A Reagan Quote

[tpahl]

Someone has a Reagan quote in their sig.

"A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation."
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911-2004

Then the closest the world has ever seen to a nation is East Germany, and even then it was not a nation according to this definition.

Travis

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by tpahl
Someone has a Reagan quote in their sig.



Then the closest the world has ever seen to a nation is East Germany, and even then it was not a nation according to this definition.

Travis

America did a pretty good job in its formation.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by NewGuy
America did a pretty good job in its formation.

At controlling its borders? Initially it had very few restrictions whatsoever.

http://www.lifeintheusa.com/immigration/history.htm

The first line of this page says

For much of its history the United States allowed unrestricted immigration.

 

[NewGuy]

It was CONTROLLED quite well during the FORMATION of the nation as I have said.

Welcoming others goes hand in hand with enforcing the law appropriately with them.

We controlled our borders quite well. It is times like today we do a terrible job by letting in people who don't contribute but take away from our nation and its resources.

 

[tpahl]

Please give me a site that explains how the US CONTROLLED its immigration while it was being formed. Everything I have read shows that it had a nearly NO restrictions on immigration.

Travis

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by tpahl
Please give me a site that explains how the US CONTROLLED its immigration while it was being formed. Everything I have read shows that it had a nearly NO restrictions on immigration.

Travis

Dude,

As I just posted, it isn't about merely CLOSING one's borders, it is about REGULATING the nation in ASSOCIATION with the open or closed state.

I don't educate myself merely off the web.

I also cannot force you to prove things correct instead of depending on others.

 

[NewGuy]

If you really want to get all huffy about borders, take a look at what Jefferson did:

In 1803 Napoleon decided to consolidate his resources for a new round of the conflict with England by selling the vast Louisiana region, which stretched from the Mississippi Valley to the Rocky Mountains. Although the asking price, $15 million, was a stupendous bargain, assuming the cost meant substantially increasing the national debt.

More significantly, what became known as the Louisiana Purchase violated Jefferson's constitutional scruples. Indeed, many historians regard it as the boldest executive action in American history. But Jefferson never wavered, reasoning that the opportunity to double the national domain was too good to miss. The American West always triggered Jefferson's most visionary energies, seeing it, as he did, as America's future, the place where the simple republican principles could be constantly renewed.

In one fell swoop he removed the threat of a major European power from America's borders and extended the life span of the uncluttered agrarian values he so cherished. Even before news that the purchase was approved reached the United States in July 1803, Jefferson dispatched his private secretary, Meriwether Lewis, to lead an expedition to explore the new acquisition and the lands beyond, all the way to the Pacific.



It ain't all about guns and fences.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Dude,

As I just posted, it isn't about merely CLOSING one's borders, it is about REGULATING the nation in ASSOCIATION with the open or closed state.

I don't educate myself merely off the web.

I also cannot force you to prove things correct instead of depending on others.

So your arguement is that the US was controlling its border because it was enforcing the all of its laws on immigration. Which totalled none. But now its border is not controlled because we are not completely enforcing the hundreds of immigration restrictions we have on the books?

If that is the case, then the ONLY way we can 'control' the borders using the definition you are using for control, is to elliminate the laws we have on immigration because they are unenforceable.

Also I never said you should educate yourself merely off the web. I just asked for a site from the web that backed up your idea. If you would rather send me a book or a video that is fine, I just thought you would like to back up your statement with a less costly method.

And I will gladly provide you with links as I already have if I make an assertion that you doubt. It is common courtesy.

Travis

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by tpahl
So your arguement is that the US was controlling its border because it was enforcing the all of its laws on immigration.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights do the job quite nicely when followed, thank you.

But now its border is not controlled because we are not completely enforcing the hundreds of immigration restrictions we have on the books?

You could say that. Eliminate them all, though and following the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be even better.

If that is the case, then the ONLY way we can 'control' the borders using the definition you are using for control, is to elliminate the laws we have on immigration because they are unenforceable.

No, they arent. -But a lot of those laws SHOULD be repealled for they are not Constitutional.

Also I never said you should educate yourself merely off the web. I just asked for a site from the web that backed up your idea. If you would rather send me a book or a video that is fine, I just thought you would like to back up your statement with a less costly method.

Not all evolved thought and logic gathered from years of personal contact, books, and other sources can be put into a 30 second sound bite.

And I will gladly provide you with links as I already have if I make an assertion that you doubt. It is common courtesy.

Travis

Be as courteous as you want. It doesn't mean anything if it is wrong or useless.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The Constitution and Bill of Rights do the job quite nicely when followed, thank you.

I agree.

You could say that. Eliminate them all, though and following the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be even better.

I agree.

No, they arent. -But a lot of those laws SHOULD be repealled for they are not Constitutional.

name one country in history that has effectively implemented tight border restrictions? You can't because they are not enforceable. The consitution is great and it would be a great idea to follow it, but it is not the reason that we should do things. We should do things because it is the right thing to do and Hopefully the consitution agrees.

Not all evolved thought and logic gathered from years of personal contact, books, and other sources can be put into a 30 second sound bite.

Not asking for a 30 second soundbite. I beleived you were saying that the US had tight immigration restrictions ealry in its history. I asked for some proof. It could have been a 50 page essay or a 30 second sound bite. You responded by implying I got all my information from the web and that you owed nothing to me. You are right that you owe nothing to me, but if you are going to make assertions in a forum, it is generally considered respectful to also try to offer something to back it up.

Since we are in agreement that the US should scrap its immigration controls and did not have strict border restrictions when it was originally formed, that is really not required anymore.

Be as courteous as you want. It doesn't mean anything if it is wrong or useless.

I am curious where you feel I was wrong?

Travis

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by NewGuy
It ain't all about guns and fences.

Exactly why i think it might be a wise idea to just annex mexico. After all they are part of North America. we could make a bunch of new states. expand the potential for American growth. take care of the mexican immigration problem, and shorten our souther boarder considerably.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Exactly why i think it might be a wise idea to just annex mexico. After all they are part of North America. we could make a bunch of new states. expand the potential for American growth. take care of the mexican immigration problem, and shorten our souther boarder considerably.

If they voted to become a part of the US and the consitutional requirements for admitting new states were followed I would love to see this as well.

I would also like to see states be given the choice to leave the union as well. I think if that right were never taken away from the states, Mexico and Canada all would be a part of the US by now.

Travis

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by tpahl
name one country in history that has effectively implemented tight border restrictions? You can't because they are not enforceable.

Why do you think that?

The consitution is great and it would be a great idea to follow it, but it is not the reason that we should do things. We should do things because it is the right thing to do and Hopefully the consitution agrees.

The problem is that you have not yet understood the Constitution. If you have read and understood it, you would see it is an ETHICAL system of government first, and a political one second. True, God is the higher authority, but the question of fairness of the Constitution cannot be denied.

Not asking for a 30 second soundbite. I beleived you were saying that the US had tight immigration restrictions ealry in its history. I asked for some proof.

When did I say that? I clarified myself quite obviously.

It could have been a 50 page essay or a 30 second sound bite. You responded by implying I got all my information from the web and that you owed nothing to me.

I implied not all information comes from web links, and not all understanding can be put on the web when aquired from vast time frames.

You are right that you owe nothing to me, but if you are going to make assertions in a forum, it is generally considered respectful to also try to offer something to back it up.

Only when gathering a single regurgitated factioid from another source.

I am curious where you feel I was wrong?

Travis

In context, you wrote:

And I will gladly provide you with links as I already have if I make an assertion that you doubt. It is common courtesy.

Travis

To which I replied:

Be as courteous as you want. It doesn't mean anything if it is wrong or useless.

Which means: If your information is wrong, being courteous by providing links is useless.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Exactly why i think it might be a wise idea to just annex mexico. After all they are part of North America. we could make a bunch of new states. expand the potential for American growth. take care of the mexican immigration problem, and shorten our souther boarder considerably.

The economics would be a disaster. We could not possibly take on their poverty without pulling ourselves out of our welfare system first.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by NewGuy

The problem is that you have not yet understood the Constitution. If you have read and understood it, you would see it is an ETHICAL system of government first, and a political one second. True, God is the higher authority, but the question of fairness of the Constitution cannot be denied.

I have read and understand the constitution. I am not sure why you would think otherwise. The consitution is merely the rule that are federal government is supposed to follow. It was designed to protect peoples rights not grant them. There are flaws in our constitution. Even if there were not flaws, I would still not say that the REASON we should do things is the constitution. The reason is always something else and the constitution is a MEANS to obtain our goals, not a goal in itself.

I implied not all information comes from web links, and not all understanding can be put on the web when aquired from vast time frames.

I suppose not, but you were not making any profound statement. In fact it is a very minor statement at COULD be backed up very easily. In fact the link I had provided earlier backs up your statement now that I understand it better.

Travis

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by tpahl
I have read and understand the constitution. I am not sure why you would think otherwise. The consitution is merely the rule that are federal government is supposed to follow. It was designed to protect peoples rights not grant them.

Agreed.

There are flaws in our constitution.

No, there are not. -Not in the original nor first 10 Amendments, anyway. Anything additional ventures into the realm of being unConstitutional in even being there in the first place.

Even if there were not flaws, I would still not say that the REASON we should do things is the constitution. The reason is always something else and the constitution is a MEANS to obtain our goals, not a goal in itself.

It also grants what we may or may not do within it. IF we want to conduct war, the document explains under what reasoning we may do it by the methodology and parameters it allows our structure in its given documented authority.

In almost any case of law or function, REASON is granted by mere context of document.

I suppose not, but you were not making any profound statement. In fact it is a very minor statement at COULD be backed up very easily. In fact the link I had provided earlier backs up your statement now that I understand it better.

The issue is wisdom.

Intelligence is knowledge of fact. Wisdom is application of it and ability to reason with it.

I cannot link to wisdom providing entire sequence of thought and fact aquired. Linking to intelligence is even getting more difficult daily.

Sometimes you have to take a statement based on wisdom and prove it correct or incorrect through deep thought and analysis of entire collections of data.

That was my point.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by NewGuy
No, there are not. -Not in the original nor first 10 Amendments, anyway. Anything additional ventures into the realm of being unConstitutional in even being there in the first place.

In order for you to say that the later amendments are unConsitutional, you would have to argue that article V is not part of the constitution either.

There are parts of both the original constitution and the first 10 amendments that I do not like and parts after it as well. But they ARE part of the constitution no matter how much I dislike them.

In particular, I do not like Article V... I think the amendment process should require unanimous consent of all states of the union.

I did not like the 3/5 of a person part and Man rather than person as well.

After the first ten amendments, the parts I do not like are the income tax amendment, the direct vote of senators amendment, and alcohol prohibition (but thankfully they have actually corrected that one.

It also grants what we may or may not do within it. IF we want to conduct war, the document explains under what reasoning we may do it by the methodology and parameters it allows our structure in its given documented authority.

In almost any case of law or function, REASON is granted by mere context of document.

reason may be found within the context, but that does not mean that is where the reason originated.


travis

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The economics would be a disaster. We could not possibly take on their poverty without pulling ourselves out of our welfare system first.

All the better. we dont need the welfare system. Atleast not this one. Our welfare system is satanic. You cant give people something and let them sit around idle without there being problems.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by tpahl
In order for you to say that the later amendments are unConsitutional, you would have to argue that article V is not part of the constitution either.

Not true. I don't know where you come up with that.

Any law or Amendment going against the Constitution as it is written before the law or Amendment is created is null and void. -By simple Constitutional decree.

After the first ten amendments, the parts I do not like are the income tax amendment, the direct vote of senators amendment, and alcohol prohibition (but thankfully they have actually corrected that one.

Prohibition was repealled unConstitutionally.

reason may be found within the context, but that does not mean that is where the reason originated.

Uhhhh....I said that.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
All the better. we dont need the welfare system. Atleast not this one. Our welfare system is satanic. You cant give people something and let them sit around idle without there being problems.

I agree, but that is the problem. America gets more and more socialist everyday further causing a situation of socialism. You cannot have us taking on a nation with MORE dead weight and expect our own economy not to implode. We will never get rid of our tax and redistribute to the masses mentality.