Why is Building the Wall Wrong?

[Porter Rockwell]

SHACKLESOFBIGGOV is aptly named. He wants more and more government to save him from people he calls "illegals." So, he's all over the board, unable to make a cogent statement about the issue. We can make this easy for everybody. It will only take a few posts, so let us see this issue put into perspective for all to understand.

Immigration - "The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term “emigration” denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country" Black's Law Dictionary What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Naturalization - "The act of adopting an alien into a nation, and clothing him with all the rights possessed by a natural- born citizen" Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 12 Sup. Ct. 375, 36 L. Ed. 103.

Citizen - In general, A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas.) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties. Black's Law Dictionary What is CITIZEN? definition of CITIZEN (Black's Law Dictionary)

FACT: The word immigration is not in the Constitution

FACT: There is no term in the Constitution that defines people who come and go and do business in the United States without becoming citizens

FACT: Society has misused the words immigrant and immigration loosely so that it covers both people seeking to become citizens and those who come here strictly to do business with Americans

FACT: There is nothing in the Constitution that confers any power to any branch of government to restrict the movement of people conducting business including, but not limited to foreigners, temporary laborers, businesses, guest workers, and invitees.

FACT: The Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power ...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization..." That is the extent of their jurisdiction; no more and no less. Congress gets to decide who may become a citizen of the United States. Congress has NO power to tell the individual state who they may or may not let into their respective states to conduct business. If it were in the Constitution, someone would have pointed out in the more than

Here is a link to some research done by the Cato Institute on what the founders had to say relative to immigration:

The Founding Fathers Favored a Liberal Immigration System

*NOTE: In most contexts where the founders are discussing and / or debating "immigration," it is in reference to people who are coming to the United States for permanent residence. Their discussions DO NOT cover people who come into the United States to do business.

People like SHACKLESOFBIGGOV are using the misapplication of the word immigration to give the government powers that they simply do not have in the Constitution. IF such a power existed, those who obsess over the wall would have pointed that power out.

 

[Slyhunter]

Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.

Non-citizens should not qualify for ANY kind of welfare. IF they are getting freebies, the greatest thing you can do to incentivize the foreigners from coming here is cut that practice - even if takes a constitutional amendment to do so.

Non-citizens should not allowed to vote IF it is happening. Non-citizens who plan on being in the United States should be issued a separate Tax ID and pay a higher rate for NOT becoming citizens. Why the higher rate? Citizenship has its perks.

IF there are fewer jobs on account of foreigners; if there are costs (which, in reality there are not), then you offset those costs with a higher tax rate.

You can also give employers SUBSTANTIAL tax incentives to hire an all American staff with all of its subsidiaries IN the United States.

You can REPEAL the 14th Amendment and take the "anchor baby" argument OFF the table PLUS eliminate, once a for all, this idiotic, dishonest or uninformed notion that foreigners without papers don't have rights. I can assure you that they do. I'm doing a simplification of this issue from A to Z. I will keep each post updated so that you can scroll through the posts and figure out how the build the wall idiots are working toward their own demise AND what it will take to bring us back to sanity.

 

[Slyhunter]

Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.

Non-citizens should not qualify for ANY kind of welfare. IF they are getting freebies, the greatest thing you can do to incentivize the foreigners from coming here is cut that practice - even if takes a constitutional amendment to do so.

Non-citizens should not allowed to vote IF it is happening. Non-citizens who plan on being in the United States should be issued a separate Tax ID and pay a higher rate for NOT becoming citizens. Why the higher rate? Citizenship has its perks.

IF there are fewer jobs on account of foreigners; if there are costs (which, in reality there are not), then you offset those costs with a higher tax rate.

You can also give employers SUBSTANTIAL tax incentives to hire an all American staff with all of its subsidiaries IN the United States.

You can REPEAL the 14th Amendment and take the "anchor baby" argument OFF the table PLUS eliminate, once a for all, this idiotic, dishonest or uninformed notion that foreigners without papers don't have rights. I can assure you that they do. I'm doing a simplification of this issue from A to Z. I will keep each post updated so that you can scroll through the posts and figure out how the build the wall idiots are working toward their own demise AND what it will take to bring us back to sanity.

Their american born anchor babies collect welfare and give it to their illegal alien parents.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

SHACKLESOFBIGGOV is aptly named. He wants more and more government to save him from people he calls "illegals." So, he's all over the board, unable to make a cogent statement about the issue. We can make this easy for everybody. It will only take a few posts, so let us see this issue put into perspective for all to understand.

Immigration - "The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term “emigration” denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country" Black's Law Dictionary What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Naturalization - "The act of adopting an alien into a nation, and clothing him with all the rights possessed by a natural- born citizen" Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 12 Sup. Ct. 375, 36 L. Ed. 103.

Citizen - In general, A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas.) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties. Black's Law Dictionary What is CITIZEN? definition of CITIZEN (Black's Law Dictionary)

FACT: The word immigration is not in the Constitution

FACT: There is no term in the Constitution that defines people who come and go and do business in the United States without becoming citizens

FACT: Society has misused the words immigrant and immigration loosely so that it covers both people seeking to become citizens and those who come here strictly to do business with Americans

FACT: There is nothing in the Constitution that confers any power to any branch of government to restrict the movement of people conducting business including, but not limited to foreigners, temporary laborers, businesses, guest workers, and invitees.

FACT: The Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power ...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization..." That is the extent of their jurisdiction; no more and no less. Congress gets to decide who may become a citizen of the United States. Congress has NO power to tell the individual state who they may or may not let into their respective states to conduct business. If it were in the Constitution, someone would have pointed out in the more than

Here is a link to some research done by the Cato Institute on what the founders had to say relative to immigration:

The Founding Fathers Favored a Liberal Immigration System

*NOTE: In most contexts where the founders are discussing and / or debating "immigration," it is in reference to people who are coming to the United States for permanent residence. Their discussions DO NOT cover people who come into the United States to do business.

People like SHACKLESOFBIGGOV are using the misapplication of the word immigration to give the government powers that they simply do not have in the Constitution. IF such a power existed, those who obsess over the wall would have pointed that power out.

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POST # 4581

The Declaration provides that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Throughout my writings, I have been partly dishonest with my critics because they are being wholly dishonest about the REAL America. Whether we like it or not; agree with it or not, the immigration / foreigner issue is perceived as a race issue by both the left and the right. Both sides cannot have a civil discussion without interjecting race into the issue.

On my part, I have tried to soft sell America by quoting the part about "all men being created equal ...endowed with certain unalienable Rights..." If backed into a corner, I could always fall back on the fact that Thomas Jefferson wrote those words and he must have felt that way because he brought mixed race children into this world by way of Sally Hemmings. So, let's quit blowing smoke up each other's hind quarters and admit a few things before we start thinking about building a wall around the southern border.

The first governing document of the New World (as the colonists knew it) was the Mayflower Compact which was signed in 1620. A relevant part goes like this:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith."

It wasn't long after that a preacher by the name of Pastor John Winthrop gave a sermon aboard the ship the Arabella on its way to America in 1630. It is entitled: A Model of Christian Charity. This sermon is very symbolic to our national heritage and it has been quoted by many politicians and presidents including Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. I'd like to quote a few things for you from that speech:

"First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions....

...Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles.

We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world."

http://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

The point here is that the early colonists saw themselves as being the Israelites of the Bible and America as the New Jerusalem. This is the most important fact that I can make should you want to look at why we cannot build a wall around the southern border. I dare not explain this to you in this posting, but we will look at it. The liberals cannot be ignored either so I'd like to leave you with a link to their view of America's human rights record:

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Go Deeper | PBS

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.

Non-citizens should not qualify for ANY kind of welfare. IF they are getting freebies, the greatest thing you can do to incentivize the foreigners from coming here is cut that practice - even if takes a constitutional amendment to do so.

Non-citizens should not allowed to vote IF it is happening. Non-citizens who plan on being in the United States should be issued a separate Tax ID and pay a higher rate for NOT becoming citizens. Why the higher rate? Citizenship has its perks.

IF there are fewer jobs on account of foreigners; if there are costs (which, in reality there are not), then you offset those costs with a higher tax rate.

You can also give employers SUBSTANTIAL tax incentives to hire an all American staff with all of its subsidiaries IN the United States.

You can REPEAL the 14th Amendment and take the "anchor baby" argument OFF the table PLUS eliminate, once a for all, this idiotic, dishonest or uninformed notion that foreigners without papers don't have rights. I can assure you that they do. I'm doing a simplification of this issue from A to Z. I will keep each post updated so that you can scroll through the posts and figure out how the build the wall idiots are working toward their own demise AND what it will take to bring us back to sanity.

Their american born anchor babies collect welfare and give it to their illegal alien parents.

Are you still stuck on stupid? How much do you think each American born baby gets in welfare? Most us know you are lying out your ass. Having an American born baby here does not anchor the parents to the United States. Trump has kicked undocumented foreigners out of the country and they had several American born children left behind when he did it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?

You're like a broken clock. Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.

The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore ALL the laws surrounding the issue. THIS is going to be their downfall. There are two sides to every issue.

People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table. The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions. Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.

If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.

So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections. Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that? That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.

Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants. It is in fact referencing “We the people (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect Union. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.



In short I have more references and examples which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.

You are an absolute dumb ass. You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you. I've not said anything regarding every form of "border enhancement." That is total bullshit you just made up.

IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall. A wall must transverse across PRIVATE property lines wherein people do not want it. The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of enforcement of the wall. Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people? Your side pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc. THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS.

IF your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is. You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument. So, let me get you caught up to speed:

You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:

"the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."

This statement is absolutely true. That is two points you have gotten right this week. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:

The 14th Amendment created TWO separate and distinct classes of citizens. You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links. Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen. Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty. The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. Initially when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship. HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought everybody under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.

Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights. If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of life, liberty and property - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States. These are government granted rights, but it is what it is. There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint. Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor. That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment. In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion. Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?

The Two United States

I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners? A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States. A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners. I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well. How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?

You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument. Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?

Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union. This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written. There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”. I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”. So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”? I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above. I’m the liar? I’m the idiot? Please.

Your lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know Thank you for the entertainment.

 

[LilOlLady]

Proof of the problem with unchecked and open borders. If we had a wall in 1492 the European immigrant savages would not have been able to enslave, murder, rape, spread disease, steal the land, separated native children from their parents and put them in Christians home taking away their language, culture, and clothing. Sound familiar? We should denounce Columbus as a criminal and rename Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples’ Solidarity Day, Columbus didn't “discover” America — he never set foot in North America. If we do not learn from our mistake, we are bound to repeat them.

 

[danielpalos]

Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.

only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and claim to for Capitalism and specifically not socialism on a national basis.

 

[danielpalos]

Regardless of all the shit you spout in your over-abundance of word play it doesn't change the fact that America can not afford to give welfare to the worlds poor. We need to keep them out or they will bankrupt our country.

Non-citizens should not qualify for ANY kind of welfare. IF they are getting freebies, the greatest thing you can do to incentivize the foreigners from coming here is cut that practice - even if takes a constitutional amendment to do so.

Non-citizens should not allowed to vote IF it is happening. Non-citizens who plan on being in the United States should be issued a separate Tax ID and pay a higher rate for NOT becoming citizens. Why the higher rate? Citizenship has its perks.

IF there are fewer jobs on account of foreigners; if there are costs (which, in reality there are not), then you offset those costs with a higher tax rate.

You can also give employers SUBSTANTIAL tax incentives to hire an all American staff with all of its subsidiaries IN the United States.

You can REPEAL the 14th Amendment and take the "anchor baby" argument OFF the table PLUS eliminate, once a for all, this idiotic, dishonest or uninformed notion that foreigners without papers don't have rights. I can assure you that they do. I'm doing a simplification of this issue from A to Z. I will keep each post updated so that you can scroll through the posts and figure out how the build the wall idiots are working toward their own demise AND what it will take to bring us back to sanity.

Their american born anchor babies collect welfare and give it to their illegal alien parents.

Upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure would enable revenue generation and that refugees are in the minority.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank Goodness for our Constitution.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.

 

[danielpalos]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.

we have a separation of powers, for a reason.

and,

we have no immigration clause in Constitution.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?

You're like a broken clock. Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.

The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore ALL the laws surrounding the issue. THIS is going to be their downfall. There are two sides to every issue.

People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table. The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions. Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.

If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.

So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections. Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that? That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.

Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants. It is in fact referencing “We the people (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect Union. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.



In short I have more references and examples which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.

You are an absolute dumb ass. You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you. I've not said anything regarding every form of "border enhancement." That is total bullshit you just made up.

IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall. A wall must transverse across PRIVATE property lines wherein people do not want it. The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of enforcement of the wall. Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people? Your side pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc. THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS.

IF your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is. You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument. So, let me get you caught up to speed:

You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:

"the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."

This statement is absolutely true. That is two points you have gotten right this week. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:

The 14th Amendment created TWO separate and distinct classes of citizens. You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links. Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen. Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty. The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. Initially when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship. HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought everybody under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.

Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights. If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of life, liberty and property - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States. These are government granted rights, but it is what it is. There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint. Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor. That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment. In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion. Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?

The Two United States

I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners? A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States. A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners. I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well. How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?

You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument. Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?

Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union. This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written. There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”. I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”. So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”? I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above. I’m the liar? I’m the idiot? Please.

Your lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know Thank you for the entertainment.

You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition. While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts. Now you're saying a border, not a wall. Did you forget what this subject is about?

If you were only READING my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make. You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been agreeing with some of your points. I'm also telling the whole truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right. See posts # 4581 and 4585. At least one more posting is coming up today.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.

A wall means more government, more intrusions, fewer Liberties, and a further dismantling of the Bill of Rights. And, it means that once Trump trades his freaking wall for gun control, the liberals will let the wall go to Hell the next time they are in power, becoming a graffiti canvas while you're stuck with so many tyrannical laws that resistance to oppression and unconstitutional acts will be impossible.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.

A wall means more government, more intrusions, fewer Liberties, and a further dismantling of the Bill of Rights. And, it means that once Trump trades his freaking wall for gun control, the liberals will let the wall go to Hell the next time they are in power, becoming a graffiti canvas while you're stuck with so many tyrannical laws that resistance to oppression and unconstitutional acts will be impossible.

All Trump was asking for in this budget was barriers in a few strategic areas that border guards wanted and needed. Apparently even that was too much for the leftist.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF POSTS # 4581 AND 4585

For those who cannot keep up this go around, the top is "Is building the wall wrong?" We keep having the same conversation so I'm answering ALL the questions, laying the facts on the table and challenging our in resident socialist to attempt to refute any point made. I could have sworn I left the following link in one of my previous posts, but don't see it. So, to add what I already said in posts # 4581 and and 4585 I leave this before I begin:

The Wall’s of History

The reality is, America was founded by white Christians whose ancestors, the first colonists, believed they were the Israel of the Bible. I've shown evidence of this in my earlier posts, but will add to it.

Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress passed the first Naturalization Act in 1790. Here is the relevant portion:

"CHAP, IIT.—... to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

.(a) March 26,1790. SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof..."

Most, if not all, the state constitutions, charters, compacts, and statutes only allowed whites - and usually Christian whites to have the privileges of voting and / or holding public office. Since the founders did not think in terms of "race" per se (the way we view it) what we know as the privileges of citizenship were limited to "Freeholders or Freemen." Unless one was a Freeholder, they could not vote, hold public office, serve on juries or become a member of the commonwealth of a state.

Freeman's Oath

So committed to this Rule of Naturalization that the states made the intentions unequivocally clear. For example, the 1776 Constitution of Virginia contains this wording:

"Section 1 - That men are, by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which when they enter into a state if society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."

The posterity of the founders were members of the white race. The intent of the founders was that those people can never be divested of their status... another reason the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. But I digress. We will move forward with my next posting.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.

A wall means more government, more intrusions, fewer Liberties, and a further dismantling of the Bill of Rights. And, it means that once Trump trades his freaking wall for gun control, the liberals will let the wall go to Hell the next time they are in power, becoming a graffiti canvas while you're stuck with so many tyrannical laws that resistance to oppression and unconstitutional acts will be impossible.

All Trump was asking for in this budget was barriers in a few strategic areas that border guards wanted and needed. Apparently even that was too much for the leftist.

Really dude? The wall fight has about as much sincerity as a professional wrestling match. The left wanted it before the right did. What you're seeing is the phony fight that leaves you with National Gun Control in exchange for a wall that will become a canvas for graffiti artists the next time the liberals are in control and defund its enforcement. Don't sweat it. You're going to get your silly wall - and when you're paying the REAL cost, you will lay in bed at night wishing you had read my walls of text on why this is the WRONG move to make.

 

[danielpalos]

It’s a waste of money . If the goal is to address illegal immigration, then that money is better spent in other ways .

More ins agents , more immigrantion courts , more judges . More enforcement vs companies who hire illegals . That’s a better use if the money .

A wall means less border agents needed,less immigration courts and less burden on private industry to do governments job.

A wall means more government, more intrusions, fewer Liberties, and a further dismantling of the Bill of Rights. And, it means that once Trump trades his freaking wall for gun control, the liberals will let the wall go to Hell the next time they are in power, becoming a graffiti canvas while you're stuck with so many tyrannical laws that resistance to oppression and unconstitutional acts will be impossible.

All Trump was asking for in this budget was barriers in a few strategic areas that border guards wanted and needed. Apparently even that was too much for the leftist.

improved trade relations and resorting to capitalism instead of socialism for walls; is what the right wing Should be about; not socialism on a national basis.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

don't really care about the law unless it supports your right wing bigotry, right wingers?

You're like a broken clock. Even the most liberal guy has the potential to be right twice a day.

The bottom line, no bullshit, no debatable point is, those who want a wall ignore ALL the laws surrounding the issue. THIS is going to be their downfall. There are two sides to every issue.

People like protectionist want to litigate on a discussion board instead of having the facts put on the table. The right will lose on peripheral issues as they cannot understand the long term ramifications of their actions. Many times the right screws themselves because they have no insight.

If protectionist wants to see how incompetent and silly their legal arguments are, I'm willing to give him the ultimate example today.

So when Canada and the United States imposes specific customs “check points” locations on their border, the requirement to provide a passport, go through a series of questions and possibly be required to submit to car inspections. Are they, in any way, violating this concept of God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights? Can you provide Supreme Court, and/or a statement from the Constitutional Congress that supports that? That is YOUR claim that any form of border enforcement does.

Again, the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants. It is in fact referencing “We the people (of the United States) in Order to form a more perfect Union. ... more specifically CITIZENS recognized by the United States. Citizens, NOT foreign immigrants, have congressional representation which establishes law for the common good, just as the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution supports.



In short I have more references and examples which reflect and back up my view point, than you have been able to show to the contrary.

You are an absolute dumb ass. You lie so much that nobody here on the left or the right can have a constructive discussion with you. I've not said anything regarding every form of "border enhancement." That is total bullshit you just made up.

IF you looked at what the OP is about, it is in reference to a wall. A wall must transverse across PRIVATE property lines wherein people do not want it. The wall requires the America people to forfeit their Liberties in the name of enforcement of the wall. Do you not recall the number of laws and policies that have been put in effect to monitor foreigners that have been more costly to the American people? Your side pushed the so called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, the end of the presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty, assaults on private property, total nullification of the Fourth Amendment, warrant less search and seizures, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, National Gun Registration, the cashless society, etc. THESE ARE FRUITS OF YOUR LABORS.

IF your idiotic ass would read the links I provide, you would know full well the answer to every question you asked and what the exact answer is. You are so full of shit that one minute you're making one argument and the next minute, you're making the opposite argument. So, let me get you caught up to speed:

You start sounding like a patriot with the statement that:

"the preamble does not apply to foreign immigrants."

This statement is absolutely true. That is two points you have gotten right this week. In the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case the United States Supreme Court ruled that:

"It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them and for them and their posterity, but for no one else."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Now, here is where you get this bass ackwards:

The 14th Amendment created TWO separate and distinct classes of citizens. You have Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens... points you would have learned had you actually read my links. Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities along with this wording:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice the differentiation between the way the 14th Amendment uses the terms person and Citizen. Under the 14th Amendment foreigners are absolutely guaranteed Liberty. The moment their feet hit U.S. soil, they have rights that Uncle Scam bestowed upon them. Initially when they became citizens, they were eligible for all kinds of benefits and privileges of citizenship. HOWEVER, as time has gone on the Courts have brought everybody under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment.

Unless you claim your Rights under the Preamble, you are a 14th Amendment citizen and have no claim to the Bill of Rights. If you are a foreigner, under the 14th Amendment, you have the guaranteed Rights of life, liberty and property - REGARDLESS of how you came into the United States. These are government granted rights, but it is what it is. There is NO exception just because they came in at something other than a checkpoint. Consequently, the Supreme Court has ruled that being here without papers is not a crime; if undocumented parents here have children born in the United States, they are citizens as per the 14th Amendment; ANY competent court will not split families up because the parents violated a civil misdemeanor. That would be a clear cut violation of the 8th Amendment. In the near future your talking points are going to leave you with a minimum of 6 MILLION people that will vote your dumb ass into oblivion. Are you getting a fucking clue as to why I'm opposed to the 14th Amendment at this point OR are you still running around like a chicken with it's head cut off?

The Two United States

I’m a dumb ass for stating we have a northern border as well that Canada and the United States both use in establishing points of entry and requirements of foreigners? A border, by the way, that does not hinder foreign business and those who wish to do business in the United States. A border that does not hinder God given, natural inherent, absolute, unalienable, irrevocable rights of foreigners. I’m sure somewhere along that well established national border you will find it close to some personal property rights as well. How is any of that a lie... calling ME the dumbass ?

You simply don’t like it when someone finds holes in your argument. Especially when such a well researched expert who prides over 250 cases, yet never once heard of national sovereignty or eminent domain?

Yes, to educate you once more .. the Constitution begins with We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union. This is in reference towards those recognized citizens of the United States. African Americans did not have any rights, they were viewed as “property” at the time those words were written. There is no evidence that Native Americans were considered a part of “We the people”. I don’t see any Federalist papers, Founders quotes, or early Supreme Court cases where territories (like the Louisiana Purchase) considered any tribe or foreign traveler generally residing in that region as part of “We the people”. So while native Americans in these western territories were not recognized, while our Founders did not recognize African Americans as anything BUT property at that time, you want me to believe foreign immigrants from other nations make up “We the People” with THEIR “inalienable rights”? I’m surprised as a “Constitutional and mr research expert” (laughing) you didn’t know any of that which I just listed above. I’m the liar? I’m the idiot? Please.

Your lack of documented research on this that proves me otherwise, as you stumble all over yourself, says everything I need to know Thank you for the entertainment.

You're a dumb ass for using straw man arguments in a vain attempt to prove an unprovable proposition. While you rant about it, you've again changed the goalposts. Now you're saying a border, not a wall. Did you forget what this subject is about?

If you were only READING my posts (and not just the ones in response to you) I am answering each and every point you make. You see, while you've been making all that noise, I've been agreeing with some of your points. I'm also telling the whole truth... not the portions that benefit the left and not those that benefit the right. See posts # 4581 and 4585. At least one more posting is coming up today.

The unprovable position is the claim border enforcement on southern border, which is the same as those designated entry points already used in our northern border ... interferes with and interferes with the freedom to do business and work in the United States. A total BS unproven argument on your part as it has no impact associated with our northern border.

Your inalienable rights preamble you keep spouting off as your argument, likewise holds no evidence when we look at border enforcement associated with Canada. Both points successfully debunked simply by looking to the simple fact we have controlled entry points to the north.

Someone who is against allowing the same designated, organized, and controlled enforcement of a border thats found to our north .. to be the exception to our south is an enabler to the illegal immigration problem. Unless you happen to be in favor of troops in those vast open, unsecured areas of our border, we need a secured and closely monitored border to our south.

Making and / or listing “excuses” for illegal aliens and illegal immigration shows blatant disrespect (a spit in the face) to those overseas foreigners who take the time to come here through the LEGAL process to become citizens. It creates two classes of immigrants (1) that comes here and works hard to attain citizenship through the long legal process .. and (2) those who sneak across illegally who we make excuses for breaking the law, and make as an exception to the rule by treating them differently from legal foreign immigrants. With respect to foreign immigrants and immigration, this is NOT “all men are created equal” for as many times as you like to quote the Constitution. There is no way you can spin “equality” between those who endure the legal process to become citizens ... and those who have their means to cross “illegally” as an exception to the rule!!

I can’t make it any more clear for the “enablers” of the problem.