.  They show up by the MILLIONS.  You cannot keep them out - they're Americans.  And here they come with no education,  job skills, or family support system (you kicked them out.)  Many - maybe most won't even be able to speak English.  Can you tell me what your plan is then?

 

6)  FWIW, the government does not operate on a first come, first served basis.  Some people get into this country faster depending upon where, in America, they make their application at.  Additionally, we are operating on a quota system that is over a half century old.  Demographics have changed; the way employers utilize employees has changed; the labor force is completely different than it was fifty plus years ago... in short, there is no "legally" viable avenue for a lot of people.

 

There are willing employers and willing landlords along with a willing consumer base that makes it viable and inviting for foreigners to be here.  How are your interests more important than those who choose to knowingly do business with foreigners?

 

7)  The anti-immigrant lobby makes much ado about citizenship.  Yet they cannot show me where, exactly, it is required that one become a citizen in order to participate in the free market.  THAT is what makes a person anti-immigrant.  Admittedly, that is an inaccurate term since the Constitution only gives Congress over Naturalization - Citizenship and has NOTHING to say about states inviting foreigners in.

 

Okay, I have many more questions. As you recall, I am opposed to this wholesale citizenship argument.  So, the next time, I'll ask questions from my personal perspective.  Thanks in advance.

 

 

It's not all about citizenship, it's about being in this country legally vs illegally.  There are lots of ways to be in this country legally, citizenship, various different types of work and education visas and as a tourist for a limited defined time the same as just about any other country in the world.  It's about keeping the illegal aliens out.  My wife and mother in law both went through the legal process to get here, stay and work.  They paid fees, filled out forms, went through background checks, an approval process, medical exams and tests, and waited their turns in the immigration queue.  Illegal aliens are breaking the law by entering our country.  I'm not talking about citizenship being necessary, I'm talking about following the laws of the land and being here legally. If they break the law then yes they should have due process, getting a hearing swiftly to determine their status and if it is determined they are here illegally then also swiftly processed through deportation.  Illegal aliens are not undocumented migrants, they are people that have illegally entered our country and broken the law.  They are illegal aliens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Let_Freedom_Ring said:

 

 

It's not all about citizenship, it's about being in this country legally vs illegally.  There are lots of ways to be in this country legally, citizenship, various different types of work and education visas and as a tourist for a limited defined time the same as just about any other country in the world.  It's about keeping the illegal aliens out.  My wife and mother in law both went through the legal process to get here, stay and work.  They paid fees, filled out forms, went through background checks and approval.  Illegal aliens are breaking the law by entering our country.  I'm not talking about citizenship being necessary, I'm talking about following the laws of the land and being here legally. If they break the law then yes they should have due process, getting a hearing swiftly to determine their status and if it is determined they are here illegally then also swiftly processed through deportation.  Illegal aliens are not undocumented migrants, they are people that have illegally entered our country and broken the law.  They are illegal aliens.

 

Every time I get into this conversation, a lot of people get their feelings hurt.  From a legal perspective you are wrong.  It's a long story, covered in another thread, if you're interested.  Bottom line:  The Constitution gives the federal government NO AUTHORITY to decide who comes and goes within a state.  Do the feds have the POWER to enforce unconstitutional laws?  Does a wild bear dump in the woods?

 

The real deal, MY DOG IN THE FIGHT is simple.   EVERY PERSON is entitled to Due Process.  That makes the anti-immigrant lobby livid.  That's another reason they are anti-immigrant.  Even when this is explained to them, they will not concede to the facts. Due Process includes a presumption of innocence /  innocent until proven guilty.  If you cannot admit that and work with that as a starting point, you may as well set fire to that Constitution.

 

When the anti-immigrant Congressman James Sensenbrenner wrote the so-called "Patriot Act," it called for a suspension of constitutional guarantees: 

http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=themis

 

https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/#history

 

https://www.endtime.com/endtime-magazine-articles/the-patriot-act/

 

So, what was billed as a way to deal with foreign terrorists, was actually a way for the government to track militias by presuming they are "domestic terrorists."  

 

The very same political figures that introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" are the very same people that gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act and E-Verify.  Congressman James Sensenbrenner introduced both bills.  He is a Tea Party Republican and a top (if not the top) Congressional activist for the argument you're making.  I'm presuming he's still in office.  

 

NOBODY writes about the civilian militias that existed from 1987 - 2002 / 2003.  MANY of their top leadership were taken out because the so - called "Patriot Act" allowed the government to redefine civilian militia types as "domestic terrorists" without any Due Process.  The very people that parrot these nonsensical arguments about "illegal immigration" (sic) are the same ones that helped destroy the militia, flipping the militias into doing the dirty work for National Socialists.  

 

Calling someone an "illegal alien" won't help your cause.  In the world of reality, it is not a crime for those people to be here.  So, unless the government has probable cause to go after them, you are SOL - unless YOU can afford to be pursued without Due Process.  I can tell you what it's like to spend tens of thousands of dollars and waste YEARS in court over this disagreement and it won't be until YOU are on the chopping block that you will understand what I'm saying.  But, as you research this, I want you to bear something in mind:

 

While Sensenbrenner is telling people he did not know how the government was going to misuse the so - called "Patriot Act," I'm telling you he is knowingly LYING to you.  I personally warned him AND he is an attorney.  He knew how the government was going to subject Americans to his horrific legislation.  Therefore, I will not play your game.  He knew how National ID would subject us to the Surveillance Society; knew that neo-nazis are drafting the talking points that you're relying on.

 

In America, you cannot have a law that selectively pursues one group over another.  It would be a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment (which I personally believe was illegally ratified, so don't go down that rabbit hole either.)  Most of the poor dumb saps that were militia leaders in the late 1980s through early 2000s don't understand how they got flipped and became snitches; still can't figure out how they ended up in prison... some are dead due to their ignorance and stubbornness - you can't ask them.  They are undocumented foreigners.  They are not seeking citizenship; they are presumed innocent because I NEED that same protection as a person.  You take that away from them,  you are taking it from me, and then you and I have a problem.  

 

 

Edited by The Resister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have not the individual States formed a UNION , granting the protection (war powers, immigration, diplomacy etc.) of ALL STATES to the federal government?  I thought that was the underlying reason for the original Constitution.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Resister:

1)  What gave the colonists the "right" to displace the native population?

 

Natural Law, Common Law... "The Law of Nations" by Emer de Vattel,  The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury (LF ed.) [1797]

 

Each state is not a room in a house. Each state IS A HOUSE and the united States is the neighborhood. Just because the HOA has grown past it's original authority doesn't mean it is right. It is Color of Law/ De facto  and not de jure law,

 

As intelligent as you appear to be .... you should already know the answers to your questions. You seem to challenge every opinion.  I don't like it and I refuse to play. 

 

Have a great night. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Resister said:

 

Every time I get into this conversation, a lot of people get their feelings hurt.  From a legal perspective you are wrong.  It's a long story, covered in another thread, if you're interested.  Bottom line:  The Constitution gives the federal government NO AUTHORITY to decide who comes and goes within a state.  Do the feds have the POWER to enforce unconstitutional laws?  Does a wild bear dump in the woods?

 

The real deal, MY DOG IN THE FIGHT is simple.   EVERY PERSON is entitled to Due Process.  That makes the anti-immigrant lobby livid.  That's another reason they are anti-immigrant.  Even when this is explained to them, they will not concede to the facts. Due Process includes a presumption of innocence /  innocent until proven guilty.  If you cannot admit that and work with that as a starting point, you may as well set fire to that Constitution.

 

When the anti-immigrant Congressman James Sensenbrenner wrote the so-called "Patriot Act," it called for a suspension of constitutional guarantees: 

http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=themis

 

https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/#history

 

https://www.endtime.com/endtime-magazine-articles/the-patriot-act/

 

So, what was billed as a way to deal with foreign terrorists, was actually a way for the government to track militias by presuming they are "domestic terrorists."  

 

The very same political figures that introduced the so - called "Patriot Act" are the very same people that gave you the National ID / REAL ID Act and E-Verify.  Congressman James Sensenbrenner introduced both bills.  He is a Tea Party Republican and a top (if not the top) Congressional activist for the argument you're making.  I'm presuming he's still in office.  

 

NOBODY writes about the civilian militias that existed from 1987 - 2002 / 2003.  MANY of their top leadership were taken out because the so - called "Patriot Act" allowed the government to redefine civilian militia types as "domestic terrorists" without any Due Process.  The very people that parrot these nonsensical arguments about "illegal immigration" (sic) are the same ones that helped destroy the militia, flipping the militias into doing the dirty work for National Socialists.  

 

Calling someone an "illegal alien" won't help your cause.  In the world of reality, it is not a crime for those people to be here.  So, unless the government has probable cause to go after them, you are SOL - unless YOU can afford to be pursued without Due Process.  I can tell you what it's like to spend tens of thousands of dollars and waste YEARS in court over this disagreement and it won't be until YOU are on the chopping block that you will understand what I'm saying.  But, as you research this, I want you to bear something in mind:

 

While Sensenbrenner is telling people he did not know how the government was going to misuse the so - called "Patriot Act," I'm telling you he is knowingly LYING to you.  I personally warned him AND he is an attorney.  He knew how the government was going to subject Americans to his horrific legislation.  Therefore, I will not play your game.  He knew how National ID would subject us to the Surveillance Society; knew that neo-nazis are drafting the talking points that you're relying on.

 

In America, you cannot have a law that selectively pursues one group over another.  It would be a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment (which I personally believe was illegally ratified, so don't go down that rabbit hole either.)  Most of the poor dumb saps that were militia leaders in the late 1980s through early 2000s don't understand how they got flipped and became snitches; still can't figure out how they ended up in prison... some are dead due to their ignorance and stubbornness - you can't ask them.  They are undocumented foreigners.  They are not seeking citizenship; they are presumed innocent because I NEED that same protection as a person.  You take that away from them,  you are taking it from me, and then you and I have a problem.  

 

I am not wrong you are:

The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. 

 

https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, John Last said:

Have not the individual States formed a UNION , granting the protection (war powers, immigration, diplomacy etc.) of ALL STATES to the federal government?  I thought that was the underlying reason for the original Constitution.

 

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

The federal government does not dictate the policy of whether or not each state's gun laws conform to the whims of another state's.  The federal government's de jure / lawful role with respect to foreigners is Naturalization.  Who states do business with and invite into their state is THEIR business.  

 

Don't you find it ironic that, during the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states had their own immigration officers, but the courts waited until every single founding father was buried before illegally granting a power to Congress?

 

I told you this whizzed a lot of people off, but the average layman pretending to be Perry Mason on the Internet does not understand the principles behind stare decisis.  For example, our country went from the United States Supreme Court acknowledging that the people had a Right to keep and bear Arms even without the Second Amendment to the United States Supreme Court claiming that they grant you your Rights.  And the principles with this issue is exactly the same.

Edited by The Resister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Let_Freedom_Ring said:

 

 

The United States Supreme Court granted to Congress "plenary powers" over all aspects of immigration (sic.)  If you cannot show me where the United States Supreme Court has been granted such authority in the Constitution, you are urinating in the wind.

Edited by The Resister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ImTexan said:

The Resister:

1)  What gave the colonists the "right" to displace the native population?

 

Natural Law, Common Law... "The Law of Nations" by Emer de Vattel,  The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury (LF ed.) [1797]

 

Each state is not a room in a house. Each state IS A HOUSE and the united States is the neighborhood. Just because the HOA has grown past it's original authority doesn't mean it is right. It is Color of Law/ De facto  and not de jure law,

 

As intelligent as you appear to be .... you should already know the answers to your questions. You seem to challenge every opinion.  I don't like it and I refuse to play. 

 

Have a great night. 

 

Your answer is non=responsive.  You either answer here OR you watch the inevitable happen.  

 

FWIW, I began my service in the militia in 1987.  Back then they were giving me that absolutely phony illegal v. legal argument.  But, I took them at their word and went to work in immigration law.  I did it for six years.  While everybody else were playing Keyboard Commando, I was getting the straight facts.  Now that I have the facts, pretenders are making bogus arguments and refusing to have a honest discussion.  That doesn't mean I can't ask those uncomfortable questions.

 

But, in your house analogy:  If I live in a neighborhood and they attempt to tell me who I can and cannot associate with, I would (like Californication does) tell them to kiss my XXX.  Freedom of Association cannot be dictated by the federal government.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The anti-immigrant lobby demands absolute loyalty.  Their National Socialist think tank personnel have developed what, they believe, are infallible reasons why they are right and nobody else can offer up anything that brings some level of sanity to the discussion.

 

Yet, the anti-immigrant lobby cannot, with all their might defeat the facts.  The fact is simply that within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, only whites were allowed to become citizens.  Yet people poured in from every country on the globe.  We became the greatest nation in recorded history.  How do you suppose that happened?

 

The people behind the John Tanton nonprofits have the average Hispanic hater B.S.ed to the point they are 180 degrees opposite of constitutional thinking AND their strategies cannot survive critical skepticism in the form of really tough questions.  For example:

 

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.  And, the anti-immigrant lobby, too cowardly to use the censored language of our times, wants to call children names.  So, they call the children "anchor babies."  But lo and behold, we find out that a child's citizenship status is no bar to deporting their undocumented parents.  Ergo, the anti-immigrant lobby, spewing Tanton's nonsensical crap lied to the American people.  Yet they still call babies names AND refuse to admit they were wrong on that issue.  Motive?

 

The anti-immigrant strategy reveals the truth.  They do not want a conversation regarding the issues.  Build a wall and deport 'em all is their "solution."  Then, they say, if you do that, they will talk about a comprehensive immigration policy.  What neither side wants to talk about is how do we resolve this issue wherein the anti-immigrant lobby wants to force people to become citizens.  What they don't want to talk about is that most immigrants that come into this country do not and will never share the American values as envisioned by the founding fathers.  What neither side wants to talk about the fact that there are MILLIONS of Hispanics (at least three generations) whose families are undocumented.  Deporting their families and building a wall around America and separating families would be deemed to be a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.  So, what do we do with these people?

 

The anti-immigrant lobby only sees citizenship as the cure-all.  What they are in the dark about is that once you have MILLIONS of Hispanics being separated from their families, the right eventually loses.  This last round of separating undocumented families ought to have given the anti-immigrant lobby a clue, but I'm beginning to think the whole lot of them are clueless.  Trump reversed himself because he realizes that had this matter gone to court, he would have lost.  Even a "conservative" Supreme Court doesn't have any  precedent for separating families over a civil misdemeanor like entering the U.S. without papers (the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn.)  Doing it to MILLIONS of people in this country who happen to be citizens would initiate an internal civil war and the suspension of the United States Constitution.  You want Martial Law?  You're being set up for it by both the Democrats and the anti-immigration lobby.

 

 

Edited by The Resister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Resister said:

 

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

The federal government does not dictate the policy of whether or not each state's gun laws conform to the whims of another state's.  The federal government's de jure / lawful role with respect to foreigners is Naturalization.  Who states do business with and invite into their state is THEIR business.  

 

Don't you find it ironic that, during the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states had their own immigration officers, but the courts waited until every single founding father was buried before illegally granting a power to Congress?

 

I told you this whizzed a lot of people off, but the average layman pretending to be Perry Mason on the Internet does not understand the principles behind stare decisis.  For example, our country went from the United States Supreme Court acknowledging that the people had a Right to keep and bear Arms even without the Second Amendment to the United States Supreme Court claiming that they grant you your Rights.  And the principles with this issue is exactly the same.

 

Your 2) and 4) above... anti-immigration?  And I confess you lost me completely on 3) citizenship being  like ...the first suitor to darken the doorstep: are we talking about the forcing (what are we forcing?) or not caring who comes into the country?

 

I think the government's role also concerns vetting who APPLIES for entry (application has to be made to the US government before being able to enter).  Now, I'll admit that this is different than the system of 230 years ago, but the world is different, and according to the tools in the Constitution, so is our government.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but are you saying that the Constitution should be "frozen" as of some point, and any changes since then should be invalidated?  I'm trying to grasp your premise, but on the one hand you cite 1790 terms, and later infer that we won't/can't pass laws to correct a situation...for example next year 2019, we could pass something that says if you were born here but never lived inside the country, although technically a citizen, you have to jump through such and such hoops to "validate" your citizenship.  Demon Rum prompted the 19th Amendment, and a decade or so later we reversed it with the 21st.

 

I'm sure I don't recall all of your writings, but I understood that you're against "the wall" (we will be the real prisoners), and if the illegals flood in they'll end up swamping the country.  I recall mention of a war with Mexico.  Do you see any other solution?

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Resister said:

 

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

The federal government does not dictate the policy of whether or not each state's gun laws conform to the whims of another state's.  The federal government's de jure / lawful role with respect to foreigners is Naturalization.  Who states do business with and invite into their state is THEIR business.  

 

Don't you find it ironic that, during the lives of ALL the founding fathers, the states had their own immigration officers, but the courts waited until every single founding father was buried before illegally granting a power to Congress?

 

I told you this whizzed a lot of people off, but the average layman pretending to be Perry Mason on the Internet does not understand the principles behind stare decisis.  For example, our country went from the United States Supreme Court acknowledging that the people had a Right to keep and bear Arms even without the Second Amendment to the United States Supreme Court claiming that they grant you your Rights.  And the principles with this issue is exactly the same.

 

What it has to do with the price of tea in China is that we have 3 branches of government and the Supreme Court is the legal litmus test between state and federal laws and whether laws are constitutional as per set up by the founding fathers.  I agree with you that every law about guns is unconstitutional but if the Federal Government and the Supreme Court backs it or allows it, it is the law until it can be changed either by the voting or legal process whether we like it or not (this is why it is important to have Supreme Court Justices that do their sworn jobs to uphold the Constitution and not legislate from the bench).  When I travel to California, I don't agree with their gun laws there but I abide by them because I have no interest in rotting in their legal system.  (I only travel there when business dictates it or flying out of country through one of their airports).  As to international immigration the Federal Government through Congress and signing by the Executive Branch, has passed laws and regulations, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Government has domain over our National borders.  Regardless of what happened in the past it is current law.  Also in the past travelling to the US or anywhere else in the world was no where near as easy as it is today.  I'm not arguing whether it is in line with the original intent of our Constitution, only that it is current law.  Personally I don't want everyone immigrating into our country without going through the current application and vetting process that wants to so I support the current laws and regulations on immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, John Last said:

 

Your 2) and 4) above... anti-immigration?  And I confess you lost me completely on 3) citizenship being  like ...the first suitor to darken the doorstep: are we talking about the forcing (what are we forcing?) or not caring who comes into the country?

 

I think the government's role also concerns vetting who APPLIES for entry (application has to be made to the US government before being able to enter).  Now, I'll admit that this is different than the system of 230 years ago, but the world is different, and according to the tools in the Constitution, so is our government.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but are you saying that the Constitution should be "frozen" as of some point, and any changes since then should be invalidated?  I'm trying to grasp your premise, but on the one hand you cite 1790 terms, and later infer that we won't/can't pass laws to correct a situation...for example next year 2019, we could pass something that says if you were born here but never lived inside the country, although technically a citizen, you have to jump through such and such hoops to "validate" your citizenship.  Demon Rum prompted the 19th Amendment, and a decade or so later we reversed it with the 21st.

 

I'm sure I don't recall all of your writings, but I understood that you're against "the wall" (we will be the real prisoners), and if the illegals flood in they'll end up swamping the country.  I recall mention of a war with Mexico.  Do you see any other solution?

 

 

 

 

Since I didn't get a lot out of what you said that wouldn't require a lengthy response, I do have solutions.  Maybe the solutions answer your questions:

 

1)  The current situation whereby Mexico is deliberately flooding the U.S. with foreigners is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE - it has nothing to do with domestic criminal laws.  You need 10,000 soldiers, a few APCs, helicopters and a few tanks to escort all those people back to Mexico.  Dump them out at the border with a stern warning to Mexico's president:  Next we will invade and take your country

 

2)  If you rescind the 14th Amendment, you can say good-bye to automatic birth citizenship.  There is a problem solved for you

 

3)  My third suggestion requires that you own OUR PART in the immigration debacle.  We created a generation of people that don't want to work.  We created a nation of drug users.  We created a welfarite society.  We created the Surveillance Society and, with all these background checks, etc. We locked a lot of people out of the labor market and the system in general.  We need to fix our part of the situation

 

4)  The current citizenship dilemma is beyond a simple solution.  So, since we've made citizens out of people that did not want to become citizens and did not need to be citizens, we allow them to retain such citizenship.  Leave those who have citizenship in their current position.  From that moment, forward, no more wholesale citizenship

 

5)  REPEAL all the idiotic laws that are keeping people from coming here and working.  Get rid of the quotas and the unnecessary B.S.  

 

6)  ENCOURAGE employers to hire an all American workforce by giving them substantial tax breaks (unlike Trump just giving business tax cuts.)  The relationship should be quid pro quo.  If you want to use this country and not give anything back, we have the right to tax the Hell out of you.  If you help America by hiring all American staffs, you get big tax breaks

 

7)  No automatic path to citizenship for guest workers and no more privileges of citizenship for them either (i.e. make them pay for their child's education or stay in their native country)

 

Eight (no idea why I get a smiley face on that number) -  Give the states back their Right to invite whomever they want as guests

 

9)  No benefits and privileges of citizenship to foreigners

 

Start there and you can begin to resolve this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Let_Freedom_Ring said:

 

What it has to do with the price of tea in China is that we have 3 branches of government and the Supreme Court is the legal litmus test between state and federal laws and whether laws are constitutional as per set up by the founding fathers.  I agree with you that every law about guns is unconstitutional but if the Federal Government and the Supreme Court backs it or allows it, it is the law until it can be changed either by the voting or legal process whether we like it or not.  When I travel to California, I don't agree with their gun laws there but I abide by them because I have no interest in rotting in their legal system.  (I only travel there when business dictates it or flying out of country through one of their airports).  As to international immigration the Federal Government through Congress has pass laws and regulations, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Government has domain over our National borders regardless of what happened in the past it is current law.  Also in the past travelling to the US or anywhere else in the world was no where near as easy as it is today.  I'm not arguing whether it is in line with the original intent of our Constitution, only that it is current law.  Personally I don't want everyone immigrating into our country without going through the current application and vetting process that wants to so I support the current laws and regulations on immigration.

 

 

I think vetting processes are about as worthless as tits on a boar hog when you consider that the Mexican government publishes instructions on how to avoid immigration officials.  To each his own.

 

You're still dodging the central theme:  Congress has NO constitutional authority to tell states who they can and cannot invite into their respective state because the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court any authority to bestow upon ANY branch of government ANY power of any kind.  Congress has but one role in this discussion: citizenship.  

 

Bear this in mind:

 

Foreigners would not be here if a sizable number of Americans did not make it possible by willingly doing business with them.  Fighting this reality only means you have to take a giant dump on your own Rights  OR think clearly and begin to look for a more permanent solution other than inevitable defeat (and you can't explain the motive behind that one.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure who got their feelings hurt... it twasn’t I. 

 

You are absolutely correct in that you should have the right to leave the neighborhood. The 13 colonies left their neighborhood and formed their own “HOA”.  Less than 100 yrs later, the southern houses left to do it again, but this time the HOA was more crooked and didn’t allow the people to leave! 

 

This 1868 letter from Richard Henry Dana to AG William Evatt proves why Jefferson Davis was not guilty of treason and was never tried. 

 

spacer.gif————————————

 

The letter was painstakingly reproduced, in word and style below, which is why the format is the way it is.  The original letter, handwritten, is 4.5 pages in length.  The only liberty I have taken is to bold a paragraph I felt was key.

 

 

RICHARD HENRY DANA BRIEF

 

                                                                                     Boston, August 24, 1868

                       The Honorable

                              William M. Evarts,

                                       Attorney General,

                                                 Sir,

                                                     While preparing with yourself, before you assumed your present post, to perform the honorable duty the President had assigned to us, of conducting the trial of Jefferson Davis, you know how much my mind was moved, from the first, by doubts of the expediency of trying him at all. The reasons which prevented my presenting those doubts no longer exist, and they have so ripened into conviction that I feel it my duty to lay them before you  in form as you now hold a post of official responsibility for the proceeding.

     After the most serious reflection, I cannot  see any good reason why the Government should make a question of whether the late civil war was treason and whether Jefferson Davis took any part in it, and submit those questions to the decision of a petit jury of the vicinage of Richmond at nisi prius .

     As the Constitution in terms settles the fact that our republic is a state against which treason may be committed, the only constitutional question attending the late war was whether a levying of war against the United States which would otherwise be treason is relieved of that character by the fact that it took the form of secession from the Union by state authority. In other words, the legal issue was, whether secession by a state is a constitutional right, making an act legal and obligatory upon the nation which would otherwise have been treason.

     This issue I suppose to have been settled by the action of every department of the Government, by the action of the people itself, and by those events which are definitive in the affairs of men.

     The Supreme Court in the Prize Courts (2 Black’s Ref) held, by happily a unanimous opinion that acts of the States, whether secession ordinances, or in whatever form cast, could not be brought into the cases, as justifications for the war, and had no legal effect on the character of the war, or on the political status of territory or persons or property, and that the line of enemy’s territory was a question fact depending upon the line of bayonets of an actual war. The rule in the Prize Courts has been steadily followed in the Supreme Court since, and in the Circuit Courts, without an intimation of a doubt.  That the lawmaking and executive departments have treated this secession and war as treason is matter of history, as well as is the action of the people in the highest sanction of war.

     It cannot be doubted that the Circuit Court at the trial will instruct the jury in conformity with these decisions, that the late attempt to establish and sustain by war by independent empire within the United States was treason. The only question of fact submitted to the jury will be whether Jefferson Davis took part in the war. As it is one of the great facts of history that he was its head, civil and military, why should we desire to make a question of it and refer its decision to a jury, with powers to find in the negative or affirmative or to disagree? It is not an appropriate question for the decision of a jury, certainly it is not a fact which a Government should, without great cause, give a jury a chance to ignore.

     We know that these indictments are to be tried in what was for five years enemy’s territory, which  is not yet restored to the exercise of all its political functions, and where the fires are not extinct. We know that it only requires one discontent juror to defeat the Government and give Jefferson Davis and his favorers a triumph. Now, is not such a  result one which we must include in our calculation of possibilities? Whatever modes may be legally adopted to draw a jury, or to  purge it, and whatever the influence of the court or of counsel, we know that a favorer of treason may get upon the jury. But that is not necessary. A fear of personal  violence or social ostracism may be enough to induce one man to withhold his ascent from the verdict, especially as he need not come forward personally, nor give a reason, even in the jury room.

     The possible result would be most humiliating to the Government and people of this country, and none the less so from the fact that it would be absurd. The Government would be stopped in the judicial course because it could neither assume nor judicially determine that Jefferson Davis took part in the late civil war. Such a result would also bring into doubt the adequacy of our penal system to deal with such cases as this.

     If it were important to secure a verdict as a means of punishing the defendant, the question would present itself differently. But it would be beneath the dignity of the Government and of the issue, to inflict upon him a minor punishment, and, as to a sentence of death, I am sure that, after this lapse of time, and after all that has occurred in the interval, the people of the United States would not desire to see it enforced.

     In fine, after the fullest consideration, it seems to me that, by pursuing  the trial, the Government can get only a reaffirmation by a Circuit Court at nici prius of a rule of public law settled for this country in every way in which such a matter can be settled, only giving to a jury drawn form the region of the rebellion a chance to disregard the law when announced. It gives that jury a like opportunity to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis took any part in the late civil war. And one man upon the jury can secure the results. The risk of such absurd and discreditable issues of a great state trial, are assumed for the sake of a verdict which, if obtained, will settle nothing in law or natural practice not now settled, and nothing in fact not now history, while no judgment rendered thereon do we think will be ever executed.

     Besides these reasons, and perhaps because of them, I  think the public interest in the trial has ceased among the most earnest and loyal citizens.

     If your views and those of the President should be in favor of proceeding with the trial, I am confident that I can do my duty as counsel to the utmost of my ability and with all zeal. For my doubts are not what the verdict ought to be. On the contrary, I should feel all the more strongly, if the trial is begun, the importance of victory to the Government, and the necessity of putting forth all power and using all lawful means to secure it. Still, I feel it my duty to say that if the President should judge otherwise, my position in the case is at his disposal.  

                                         Very respectfully

                                                  Your ob’t. ser’t.

                       (signed) Richard H. Dana, Jr.



Read more: http://www.texashistoryhunter.net/rhdb.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, ImTexan said:

Not sure who got their feelings hurt... it twasn’t I. 

 

You are absolutely correct in that you should have the right to leave the neighborhood. The 13 colonies left their neighborhood and formed their own “HOA”.  Less than 100 yrs later, the southern houses left to do it again, but this time the HOA was more crooked and didn’t allow the people to leave! 

 

This 1868 letter from Richard Henry Dana to AG William Evatt proves why Jefferson Davis was not guilty of treason and was never tried. 

 

spacer.gif————————————

 

The letter was painstakingly reproduced, in word and style below, which is why the format is the way it is.  The original letter, handwritten, is 4.5 pages in length.  The only liberty I have taken is to bold a paragraph I felt was key.

 

 

RICHARD HENRY DANA BRIEF

 

                                                                                     Boston, August 24, 1868

                       The Honorable

                              William M. Evarts,

                                       Attorney General,

                                                 Sir,

                                                     While preparing with yourself, before you assumed your present post, to perform the honorable duty the President had assigned to us, of conducting the trial of Jefferson Davis, you know how much my mind was moved, from the first, by doubts of the expediency of trying him at all. The reasons which prevented my presenting those doubts no longer exist, and they have so ripened into conviction that I feel it my duty to lay them before you  in form as you now hold a post of official responsibility for the proceeding.

     After the most serious reflection, I cannot  see any good reason why the Government should make a question of whether the late civil war was treason and whether Jefferson Davis took any part in it, and submit those questions to the decision of a petit jury of the vicinage of Richmond at nisi prius .

     As the Constitution in terms settles the fact that our republic is a state against which treason may be committed, the only constitutional question attending the late war was whether a levying of war against the United States which would otherwise be treason is relieved of that character by the fact that it took the form of secession from the Union by state authority. In other words, the legal issue was, whether secession by a state is a constitutional right, making an act legal and obligatory upon the nation which would otherwise have been treason.

     This issue I suppose to have been settled by the action of every department of the Government, by the action of the people itself, and by those events which are definitive in the affairs of men.

     The Supreme Court in the Prize Courts (2 Black’s Ref) held, by happily a unanimous opinion that acts of the States, whether secession ordinances, or in whatever form cast, could not be brought into the cases, as justifications for the war, and had no legal effect on the character of the war, or on the political status of territory or persons or property, and that the line of enemy’s territory was a question fact depending upon the line of bayonets of an actual war. The rule in the Prize Courts has been steadily followed in the Supreme Court since, and in the Circuit Courts, without an intimation of a doubt.  That the lawmaking and executive departments have treated this secession and war as treason is matter of history, as well as is the action of the people in the highest sanction of war.

     It cannot be doubted that the Circuit Court at the trial will instruct the jury in conformity with these decisions, that the late attempt to establish and sustain by war by independent empire within the United States was treason. The only question of fact submitted to the jury will be whether Jefferson Davis took part in the war. As it is one of the great facts of history that he was its head, civil and military, why should we desire to make a question of it and refer its decision to a jury, with powers to find in the negative or affirmative or to disagree? It is not an appropriate question for the decision of a jury, certainly it is not a fact which a Government should, without great cause, give a jury a chance to ignore.

     We know that these indictments are to be tried in what was for five years enemy’s territory, which  is not yet restored to the exercise of all its political functions, and where the fires are not extinct. We know that it only requires one discontent juror to defeat the Government and give Jefferson Davis and his favorers a triumph. Now, is not such a  result one which we must include in our calculation of possibilities? Whatever modes may be legally adopted to draw a jury, or to  purge it, and whatever the influence of the court or of counsel, we know that a favorer of treason may get upon the jury. But that is not necessary. A fear of personal  violence or social ostracism may be enough to induce one man to withhold his ascent from the verdict, especially as he need not come forward personally, nor give a reason, even in the jury room.

     The possible result would be most humiliating to the Government and people of this country, and none the less so from the fact that it would be absurd. The Government would be stopped in the judicial course because it could neither assume nor judicially determine that Jefferson Davis took part in the late civil war. Such a result would also bring into doubt the adequacy of our penal system to deal with such cases as this.

     If it were important to secure a verdict as a means of punishing the defendant, the question would present itself differently. But it would be beneath the dignity of the Government and of the issue, to inflict upon him a minor punishment, and, as to a sentence of death, I am sure that, after this lapse of time, and after all that has occurred in the interval, the people of the United States would not desire to see it enforced.

     In fine, after the fullest consideration, it seems to me that, by pursuing  the trial, the Government can get only a reaffirmation by a Circuit Court at nici prius of a rule of public law settled for this country in every way in which such a matter can be settled, only giving to a jury drawn form the region of the rebellion a chance to disregard the law when announced. It gives that jury a like opportunity to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis took any part in the late civil war. And one man upon the jury can secure the results. The risk of such absurd and discreditable issues of a great state trial, are assumed for the sake of a verdict which, if obtained, will settle nothing in law or natural practice not now settled, and nothing in fact not now history, while no judgment rendered thereon do we think will be ever executed.

     Besides these reasons, and perhaps because of them, I  think the public interest in the trial has ceased among the most earnest and loyal citizens.

     If your views and those of the President should be in favor of proceeding with the trial, I am confident that I can do my duty as counsel to the utmost of my ability and with all zeal. For my doubts are not what the verdict ought to be. On the contrary, I should feel all the more strongly, if the trial is begun, the importance of victory to the Government, and the necessity of putting forth all power and using all lawful means to secure it. Still, I feel it my duty to say that if the President should judge otherwise, my position in the case is at his disposal.  

                                         Very respectfully

                                                  Your ob’t. ser’t.

                       (signed) Richard H. Dana, Jr.



Read more: http://www.texashistoryhunter.net/rhdb.html

 

I don't know how you think that ties into this discussion, but Californication has challenged a lot of these nonsensical laws and won in court.  You haven't responded to my questions so this is basically a stand-off.  

 

The federal government don't allow states to leave the Union and the United States Supreme Court has opined that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law.  Look at how the potheads won.  So, the foreigners are applying the right strategy.  You can pas laws that address the situation or whine all day that the laws we have are not being enforced - and in most cases, they cannot be.

 

You complain my posts are too long.  

Edited by The Resister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Resister said:

 

 

I think vetting processes are about as worthless as tits on a boar hog when you consider that the Mexican government publishes instructions on how to avoid immigration officials.  To each his own.

 

You're still dodging the central theme:  Congress has NO constitutional authority to tell states who they can and cannot invite into their respective state because the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court any authority to bestow upon ANY branch of government ANY power of any kind.  Congress has but one role in this discussion: citizenship.  

 

Bear this in mind:

 

Foreigners would not be here if a sizable number of Americans did not make it possible by willingly doing business with them.  Fighting this reality only means you have to take a giant dump on your own Rights  OR think clearly and begin to look for a more permanent solution other than inevitable defeat (and you can't explain the motive behind that one.)

 

 

Again, I have no problems with foreigners being here legally and again my wife and mother in law both went through the process to come here and stay legally, it is being here illegally I have a problem with.  So your solution would be anarchy and allowing every single person to immigrate into this country that wants to without any qualifications?   If that were the case then we would be completely overrun by people from other countries and would no longer exist as the country we are.  There should be a legal process in doing so.  I always think clearly thank you very much.  You have stated that I was finally seeing the light in a previous post, you have stated  that I was wrong earlier and now you have stated that I don't think clearly.   I would greatly appreciate if you would keep your arrogance and feelings of superiority in check and stick strictly to debating the issues without personal slights involved.  We all aren't going to agree on everything exactly but patronizing and being condescending is not going to help any discussion.  I welcome your contributions to this forum and I also agree with some you have written though not everything.  I would like you to continue to do so but without personal swats at other forum members including myself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I don't know how you think that ties into this discussion, but Californication has challenged a lot of these nonsensical laws and won in court.  You haven't responded to my questions so this is basically a stand-off.”

 

We were discussing each State as a house (sovereign ie 10th Amendment) and their Right to vote and leave the Union. 

 

I keep hearing Calif is going to secede, sure wish they’d hurry the hell up! Take all the Libtards with them AND the illegal INVADERS. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw.... you seek to control the narrative by asking questions and then demand these be addressed. I see exactly how you operate. You have yet to hurt my feelings... that is actually an amusing thought. 

 

You do your thing, more power to you! You are pretty much free and allowed to do so unless it is determined you purposefully create dissension and chaos with site members. 👍👍👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Let_Freedom_Ring said:

 

 

Again, I have no problems with foreigners being here legally and again my wife and mother in law both went through the process to come here and stay legally, it is being here illegally I have a problem with.  So your solution would be anarchy and allowing every single person to immigrate into this country that wants to without any qualifications?   If that were the case then we would be completely overrun by people from other countries and would no longer exist as the country we are.  There should be a legal process in doing so.  I always think clearly thank you very much.  You have stated that I was finally seeing the light in a previous post, you have stated  that I was wrong earlier and now you have stated that I don't think clearly.   I would greatly appreciate if you would keep your arrogance and feelings of superiority in check and stick strictly to debating the issues without personal slights involved.  We all aren't going to agree on everything exactly but patronizing and being condescending is not going to help any discussion.  I welcome your contributions to this forum and I also agree with much you have written though not everything.  I would like you to continue to do so but without personal swats at other forum members including myself.  

 

Don't get your boxers in a bunch.  Nobody's attacking you or anyone else.  Having more experience than you doesn't mean I'm superior.  I've made the point, repeatedly, that it is within the purview of the government to regulate who comes and goes within the United States.

 

The fact remains, the people who develop these asinine legal v. illegal arguments are not being up front with the rest of the people.  If you fall for it, you do.  Not my fault, sir.

 

You said your wife came here through a process to "stay legally."  You did say that, did you not?  So, precisely, where is the arrogance?  I said that the terminology used by those who make the argument you're making were talking about citizenship.  It appears to me I said something that was accurate and honest; therefore, by your definition, arrogant.  Okay, I can live with that.

 

There is a detailed process to become a citizen because the person is becoming a part of the body politic.  Citizenship is a privilege and one we should not be shy about being thorough about.  Guest Workers, on the other hand, may need some qualifications, but not to the degree that citizens would be subject to.

 

If a person comes to the United States, pays the requisite taxes, abides by the laws and is self sustaining, I simply don't buy the argument that they "don't belong here" and it is a personal opinion that I'm entitled to.  By forcing people to become citizens - which is what you're implying as you deny it, leaves them with no credible - so - called "legal" avenue by which to come into the United States.  The quota system we have in place denies to employers the equal protection of the laws;  the people, as a whole, do not abide by the laws as you'd like - if you shop at Walmart, you've violated the very principles upon which you are making so much noise about.  Case in point:

 

A few years ago, a farmer advertised with the Georgia Dept. of Labor; he put signs up for the help he needs; advertises in the local newspaper.  He comes up with HALF of the needed workers.  A local reporter went out for the day to follow along with what happens.  Of the people that applied, only FOUR were Americans.  Two of those had quit the job before noon.  Crops literally rotting in the fields because there aren't enough people to get them to market.  Unlike citizenship, jobs need to be filled at a moment's notice... it's a different labor market than it was when Lyndon Johnson was president.  Some work projects need filling within hours - not years.  Yet we refuse to create that process whereby people can check in with the government and proceed to work within a free market.  But just because someone is present here should not entitle them to ANY benefit or privilege of citizenship.

 

Lastly, if WE took ownership in this issue and quit blaming the foreigners; if WE put Americans back to work, it would dissolve any perceived need to hire foreigners and if they can't get ANY benefit or privilege of citizenship, it serves as its own deterrent for undocumented foreigners to come here in the first place.  If Americans hold the jobs, no "need" for the foreign labor.  So, let the military exercise a military option with respect to the flooding of America with children.  Clean up our mess and create a viable way for people to work without the pretext of needing Guest Workers jump through hoops in order to work in the U.S.  Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Resister said:

 

Don't get your boxers in a bunch.  Nobody's attacking you or anyone else.  Having more experience than you doesn't mean I'm superior.  I've made the point, repeatedly, that it is within the purview of the government to regulate who comes and goes within the United States.

 

The fact remains, the people who develop these asinine legal v. illegal arguments are not being up front with the rest of the people.  If you fall for it, you do.  Not my fault, sir.

 

You said your wife came here through a process to "stay legally."  You did say that, did you not?  So, precisely, where is the arrogance?  I said that the terminology used by those who make the argument you're making were talking about citizenship.  It appears to me I said something that was accurate and honest; therefore, by your definition, arrogant.  Okay, I can live with that.

 

There is a detailed process to become a citizen because the person is becoming a part of the body politic.  Citizenship is a privilege and one we should not be shy about being thorough about.  Guest Workers, on the other hand, may need some qualifications, but not to the degree that citizens would be subject to.

 

If a person comes to the United States, pays the requisite taxes, abides by the laws and is self sustaining, I simply don't buy the argument that they "don't belong here" and it is a personal opinion that I'm entitled to.  By forcing people to become citizens - which is what you're implying as you deny it, leaves them with no credible - so - called "legal" avenue by which to come into the United States.  The quota system we have in place denies to employers the equal protection of the laws;  the people, as a whole, do not abide by the laws as you'd like - if you shop at Walmart, you've violated the very principles upon which you are making so much noise about.  Case in point:

 

A few years ago, a farmer advertised with the Georgia Dept. of Labor; he put signs up for the help he needs; advertises in the local newspaper.  He comes up with HALF of the needed workers.  A local reporter went out for the day to follow along with what happens.  Of the people that applied, only FOUR were Americans.  Two of those had quit the job before noon.  Crops literally rotting in the fields because there aren't enough people to get them to market.  Unlike citizenship, jobs need to be filled at a moment's notice... it's a different labor market than it was when Lyndon Johnson was president.  Some work projects need filling within hours - not years.  Yet we refuse to create that process whereby people can check in with the government and proceed to work within a free market.  But just because someone is present here should not entitle them to ANY benefit or privilege of citizenship.

 

Lastly, if WE took ownership in this issue and quit blaming the foreigners; if WE put Americans back to work, it would dissolve any perceived need to hire foreigners and if they can't get ANY benefit or privilege of citizenship, it serves as its own deterrent for undocumented foreigners to come here in the first place.  If Americans hold the jobs, no "need" for the foreign labor.  So, let the military exercise a military option with respect to the flooding of America with children.  Clean up our mess and create a viable way for people to work without the pretext of needing Guest Workers jump through hoops in order to work in the U.S.  Problem solved.

 

Your assumption that you have more experience and knowledge than everyone else and stating so often, as well as making statements that hint at others not having as much intelligence as you or being able to think as clearly and concisely as you is arrogant, patronizing and condescending.  It has nothing to do with your accuracy or truths but personal slights in your posts to myself and other members no matter how veiled they are.  I am not upset, I am pointing out that perhaps you should proof read your posts a little better so not to make such personal statements against the other members posting on here.  Perhaps you don't realize that some times you are making such statements in your post.  Now you want to call me asinine for my and probably other's beliefs and opinions?  Try reading some of the statements you make as if another member is responding to you with that.  All I am saying is just stick to the debate facts and leave your thoughts on other's abilities to think and their personal beliefs out of it.   Also you continue to insist that I want to force people to become citizens when I have in fact stated the opposite several times.  You are attributing an argument to me that I did not make.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Let_Freedom_Ring said:

 

Your assumption that you have more experience and knowledge than everyone else and stating so often, as well as making statements that hint at others not having as much intelligence as you or being able to think as clearly and concisely as you is arrogant, patronizing and condescending.  It has nothing to do with your accuracy or truths but personal slights in your posts to myself and other members no matter how veiled they are.  I am not upset, I am pointing out that perhaps you should proof read your posts a little better so not to make such personal statements against the other members posting on here.  Perhaps you don't realize that some times you are making such statements in your post.  Now you want to call me asinine for my and probably other's beliefs and opinions?  Try reading some of the statements you make as if another member is responding to you with that.  All I am saying is just stick to the debate facts and leave your thoughts on other's abilities to think and their personal beliefs out of it.   Also you continue to insist that I want to force people to become citizens when I have in fact stated the opposite several times.  You are attributing an argument to me that I did not make.    

 

Let's get you on the straight and narrow.

 

IF people had the experience I had, they would not make the mistakes they do.  If you think experience = smarter than, that's a personal problem.  I'm beginning to tire of you making insults toward me, so it works both ways.  My assessment of you is based upon what you said.

 

You said you wanted people to come here "legally."  I said that was code for citizenship.

You complained and said your wife had to go through some process to get here.  That is citizenship.

I told you that Guest Workers are needed when the jobs demand it and cannot wait for years to get permission to do jobs that need to be filled now.  THAT whizzed you off???  Did you realize what you said?  My occupation was in law, so I'm pretty sure I know a little about facts. I'm not the brightest star in the constellation.  But, I do okay.

 

Look dude.  If you and I are having a conversation and I say I have more experience than you then "you" aren't everybody else.  When I say that a position is put forth by the anti - immigrant lobby, then it is the position that was developed by one of the dozen or John Tanton non-profits and it is their talking points.  Know this: If I want to outright accuse YOU of something I'm damn well capable of it.  Calling a position developed by Tanton asinine and calling you asinine are worlds apart.  

 

Know this:  I'm not the typical low class, sorry S.O.B. ( not meaning Swell Old Boy as many professional trolls are) that I would try to screw with you on a discussion board.  If I develop a personal problem with you, I promise you can expect a PM.  

 

So that you can judge for yourself whether I have more experience or not - or whether I'm assuming ask yourself if the following names are familiar to you:  Charlie Puckett, Scott Woodring, Mark Korneke, William Cooper, or Steve Anderson.  Without Googling them, ask yourself how well you've known them, if at all.  Have you spent tens of thousands of dollars of your own money in court cases with your hind quarters on the line in cases related to your involvement in a militia?   Do you know what court case was cited when the courts ruled against Donald Trump regarding Sanctuary Cities?  I don't have to Google this stuff; I lived it.

 

I also know that if people do not know and understand our legal system, they can inadvertently end up supporting the very things they publicly denounce and abhor.  For example, I did a couple of posts on this board to cite you names and instances where the founders of the anti-immigrant lobby were real life Nazis.  Even gave people background the facts of who John Tanton is and what is stance is on race.  Despite what you continue to repeat, none of it makes me smarter than the next guy - no more than someone who bought a product and tells you not to buy it because the seller won't honor a warranty.  

 

If you studied Hegelian Dialectics, you would have figured out how the system played the left and the right.  And, when Randy Weaver sat down and explained the tactics the government were going to use against me, it saved my life.  What I'm telling you might save YOUR life.  At the very least it will challenge you to reexamine what you previously believed.  

 

I'll end this rant here and give you some topic matter that is relative to this subject.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Paine, one of our founding fathers once said:

 

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

 

Well, that's great, but what is a precedent?  Online, it is defined this way:

 

"Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations."

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/precedent

 

It is easier to show, by example, than it is to define this stuff.

 

In the 1990s the federal government passed laws to require background checks to purchase a firearm.  A friend of mine was a sheriff at the time and he took the matter to court saying the feds could not require him to perform background checks.  Other sheriffs sued as well.  The United States Supreme Court rolled all the cases into one.  According to Wikipedia:

 

 "The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

 

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6]As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional.' 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

 

Also see:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

 

Bet you're wondering what all this has to do with this immigration issue.  Well I spoke to Richard Mack, the sheriff that I know and was a Plaintiff in that case.  He said if he knew how the precedent was going to be used, he would never have gone to court.  Well the precedent is a ruling based upon a principle of law.  And when the Trump administration lost its case against Sanctuary Cities, the principle of law was....  Well I'd like for you to read it for yourself:

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/antonin-scalia-might-have-saved-sanctuary-cities.html

 

Richard Mack drank the Tanton Kool Aid and now dismisses any win the right ever had if it benefited the so - called "illegal aliens" and, unfortunately, Liberty takes a back seat to the hatred people have of those from south of the border.  For every thing you gain, there's something lost... and when it's my Freedoms and Liberties on the line, I can live with a few people from south of the border until the white people in this country get their excrement together and get off the welfare dole and reclaim their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy