A message from a Mexican to The USA

[Correll]

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. 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." Thomas Paine

Amen!

Lol amen your idiot buddy there
How is defending illegals collecting benefits from state government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems

Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect

ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .

Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot

You guys are shot and living in dreamworld

One thing I despise is a LIAR. YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies. And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more POLICE STATE intervention. Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union. I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.

I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned). And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something? What's the alternative?

Sanctuary was won by right wing conservatives. Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws. State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so. The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call "illegal aliens." IF those people prevail, gun owners would have NO recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional. I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary. But, then this post would be TLDR.

Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you. Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate POLICE STATE could not be refuted or dismissed. It would be official.

Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, NOBODY can tell them what viable alternatives they may have. So, which bothers you? Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law OR do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?

She made 4 points in her post.


1. The local governments not representing their constituents.

2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.

3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,

4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.


Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.

You're posting silliness. I have not ridiculed the woman at all. Neither am I being snarky. She is an immigrant. MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary. The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws. She doesn't want to accept that.

Local governments ARE representing their constituents. It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue. Why? The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages. In other words, the feds are controlling it. They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right. There are NO alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate. For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil. Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.

If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship. Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is NOT a legal issue. The overwhelming majority of the so - called "legal" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws. They want to repeal all of them. It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.

Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.


ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.

And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?

IIRC in a post on another thread I thought she said she came here "legally." I might be mistaken; it may have been her parents. In any case, she is the product of what her parents or the cults have taught her. MaryL. consistently refuses to answer questions I've asked such as "Have you ever read the Constitution?" When I ask if someone believes that foreigners violated some sacred law, it's not meant to be snarky, it is an honest and objective question.

Coming into the United States without papers is the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn. It is, technically speaking, a federal civil misdemeanor. The United States Supreme Court has gone so far as to state that it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. So, knowing that this is statutory law and has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, it's not the fault of any legislator at any level because the United States Supreme Court has claimed that THEY, not we, the sheeple, are the final arbiters of what the law is. Barring a constitutional amendment, you're mostly out of options since the legislators and not even Trump can over-rule the United States Supreme Court - well, it hasn't been done since the high Court declared themselves to be the most powerful branch of government (around 1804 IIRC in Marbury v. Madison.)

Without knowing, specifically, what your objectives really are, I cannot offer up a solution. I asked once before if they gave all the undocumented foreigners citizenship. would that allay your fears? Between about 1987 and 2001 I know that those kinds of "amnesties" have taken place. There were more than half a dozen or so. Since nobody has challenged the constitutionality of those amnesties, I have to put that on the table. Everybody seems to be at peace with those who were given citizenship.

And, I keep coming back to the fact that, like it or not, we force people to become citizens as opposed to simply exercising their unalienable Rights and once they outnumber us, they vote in politicians that don't see things like you and MaryL. want them to be. And they are the majority now. The only reason Trump is in office is due to the electoral college, NOT the popular vote. So, today, try being honest with me and I will give you a no nonsense evaluation of what is open to you and why.

1. I comment on the reality of the issue, and you cite an Authority. That is not an answer to the merit of her point. Outsiders are coming into her community, against her wishes and the wishes of her community. Her complaint about that is valid.

2. I already discussed the failure of our Political Class, as a general point. (re your discussion of the Court and the amnesties.)

3. We do not force people to become citizens. We forbid them to come here by law. That the law is not enforced by those who's job it is to do so, does not make it right. Your claim otherwise is very odd.

4. Yes, they are a majority now, when combined with white liberals. It does not bode well for our civilization. Dark times are likely coming, and soon.

 

[Correll]

. and the lack of alternatives for the People.

Liberty- Period. Unless, of course you believe in inalienable rights over unalienable rights- which you have yet to answer when asked which leaves but one alternative for this people- you prefer to not be cornered by one who espouses Liberty as the ONLY way to live- they are an UNalienable rights, not inalienable.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Do you know where the above came from? As has been said, the past is prelude.

Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,


is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.


The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.

When we have a system that encourages outsiders (sic) to get some human registration papers and participate in the process, you're simply being "legally" over-run and the only person you can blame is yourself. Whatever laws you contemplate leave you with making some drastic changes OR you are going to have to accept the direction the majority is taking us.

I don't know what I have to do in order to get you to answer three or four questions honestly, but without knowing what you're really complaining about, not even Jesus could help you in a prayer.

IF the public was kept informed and the politicians honest about their intent and their policies, and their planned actions, and still won elections, then you could say, that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "

But none of that is happening, so blaming the Political Class and media, is valid.

You apparently have the equation wrong. A Representative represents. The reason things aren't getting done is you throw out a bumper sticker at a politician and expect them to do God knows what. I don't know what you want any more than they do. And, if you looked at the real price tag of what you hear these dishonest dolts say, you wouldn't want to pay the price either. One brush with the LEO community over the so called "Patriot Act" taught me to fully investigate the downsides to all legislation.

If we heard the real price and made an informed decision based on that, and we choose this result, it would then be legitimate.


But we have been lied to by the media and our politicians, and then they still fail to actually enforce the laws and policies that we end up with.

So, your claim that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "


Is not true.

 

[Correll]

Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,


is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.


The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.

I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.

Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.

Saying "liberty" is not an argument.

Correll, When you politicize a discussion, you do yourself a great disservice. Let's look at that word invade. According to Blacks Law Dictionary an invasion is:

"An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."

INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary

Find the legal definition of INVASION from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed....

thelawdictionary.org

What rights do you have that are being encroached upon by foreign workers? We've certainly not seen any army with their rifles, forcing employers to hire those from south of he border. What we see are Americans willingly doing business with foreigners. So, the onus is now on you to show us what rights you have that are being encroached upon.

The RIght of Sovereignty of the American people. The Right to decide who becomes a part of our communities. The Right to decide, to the degree with can control it, what direction our culture will develop.

Those rights, off the top of my head. There are probably some others.


Oh, and that is directly.

INDIRECTLY, with the leftward drift caused by demographic shift, all rights are threatened by the invasion.


Your focus on the Right of Individuals to do business with whom they want, while ignoring the Rights of everyone else involved, seems very odd.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. 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." Thomas Paine

Amen!

Lol amen your idiot buddy there
How is defending illegals collecting benefits from state government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems

Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect

ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .

Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot

You guys are shot and living in dreamworld

One thing I despise is a LIAR. YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies. And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more POLICE STATE intervention. Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union. I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.

I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned). And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something? What's the alternative?

Sanctuary was won by right wing conservatives. Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws. State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so. The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call "illegal aliens." IF those people prevail, gun owners would have NO recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional. I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary. But, then this post would be TLDR.

Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you. Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate POLICE STATE could not be refuted or dismissed. It would be official.

Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, NOBODY can tell them what viable alternatives they may have. So, which bothers you? Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law OR do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?

She made 4 points in her post.


1. The local governments not representing their constituents.

2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.

3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,

4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.


Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.

You're posting silliness. I have not ridiculed the woman at all. Neither am I being snarky. She is an immigrant. MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary. The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws. She doesn't want to accept that.

Local governments ARE representing their constituents. It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue. Why? The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages. In other words, the feds are controlling it. They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right. There are NO alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate. For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil. Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.

If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship. Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is NOT a legal issue. The overwhelming majority of the so - called "legal" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws. They want to repeal all of them. It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.

Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.


ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.

And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?

IIRC in a post on another thread I thought she said she came here "legally." I might be mistaken; it may have been her parents. In any case, she is the product of what her parents or the cults have taught her. MaryL. consistently refuses to answer questions I've asked such as "Have you ever read the Constitution?" When I ask if someone believes that foreigners violated some sacred law, it's not meant to be snarky, it is an honest and objective question.

Coming into the United States without papers is the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn. It is, technically speaking, a federal civil misdemeanor. The United States Supreme Court has gone so far as to state that it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. So, knowing that this is statutory law and has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, it's not the fault of any legislator at any level because the United States Supreme Court has claimed that THEY, not we, the sheeple, are the final arbiters of what the law is. Barring a constitutional amendment, you're mostly out of options since the legislators and not even Trump can over-rule the United States Supreme Court - well, it hasn't been done since the high Court declared themselves to be the most powerful branch of government (around 1804 IIRC in Marbury v. Madison.)

Without knowing, specifically, what your objectives really are, I cannot offer up a solution. I asked once before if they gave all the undocumented foreigners citizenship. would that allay your fears? Between about 1987 and 2001 I know that those kinds of "amnesties" have taken place. There were more than half a dozen or so. Since nobody has challenged the constitutionality of those amnesties, I have to put that on the table. Everybody seems to be at peace with those who were given citizenship.

And, I keep coming back to the fact that, like it or not, we force people to become citizens as opposed to simply exercising their unalienable Rights and once they outnumber us, they vote in politicians that don't see things like you and MaryL. want them to be. And they are the majority now. The only reason Trump is in office is due to the electoral college, NOT the popular vote. So, today, try being honest with me and I will give you a no nonsense evaluation of what is open to you and why.

1. I comment on the reality of the issue, and you cite an Authority. That is not an answer to the merit of her point. Outsiders are coming into her community, against her wishes and the wishes of her community. Her complaint about that is valid.

2. I already discussed the failure of our Political Class, as a general point. (re your discussion of the Court and the amnesties.)

3. We do not force people to become citizens. We forbid them to come here by law. That the law is not enforced by those who's job it is to do so, does not make it right. Your claim otherwise is very odd.

4. Yes, they are a majority now, when combined with white liberals. It does not bode well for our civilization. Dark times are likely coming, and soon.

1) You don't know that the complaint she has is valid. She may have gotten outvoted at the polls. Did you think about that?

2) Whatever you said is non-responsive in that reply

3) So, you think they are forbidden. Common sense has shown that you cannot criminalize Liberty and the courts have ruled that once in this country it is not a crime. I'm just stating facts here. You've wasted how much bandwidth trying to convince me that only citizens have Rights????????

4) If you're agreeing that they are the majority with their liberal co-conspirators, then common sense should dictate that you have to think outside the box because popularity contests don't favor your position. So, can I deduce from this you don't want the undocumented to become citizens?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

. and the lack of alternatives for the People.

Liberty- Period. Unless, of course you believe in inalienable rights over unalienable rights- which you have yet to answer when asked which leaves but one alternative for this people- you prefer to not be cornered by one who espouses Liberty as the ONLY way to live- they are an UNalienable rights, not inalienable.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Do you know where the above came from? As has been said, the past is prelude.

Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,


is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.


The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.

When we have a system that encourages outsiders (sic) to get some human registration papers and participate in the process, you're simply being "legally" over-run and the only person you can blame is yourself. Whatever laws you contemplate leave you with making some drastic changes OR you are going to have to accept the direction the majority is taking us.

I don't know what I have to do in order to get you to answer three or four questions honestly, but without knowing what you're really complaining about, not even Jesus could help you in a prayer.

IF the public was kept informed and the politicians honest about their intent and their policies, and their planned actions, and still won elections, then you could say, that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "

But none of that is happening, so blaming the Political Class and media, is valid.

You apparently have the equation wrong. A Representative represents. The reason things aren't getting done is you throw out a bumper sticker at a politician and expect them to do God knows what. I don't know what you want any more than they do. And, if you looked at the real price tag of what you hear these dishonest dolts say, you wouldn't want to pay the price either. One brush with the LEO community over the so called "Patriot Act" taught me to fully investigate the downsides to all legislation.

If we heard the real price and made an informed decision based on that, and we choose this result, it would then be legitimate.


But we have been lied to by the media and our politicians, and then they still fail to actually enforce the laws and policies that we end up with.

So, your claim that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "


Is not true.

1) Correll, your responses do not align with the post you are quoting. What "result" are you talking about?

2) The laws are being enforced. You simply do not understand them. You can't just "deport" people. You can't just round them up either. The United States Supreme Court said so. You have to have probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime before you can start hassling them. And, being in the United States without papers has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court NOT to be a crime. What law do you want enforced? Forget it. You can't even tell me WHY you are so obsessed with the issue.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,


is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.


The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.

I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.

Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.

Saying "liberty" is not an argument.

Correll, When you politicize a discussion, you do yourself a great disservice. Let's look at that word invade. According to Blacks Law Dictionary an invasion is:

"An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."

INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary

Find the legal definition of INVASION from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed....

thelawdictionary.org

What rights do you have that are being encroached upon by foreign workers? We've certainly not seen any army with their rifles, forcing employers to hire those from south of he border. What we see are Americans willingly doing business with foreigners. So, the onus is now on you to show us what rights you have that are being encroached upon.

The RIght of Sovereignty of the American people. The Right to decide who becomes a part of our communities. The Right to decide, to the degree with can control it, what direction our culture will develop.

Those rights, off the top of my head. There are probably some others.


Oh, and that is directly.

INDIRECTLY, with the leftward drift caused by demographic shift, all rights are threatened by the invasion.


Your focus on the Right of Individuals to do business with whom they want, while ignoring the Rights of everyone else involved, seems very odd.

The decisions have been made. But, really, dude you are making incoherent statements. Let's start over:

MY observation is that whether or not a foreigner comes or goes within the state is the STATE'S JURISDICTION. You brought up a "Right of Sovereignty of the American People." What in the Hell is that? According to Wikipedia:

"Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies."

Sovereignty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You've admitted that the left has you outvoted. It is within the power of a state as to who comes and goes. You keep wanting to revert to emotional arguments like that invasion B.S. You cannot articulate what it is that is really bothering you. The more government control you beg for in an era where you are the minority, the worse things becomes for every free person. It would help if you'd quit using emotion laden buzz words and political rhetoric and simply answer my questions with the specificity asked.

What legal interest do you have in my private financial transactions?

 

[Correll]

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. 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." Thomas Paine

Amen!

Lol amen your idiot buddy there
How is defending illegals collecting benefits from state government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems

Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect

ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .

Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot

You guys are shot and living in dreamworld

One thing I despise is a LIAR. YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies. And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more POLICE STATE intervention. Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union. I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.

I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned). And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something? What's the alternative?

Sanctuary was won by right wing conservatives. Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws. State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so. The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call "illegal aliens." IF those people prevail, gun owners would have NO recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional. I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary. But, then this post would be TLDR.

Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you. Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate POLICE STATE could not be refuted or dismissed. It would be official.

Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, NOBODY can tell them what viable alternatives they may have. So, which bothers you? Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law OR do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?

She made 4 points in her post.


1. The local governments not representing their constituents.

2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.

3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,

4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.


Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.

You're posting silliness. I have not ridiculed the woman at all. Neither am I being snarky. She is an immigrant. MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary. The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws. She doesn't want to accept that.

Local governments ARE representing their constituents. It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue. Why? The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages. In other words, the feds are controlling it. They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right. There are NO alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate. For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil. Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.

If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship. Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is NOT a legal issue. The overwhelming majority of the so - called "legal" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws. They want to repeal all of them. It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.

Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.


ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.

And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?

IIRC in a post on another thread I thought she said she came here "legally." I might be mistaken; it may have been her parents. In any case, she is the product of what her parents or the cults have taught her. MaryL. consistently refuses to answer questions I've asked such as "Have you ever read the Constitution?" When I ask if someone believes that foreigners violated some sacred law, it's not meant to be snarky, it is an honest and objective question.

Coming into the United States without papers is the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn. It is, technically speaking, a federal civil misdemeanor. The United States Supreme Court has gone so far as to state that it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. So, knowing that this is statutory law and has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, it's not the fault of any legislator at any level because the United States Supreme Court has claimed that THEY, not we, the sheeple, are the final arbiters of what the law is. Barring a constitutional amendment, you're mostly out of options since the legislators and not even Trump can over-rule the United States Supreme Court - well, it hasn't been done since the high Court declared themselves to be the most powerful branch of government (around 1804 IIRC in Marbury v. Madison.)

Without knowing, specifically, what your objectives really are, I cannot offer up a solution. I asked once before if they gave all the undocumented foreigners citizenship. would that allay your fears? Between about 1987 and 2001 I know that those kinds of "amnesties" have taken place. There were more than half a dozen or so. Since nobody has challenged the constitutionality of those amnesties, I have to put that on the table. Everybody seems to be at peace with those who were given citizenship.

And, I keep coming back to the fact that, like it or not, we force people to become citizens as opposed to simply exercising their unalienable Rights and once they outnumber us, they vote in politicians that don't see things like you and MaryL. want them to be. And they are the majority now. The only reason Trump is in office is due to the electoral college, NOT the popular vote. So, today, try being honest with me and I will give you a no nonsense evaluation of what is open to you and why.

1. I comment on the reality of the issue, and you cite an Authority. That is not an answer to the merit of her point. Outsiders are coming into her community, against her wishes and the wishes of her community. Her complaint about that is valid.

2. I already discussed the failure of our Political Class, as a general point. (re your discussion of the Court and the amnesties.)

3. We do not force people to become citizens. We forbid them to come here by law. That the law is not enforced by those who's job it is to do so, does not make it right. Your claim otherwise is very odd.

4. Yes, they are a majority now, when combined with white liberals. It does not bode well for our civilization. Dark times are likely coming, and soon.

1) You don't know that the complaint she has is valid. She may have gotten outvoted at the polls. Did you think about that?

2) Whatever you said is non-responsive in that reply

3) So, you think they are forbidden. Common sense has shown that you cannot criminalize Liberty and the courts have ruled that once in this country it is not a crime. I'm just stating facts here. You've wasted how much bandwidth trying to convince me that only citizens have Rights????????

4) If you're agreeing that they are the majority with their liberal co-conspirators, then common sense should dictate that you have to think outside the box because popularity contests don't favor your position. So, can I deduce from this you don't want the undocumented to become citizens?

1. I have no reason to doubt her personal observations. Her interest in not having that happen to her community is valid. Your dismissal of her, is not.

2. No, it wasn't. YOUR dismissal of my point, was a non-response. My point about this being the failure of the Political Class and the Media stands.


3. You are jumping all over the place. First you say "Liberty" like that is an argument. Then you cite common sense and the law in the same sentence, which is hard to take seriously. Then you pontificate some. The fact remains, we do not force them to become citizens. We forbid them to come here. They are here against our wishes.

4. At this point, I still believe if the people could be properly informed on the real situation, I believe we could still win a majority and get things done, though the window is closing fast. And no, I do not want the undocumented to become citizens. I want them to go home.

 

[Correll]

. and the lack of alternatives for the People.

Liberty- Period. Unless, of course you believe in inalienable rights over unalienable rights- which you have yet to answer when asked which leaves but one alternative for this people- you prefer to not be cornered by one who espouses Liberty as the ONLY way to live- they are an UNalienable rights, not inalienable.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Do you know where the above came from? As has been said, the past is prelude.

Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,


is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.


The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.

When we have a system that encourages outsiders (sic) to get some human registration papers and participate in the process, you're simply being "legally" over-run and the only person you can blame is yourself. Whatever laws you contemplate leave you with making some drastic changes OR you are going to have to accept the direction the majority is taking us.

I don't know what I have to do in order to get you to answer three or four questions honestly, but without knowing what you're really complaining about, not even Jesus could help you in a prayer.

IF the public was kept informed and the politicians honest about their intent and their policies, and their planned actions, and still won elections, then you could say, that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "

But none of that is happening, so blaming the Political Class and media, is valid.

You apparently have the equation wrong. A Representative represents. The reason things aren't getting done is you throw out a bumper sticker at a politician and expect them to do God knows what. I don't know what you want any more than they do. And, if you looked at the real price tag of what you hear these dishonest dolts say, you wouldn't want to pay the price either. One brush with the LEO community over the so called "Patriot Act" taught me to fully investigate the downsides to all legislation.

If we heard the real price and made an informed decision based on that, and we choose this result, it would then be legitimate.


But we have been lied to by the media and our politicians, and then they still fail to actually enforce the laws and policies that we end up with.

So, your claim that it is just the "direction the majority is taking us. "


Is not true.

1) Correll, your responses do not align with the post you are quoting. What "result" are you talking about?

2) The laws are being enforced. You simply do not understand them. You can't just "deport" people. You can't just round them up either. The United States Supreme Court said so. You have to have probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime before you can start hassling them. And, being in the United States without papers has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court NOT to be a crime. What law do you want enforced? Forget it. You can't even tell me WHY you are so obsessed with the issue.

1. The results we see, the current situation with tens of millions of illegals and tens of millions of legal immigrants.

2. THe laws are not being enforced. IF the laws were being enforced, there would be no illegal border crossing. THe political and legal issues, are real, but there could be and should be push back on them, and even then we could be far more aggressive in doing what we can. This is the Political Class and the Medial failing.

 

[Correll]

Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,


is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.


The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.

I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.

Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.

Saying "liberty" is not an argument.

Correll, When you politicize a discussion, you do yourself a great disservice. Let's look at that word invade. According to Blacks Law Dictionary an invasion is:

"An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."

INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary

Find the legal definition of INVASION from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed....

thelawdictionary.org

What rights do you have that are being encroached upon by foreign workers? We've certainly not seen any army with their rifles, forcing employers to hire those from south of he border. What we see are Americans willingly doing business with foreigners. So, the onus is now on you to show us what rights you have that are being encroached upon.

The RIght of Sovereignty of the American people. The Right to decide who becomes a part of our communities. The Right to decide, to the degree with can control it, what direction our culture will develop.

Those rights, off the top of my head. There are probably some others.


Oh, and that is directly.

INDIRECTLY, with the leftward drift caused by demographic shift, all rights are threatened by the invasion.


Your focus on the Right of Individuals to do business with whom they want, while ignoring the Rights of everyone else involved, seems very odd.

The decisions have been made.

What are you talking about? THe decision as to who enters our communities? Correct. And those decisions are being rendered moot by the forcible invasion of our territory by unwelcome outsiders.

But, really, dude you are making incoherent statements.

No, I have not.

Let's start over:

MY observation is that whether or not a foreigner comes or goes within the state is the STATE'S JURISDICTION. You brought up a "Right of Sovereignty of the American People." What in the Hell is that? According to Wikipedia:

It is the right of a people to rule themselves. IN this case, America.

You've admitted that the left has you outvoted. It is within the power of a state as to who comes and goes.

That is unworkable, as there are no internal boundaries. California would just allow all of Latin America to enter and that would be the end of the country.

I've pointed this out before, and you response by saying "liberty" or citing the "Supreme Court", but no addressing the point.

You keep wanting to revert to emotional arguments like that invasion B.S.

Invasion is the proper term. Your dismissal of it, is actually the emotional response.

You cannot articulate what it is that is really bothering you.

A lot is bothering me. You are jumping all over the place. You can't explain why I should not be bothered. Saying Liberty a lot, is not an argument.

The more government control you beg for in an era where you are the minority, the worse things becomes for every free person.

"Beg" is an emotional argument. And the federal government already has this role, immigration policy, and has for a long time. I am not asking for more control, just better policy.

It would help if you'd quit using emotion laden buzz words and political rhetoric and simply answer my questions with the specificity asked.

Dismissing my arguments as buzzwords, is kind of a emotional rhetoric tactic in itself.

What legal interest do you have in my private financial transactions?

Depends on whether your actions are relevant to my interests. Your desire to be an island, is denied.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. 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." Thomas Paine

Amen!

Lol amen your idiot buddy there
How is defending illegals collecting benefits from state government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems

Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect

ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .

Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot

You guys are shot and living in dreamworld

One thing I despise is a LIAR. YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies. And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more POLICE STATE intervention. Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union. I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.

I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned). And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something? What's the alternative?

Sanctuary was won by right wing conservatives. Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws. State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so. The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call "illegal aliens." IF those people prevail, gun owners would have NO recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional. I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary. But, then this post would be TLDR.

Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you. Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate POLICE STATE could not be refuted or dismissed. It would be official.

Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, NOBODY can tell them what viable alternatives they may have. So, which bothers you? Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law OR do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?

She made 4 points in her post.


1. The local governments not representing their constituents.

2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.

3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,

4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.


Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.

You're posting silliness. I have not ridiculed the woman at all. Neither am I being snarky. She is an immigrant. MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary. The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws. She doesn't want to accept that.

Local governments ARE representing their constituents. It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue. Why? The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages. In other words, the feds are controlling it. They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right. There are NO alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate. For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil. Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.

If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship. Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is NOT a legal issue. The overwhelming majority of the so - called "legal" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws. They want to repeal all of them. It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.

Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.


ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.

And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?

IIRC in a post on another thread I thought she said she came here "legally." I might be mistaken; it may have been her parents. In any case, she is the product of what her parents or the cults have taught her. MaryL. consistently refuses to answer questions I've asked such as "Have you ever read the Constitution?" When I ask if someone believes that foreigners violated some sacred law, it's not meant to be snarky, it is an honest and objective question.

Coming into the United States without papers is the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn. It is, technically speaking, a federal civil misdemeanor. The United States Supreme Court has gone so far as to state that it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. So, knowing that this is statutory law and has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, it's not the fault of any legislator at any level because the United States Supreme Court has claimed that THEY, not we, the sheeple, are the final arbiters of what the law is. Barring a constitutional amendment, you're mostly out of options since the legislators and not even Trump can over-rule the United States Supreme Court - well, it hasn't been done since the high Court declared themselves to be the most powerful branch of government (around 1804 IIRC in Marbury v. Madison.)

Without knowing, specifically, what your objectives really are, I cannot offer up a solution. I asked once before if they gave all the undocumented foreigners citizenship. would that allay your fears? Between about 1987 and 2001 I know that those kinds of "amnesties" have taken place. There were more than half a dozen or so. Since nobody has challenged the constitutionality of those amnesties, I have to put that on the table. Everybody seems to be at peace with those who were given citizenship.

And, I keep coming back to the fact that, like it or not, we force people to become citizens as opposed to simply exercising their unalienable Rights and once they outnumber us, they vote in politicians that don't see things like you and MaryL. want them to be. And they are the majority now. The only reason Trump is in office is due to the electoral college, NOT the popular vote. So, today, try being honest with me and I will give you a no nonsense evaluation of what is open to you and why.

1. I comment on the reality of the issue, and you cite an Authority. That is not an answer to the merit of her point. Outsiders are coming into her community, against her wishes and the wishes of her community. Her complaint about that is valid.

2. I already discussed the failure of our Political Class, as a general point. (re your discussion of the Court and the amnesties.)

3. We do not force people to become citizens. We forbid them to come here by law. That the law is not enforced by those who's job it is to do so, does not make it right. Your claim otherwise is very odd.

4. Yes, they are a majority now, when combined with white liberals. It does not bode well for our civilization. Dark times are likely coming, and soon.

1) You don't know that the complaint she has is valid. She may have gotten outvoted at the polls. Did you think about that?

2) Whatever you said is non-responsive in that reply

3) So, you think they are forbidden. Common sense has shown that you cannot criminalize Liberty and the courts have ruled that once in this country it is not a crime. I'm just stating facts here. You've wasted how much bandwidth trying to convince me that only citizens have Rights????????

4) If you're agreeing that they are the majority with their liberal co-conspirators, then common sense should dictate that you have to think outside the box because popularity contests don't favor your position. So, can I deduce from this you don't want the undocumented to become citizens?

1. I have no reason to doubt her personal observations. Her interest in not having that happen to her community is valid. Your dismissal of her, is not.

2. No, it wasn't. YOUR dismissal of my point, was a non-response. My point about this being the failure of the Political Class and the Media stands.


3. You are jumping all over the place. First you say "Liberty" like that is an argument. Then you cite common sense and the law in the same sentence, which is hard to take seriously. Then you pontificate some. The fact remains, we do not force them to become citizens. We forbid them to come here. They are here against our wishes.

4. At this point, I still believe if the people could be properly informed on the real situation, I believe we could still win a majority and get things done, though the window is closing fast. And no, I do not want the undocumented to become citizens. I want them to go home.

1) Don't try to personalize everything, Correll. Telling people they don't have a case; they got outvoted; the people spoke, etc. is not dismissing people. It's giving them the facts. You don't want the window to close, but if what you're doing is not yielding the results you want, then maybe you should learn how to rephrase your concern so that the proper remedy will become obvious to you (and MaryL.)

2) If you aren't part of the political class and have no influence in the media, then that is on you. If you were an activist that read books, talked with experts and other activists on all sides of the issue, you would know what to do. Starting a hundred threads on discussion boards, read by mostly bored people that are not active is tantamount to pissing in the wind. I try to educate people, but both sides are so dishonest that they refuse to engage in honest discourse

3) The only accurate statement you made you made in that numbered response is that I'm all over the place... and that is because YOU ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE. Do you know how silly that sounds when you say I cite the law and common sense in the same sentence and it's hard to take seriously? Really? We force people to become citizens because they already have a Right to come here. That is indisputable in the legal community. It don't matter whether you are on the left or the right the law is what the United States Supreme Court says it is... until YOU do something to change the status quo and / or amend the Constitution. The reason I have to pontificate is that you are forcing me to guess at what your bottom line is. All I can do is pontificate based upon the little information you begrudgingly give up a little at a time.

4) In answer to your question: I do not want the foreigners to become citizens. Period. My personal view is that we need to shut down the borders to everyone and just say stop until everyone shows up at the table and we get some kind of consensus.

Due to the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, nobody has any unalienable Rights. Our country was founded on that premise of unalienable rights and our laws were judged and ruled on accordingly. One of my favorites, that illustrates what the Bill of Rights is about is the gun issue that was ruled on in the Cruikshank ruling. Read what the United States Supreme Court wrote:

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States...
...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876),

MAGA, Don't know what that means. But, I'm about to tell you the way it really is. If twelve paragraphs are going to be TLDR, you may want to answer my questions. Otherwise, since you like to criticize me and never answer me, I'll have to presume you know the material I will post - and you just don't want to tell us what you really believe. But, know this Correll: The MAGA people jump onto the bandwagon when they face social liberals. They start that liberal mantra, I don't care where you came from, who you are, what race you are what religion you are... yada, yada, yada and then give us this bullshit that they expect people to come here "legally" as they call it. When they do that, it says to me that they are either pathological liars or complete idiots that chant bumper sticker phrases, unaware of what they just endorsed. I'll be damned if I know where you fit in.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,


is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.


The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.

I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.

Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.

Saying "liberty" is not an argument.

Correll, When you politicize a discussion, you do yourself a great disservice. Let's look at that word invade. According to Blacks Law Dictionary an invasion is:

"An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."

INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary

Find the legal definition of INVASION from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed....

thelawdictionary.org

What rights do you have that are being encroached upon by foreign workers? We've certainly not seen any army with their rifles, forcing employers to hire those from south of he border. What we see are Americans willingly doing business with foreigners. So, the onus is now on you to show us what rights you have that are being encroached upon.

The RIght of Sovereignty of the American people. The Right to decide who becomes a part of our communities. The Right to decide, to the degree with can control it, what direction our culture will develop.

Those rights, off the top of my head. There are probably some others.


Oh, and that is directly.

INDIRECTLY, with the leftward drift caused by demographic shift, all rights are threatened by the invasion.


Your focus on the Right of Individuals to do business with whom they want, while ignoring the Rights of everyone else involved, seems very odd.

The decisions have been made.

What are you talking about? THe decision as to who enters our communities? Correct. And those decisions are being rendered moot by the forcible invasion of our territory by unwelcome outsiders.

But, really, dude you are making incoherent statements.

No, I have not.

Let's start over:

MY observation is that whether or not a foreigner comes or goes within the state is the STATE'S JURISDICTION. You brought up a "Right of Sovereignty of the American People." What in the Hell is that? According to Wikipedia:

It is the right of a people to rule themselves. IN this case, America.

You've admitted that the left has you outvoted. It is within the power of a state as to who comes and goes.

That is unworkable, as there are no internal boundaries. California would just allow all of Latin America to enter and that would be the end of the country.

I've pointed this out before, and you response by saying "liberty" or citing the "Supreme Court", but no addressing the point.

You keep wanting to revert to emotional arguments like that invasion B.S.

Invasion is the proper term. Your dismissal of it, is actually the emotional response.

You cannot articulate what it is that is really bothering you.

A lot is bothering me. You are jumping all over the place. You can't explain why I should not be bothered. Saying Liberty a lot, is not an argument.

The more government control you beg for in an era where you are the minority, the worse things becomes for every free person.

"Beg" is an emotional argument. And the federal government already has this role, immigration policy, and has for a long time. I am not asking for more control, just better policy.

It would help if you'd quit using emotion laden buzz words and political rhetoric and simply answer my questions with the specificity asked.

Dismissing my arguments as buzzwords, is kind of a emotional rhetoric tactic in itself.

What legal interest do you have in my private financial transactions?

Depends on whether your actions are relevant to my interests. Your desire to be an island, is denied.

Correll, I'm done with this multi quote bullshit. It is dishonest; nobody except you and I will even try to keep up with it. You aren't saying anything new. You keep bitching about people dismissing you and you keep crying because you fail to state your case. I'll give you one more chance then tell everyone who gives a rip where you might stand - and if you don't you're ignorant for not being on that page. You have basically three options for success, so since you won't tell me your bottom line, I will tell people what it is.

For example I asked you a direct question. What legal interest do you have in my financial transactions? Your answer is, whether you realize it or not, a National Socialist or socialist reply. Now, when you and the dim wit that has made 100 false accusations gets called on his B.S. he cannot defend what he just said.

You have no financial interest in my private dealings. In our constitutional Republic, I have an unalienable Right to own property. In a socialist country, the people decide, as a whole, what is acceptable and unacceptable for the individual. That is why the talking points the MAGA people use can be traced directly back to NATIONAL SOCIALISTS:

Trump's racist roots?

Everybody has their area of expertise. What I'm going to share is not based upon Internet B.S. but what I know. At one time or another I met most of the principal characters and I only know of one man that is alive today who knows and writes about this subject. I'll do it in segments so you...

defendingthetruth.com

I'll presume that you know the above material. If you still accept that position, then I can tell you what options are left for you. But, from what you've argued thus far, your talking points put you in that camp. Not everybody with a beef against the foreigners swaps spit with the above groups and individuals. So, if you want another view, I can tell it to you.

 

[Correll]

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. 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." Thomas Paine

Amen!

Lol amen your idiot buddy there
How is defending illegals collecting benefits from state government burrecracies fit into the libertarian movement and belief systems

Many state social service programs at thier core are anti liberty..... rules and regulations apply to all who collect ...people are wards of the state in a way .even a set of guidelines on who gets what and what qualified a person to be eligible to collect

ya know the topic of the thread is mexicans went home because they lost thier jobs and couldnt collect corona cash ...a true libertarain would be calling for the abolishment of these institutions as easily as you're calling for non regualted wide open borders free from government .

Free market starve or eat on your own for all...come back n forth across the border on your own for all ...that would make much more logical sense then repeatedly calling everyone who doesnt agree a bigot

You guys are shot and living in dreamworld

One thing I despise is a LIAR. YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. We forfeited our Liberties and the Tea Party Republicans passed Orwellian laws (i.e. the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify) on the promise it was going to keep undocumented foreigners from getting welfare and freebies. And here YOUR LYING ASS is, misrepresenting my every post, wanting more and more POLICE STATE intervention. Now that you've moved the bar to "state" benefits, I live in Georgia and have no legal say so in at least 49 other states in this Union. I can tell you that undocumented foreigners here get very very limited benefits - usually those that could save you.

I see undocumented aliens getting sanctuary without the consent of the local constituency. Now, I see 3 Mexicans in booth at the DMV clearly marked one person per booth (on cell phones which where also banned). And the newly passed Moter-Voter law...And the local politicians creating "sanctuary" for undocumented foreigners. Many of us are so disgusted with our so called state "governments". What can we do? Vote for Trump or something? What's the alternative?

Sanctuary was won by right wing conservatives. Sheriffs did not want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. So, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local governments, forcing them to enforce federal laws. State and local governments that do not want to enforce federal immigration laws cannot be forced to do so. The short sighted thinking of the anti - liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters is to somehow overthrow sanctuary because of people they call "illegal aliens." IF those people prevail, gun owners would have NO recourse except to surrender to federal gun control laws even when their governor agrees that the feds actions may be unconstitutional. I could come up with a few more scenarios where having sanctuary is necessary. But, then this post would be TLDR.

Voting for Donald Trump does nothing to help you. Trump cannot over-rule the holding in the United States Supreme Court and if gun owners found out he made it possible for a legal federal gun confiscation scenario to take place, if Americans didn't rebel, then the ultimate POLICE STATE could not be refuted or dismissed. It would be official.

Unless and until those obsessed over the issue level with us, NOBODY can tell them what viable alternatives they may have. So, which bothers you? Are you upset because you think they violated some sacred law OR do you see immigration in general as being antithetical to our values?

She made 4 points in her post.


1. The local governments not representing their constituents.

2. The immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of her society.

3. The inability of the political system to deal with it,

4. and the lack of alternatives for the People.


Your response addressed none of her issues, but did contain significant elements of snark and ridicule.

You're posting silliness. I have not ridiculed the woman at all. Neither am I being snarky. She is an immigrant. MaryL. in this thread and others is against sanctuary. The problem is, many Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities are popping up all over America so that the feds cannot force state and local governments from enforcing unconstitutional federal gun control laws. She doesn't want to accept that.

Local governments ARE representing their constituents. It's just that the left is winning out on this immigration issue. Why? The people like you and MaryL. have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. If you look at the numbers of foreigners that were entering the United States and the numbers of undocumented foreigners we had a quarter of a century ago, it's been pretty consistent in terms of the percentages. In other words, the feds are controlling it. They just aren't controlling it to the liking of the right. There are NO alternatives to an issue you cannot articulate. For example, if you tell me you are getting your boxers in a bunch over foreigners violating a civil misdemeanor of the law that, in a worst case scenario, nets them a $250 fine and a few months in jail, then I'd say you need Dr. Phil. Drunk drivers pose a much more serious threat.

If you're just mad because they aren't citizens, then the government can offer them citizenship. Insofar as immigrants not respecting the laws or culture of OUR society (she's an immigrant IIRC), then it clearly is NOT a legal issue. The overwhelming majority of the so - called "legal" variety of immigrants don't respect your culture OR your laws. They want to repeal all of them. It is up to the voters to elect knowledgeable public servants that can and will pass laws consistent with the Constitution in order to deal with this.

Our political class sabotages any candidates that want to do that. Our media lies about them. Our political class lies about their intent and the effects of their laws and policies.


ANd, responding to her point with a comment about "sacred laws" is snark.

And what do you mean, "she is an immigrant"?

IIRC in a post on another thread I thought she said she came here "legally." I might be mistaken; it may have been her parents. In any case, she is the product of what her parents or the cults have taught her. MaryL. consistently refuses to answer questions I've asked such as "Have you ever read the Constitution?" When I ask if someone believes that foreigners violated some sacred law, it's not meant to be snarky, it is an honest and objective question.

Coming into the United States without papers is the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn. It is, technically speaking, a federal civil misdemeanor. The United States Supreme Court has gone so far as to state that it is not a crime to be in the United States without papers. So, knowing that this is statutory law and has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court, it's not the fault of any legislator at any level because the United States Supreme Court has claimed that THEY, not we, the sheeple, are the final arbiters of what the law is. Barring a constitutional amendment, you're mostly out of options since the legislators and not even Trump can over-rule the United States Supreme Court - well, it hasn't been done since the high Court declared themselves to be the most powerful branch of government (around 1804 IIRC in Marbury v. Madison.)

Without knowing, specifically, what your objectives really are, I cannot offer up a solution. I asked once before if they gave all the undocumented foreigners citizenship. would that allay your fears? Between about 1987 and 2001 I know that those kinds of "amnesties" have taken place. There were more than half a dozen or so. Since nobody has challenged the constitutionality of those amnesties, I have to put that on the table. Everybody seems to be at peace with those who were given citizenship.

And, I keep coming back to the fact that, like it or not, we force people to become citizens as opposed to simply exercising their unalienable Rights and once they outnumber us, they vote in politicians that don't see things like you and MaryL. want them to be. And they are the majority now. The only reason Trump is in office is due to the electoral college, NOT the popular vote. So, today, try being honest with me and I will give you a no nonsense evaluation of what is open to you and why.

1. I comment on the reality of the issue, and you cite an Authority. That is not an answer to the merit of her point. Outsiders are coming into her community, against her wishes and the wishes of her community. Her complaint about that is valid.

2. I already discussed the failure of our Political Class, as a general point. (re your discussion of the Court and the amnesties.)

3. We do not force people to become citizens. We forbid them to come here by law. That the law is not enforced by those who's job it is to do so, does not make it right. Your claim otherwise is very odd.

4. Yes, they are a majority now, when combined with white liberals. It does not bode well for our civilization. Dark times are likely coming, and soon.

1) You don't know that the complaint she has is valid. She may have gotten outvoted at the polls. Did you think about that?

2) Whatever you said is non-responsive in that reply

3) So, you think they are forbidden. Common sense has shown that you cannot criminalize Liberty and the courts have ruled that once in this country it is not a crime. I'm just stating facts here. You've wasted how much bandwidth trying to convince me that only citizens have Rights????????

4) If you're agreeing that they are the majority with their liberal co-conspirators, then common sense should dictate that you have to think outside the box because popularity contests don't favor your position. So, can I deduce from this you don't want the undocumented to become citizens?

1. I have no reason to doubt her personal observations. Her interest in not having that happen to her community is valid. Your dismissal of her, is not.

2. No, it wasn't. YOUR dismissal of my point, was a non-response. My point about this being the failure of the Political Class and the Media stands.


3. You are jumping all over the place. First you say "Liberty" like that is an argument. Then you cite common sense and the law in the same sentence, which is hard to take seriously. Then you pontificate some. The fact remains, we do not force them to become citizens. We forbid them to come here. They are here against our wishes.

4. At this point, I still believe if the people could be properly informed on the real situation, I believe we could still win a majority and get things done, though the window is closing fast. And no, I do not want the undocumented to become citizens. I want them to go home.

1) Don't try to personalize everything, Correll. Telling people they don't have a case; they got outvoted; the people spoke, etc. is not dismissing people. It's giving them the facts. You don't want the window to close, but if what you're doing is not yielding the results you want, then maybe you should learn how to rephrase your concern so that the proper remedy will become obvious to you (and MaryL.)

I did not personalize it. You did dismiss her.

2) If you aren't part of the political class and have no influence in the media, then that is on you. If you were an activist that read books, talked with experts and other activists on all sides of the issue, you would know what to do. Starting a hundred threads on discussion boards, read by mostly bored people that are not active is tantamount to pissing in the wind. I try to educate people, but both sides are so dishonest that they refuse to engage in honest discourse

No, it is not "on me". My point about the political class and media failing stands.

3) The only accurate statement you made you made in that numbered response is that I'm all over the place... and that is because YOU ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE. Do you know how silly that sounds when you say I cite the law and common sense in the same sentence and it's hard to take seriously? Really? We force people to become citizens because they already have a Right to come here. That is indisputable in the legal community. It don't matter whether you are on the left or the right the law is what the United States Supreme Court says it is... until YOU do something to change the status quo and / or amend the Constitution. The reason I have to pontificate is that you are forcing me to guess at what your bottom line is. All I can do is pontificate based upon the little information you begrudgingly give up a little at a time.

We do not force people to come here. We do not force people to become citizens. NO ONE not an American citizen has a right to come here.

4) In answer to your question: I do not want the foreigners to become citizens. Period. My personal view is that we need to shut down the borders to everyone and just say stop until everyone shows up at the table and we get some kind of consensus.

I agree.

Due to the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, nobody has any unalienable Rights. Our country was founded on that premise of unalienable rights and our laws were judged and ruled on accordingly. One of my favorites, that illustrates what the Bill of Rights is about is the gun issue that was ruled on in the Cruikshank ruling. Read what the United States Supreme Court wrote:

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States...
...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876),

MAGA, Don't know what that means. But, I'm about to tell you the way it really is. If twelve paragraphs are going to be TLDR, you may want to answer my questions. Otherwise, since you like to criticize me and never answer me, I'll have to presume you know the material I will post - and you just don't want to tell us what you really believe. But, know this Correll: The MAGA people jump onto the bandwagon when they face social liberals. They start that liberal mantra, I don't care where you came from, who you are, what race you are what religion you are... yada, yada, yada and then give us this bullshit that they expect people to come here "legally" as they call it. When they do that, it says to me that they are either pathological liars or complete idiots that chant bumper sticker phrases, unaware of what they just endorsed. I'll be damned if I know where you fit in.

The debate on immigration often gets confused, because of the complexity that there is both legal and illegal immigration.

When you respond to questions or issues of illegal immigration, with an argument against the power of the US to HAVE an immigration policy, you are part of that confusion.


I want to greatly reduce if not stop all significant immigration into the US, and deport all the illegals, and really quite a number of legal immigrants who are found to have lied in their process.


I recognize this is unlikely to happen.

 

[Correll]

Having her community overrun by outsiders who do not respect her laws or culture or interests,


is not Liberty, it is just Weakness.


The weakness of a society that cannot protect itself.

I disagree- the Liberty to do business (and or associate) with whomever one pleases will expand Liberty which will afford a protection NO godvernment empty suit bureaucrat even wants to protect. Relying on another for direction means one has to follow (comply) in order to achieve protection.... and then that isn't a guarantee.

Letting outsiders invade and take over your territory, is not a protection. It will not help her at all. They are not coming to help, they are coming to advance and serve THEIR interests.

Saying "liberty" is not an argument.

Correll, When you politicize a discussion, you do yourself a great disservice. Let's look at that word invade. According to Blacks Law Dictionary an invasion is:

"An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."

INVASION Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary

Find the legal definition of INVASION from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed....

thelawdictionary.org

What rights do you have that are being encroached upon by foreign workers? We've certainly not seen any army with their rifles, forcing employers to hire those from south of he border. What we see are Americans willingly doing business with foreigners. So, the onus is now on you to show us what rights you have that are being encroached upon.

The RIght of Sovereignty of the American people. The Right to decide who becomes a part of our communities. The Right to decide, to the degree with can control it, what direction our culture will develop.

Those rights, off the top of my head. There are probably some others.


Oh, and that is directly.

INDIRECTLY, with the leftward drift caused by demographic shift, all rights are threatened by the invasion.


Your focus on the Right of Individuals to do business with whom they want, while ignoring the Rights of everyone else involved, seems very odd.

The decisions have been made.

What are you talking about? THe decision as to who enters our communities? Correct. And those decisions are being rendered moot by the forcible invasion of our territory by unwelcome outsiders.

But, really, dude you are making incoherent statements.

No, I have not.

Let's start over:

MY observation is that whether or not a foreigner comes or goes within the state is the STATE'S JURISDICTION. You brought up a "Right of Sovereignty of the American People." What in the Hell is that? According to Wikipedia:

It is the right of a people to rule themselves. IN this case, America.

You've admitted that the left has you outvoted. It is within the power of a state as to who comes and goes.

That is unworkable, as there are no internal boundaries. California would just allow all of Latin America to enter and that would be the end of the country.

I've pointed this out before, and you response by saying "liberty" or citing the "Supreme Court", but no addressing the point.

You keep wanting to revert to emotional arguments like that invasion B.S.

Invasion is the proper term. Your dismissal of it, is actually the emotional response.

You cannot articulate what it is that is really bothering you.

A lot is bothering me. You are jumping all over the place. You can't explain why I should not be bothered. Saying Liberty a lot, is not an argument.

The more government control you beg for in an era where you are the minority, the worse things becomes for every free person.

"Beg" is an emotional argument. And the federal government already has this role, immigration policy, and has for a long time. I am not asking for more control, just better policy.

It would help if you'd quit using emotion laden buzz words and political rhetoric and simply answer my questions with the specificity asked.

Dismissing my arguments as buzzwords, is kind of a emotional rhetoric tactic in itself.

What legal interest do you have in my private financial transactions?

Depends on whether your actions are relevant to my interests. Your desire to be an island, is denied.

Correll, I'm done with this multi quote bullshit. It is dishonest; nobody except you and I will even try to keep up with it. You aren't saying anything new. You keep bitching about people dismissing you and you keep crying because you fail to state your case. I'll give you one more chance then tell everyone who gives a rip where you might stand - and if you don't you're ignorant for not being on that page. You have basically three options for success, so since you won't tell me your bottom line, I will tell people what it is.

For example I asked you a direct question. What legal interest do you have in my financial transactions? Your answer is, whether you realize it or not, a National Socialist or socialist reply. Now, when you and the dim wit that has made 100 false accusations gets called on his B.S. he cannot defend what he just said.

You have no financial interest in my private dealings. In our constitutional Republic, I have an unalienable Right to own property. In a socialist country, the people decide, as a whole, what is acceptable and unacceptable for the individual. That is why the talking points the MAGA people use can be traced directly back to NATIONAL SOCIALISTS:

Trump's racist roots?

Everybody has their area of expertise. What I'm going to share is not based upon Internet B.S. but what I know. At one time or another I met most of the principal characters and I only know of one man that is alive today who knows and writes about this subject. I'll do it in segments so you...

defendingthetruth.com

I'll presume that you know the above material. If you still accept that position, then I can tell you what options are left for you. But, from what you've argued thus far, your talking points put you in that camp. Not everybody with a beef against the foreigners swaps spit with the above groups and individuals. So, if you want another view, I can tell it to you.

I want illegals deported. I am not asking you as a shop keeper to check ids of your customers.

But your desire to hire illegal aliens to work for you, is not a reason for them to be allowed to be here.


We as a nation, have a right to not have outsiders moving into our territory and accessing and using our resources and wealth.


And "Trump's racist past"?


Wanting a secure border is not something that only white racists wants or could think of.

IF, the situation on border security was soooo bad that the only people serious about securing it, was white supremacist, that is interesting and important, (as a condemnation of our political class)


but it does not invalidate the idea.


It is just the Logical Fallacy of Attacking the Messenger.

 

[Likkmee]

All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
...

Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.


The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.


THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.

You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours

 

[Gdjjr]

You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours

What mexicans do in their own country is of no concern to me- however, if you can produce evidence that their Declaration of Independence has a similar philosophy, then they too are hypocrites, just like many here- which does what?

 

[Correll]

All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
...

Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.


The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.


THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.

You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours

Which they have the right to do. I am not a citizen of Mexico, and if I am visiting I am a VISITOR and should respect the people's who's country it actually IS.

 

[Correll]

You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours

What mexicans do in their own country is of no concern to me- however, if you can produce evidence that their Declaration of Independence has a similar philosophy, then they too are hypocrites, just like many here- which does what?

Your refusal to discuss the reality of the issue of borders and illegal immigration, is not good.

 

[Crixus]

Please take back your Mexicans



View attachment 319984

View attachment 319988

Good. Fuck Mexico and fuck that guy. I hope it really sucks for him on a nightly basis. Hopefully Trump gets busy on keeping his word on Tossing illegals and their family's back across the border.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

As I am writing this, there are 231 posts on this thread. Less than half a dozen posters have filibustered and tried to turn this thread into something that I cannot begin to describe. Correll cannot understand simple English and prefers to filibuster via multi quotes. Let me simplify it for them:

The anti liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters - or whatever term they want to apply to themselves are the product of some people and powers that the APMs (anti - liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters) may or may not associate with and the leadership they are tied to is extremely dishonest, corrupt, and misguided. I don't say that lightly.

The resistance when I ask our current crop of APMs is due to the fact that they don't know what's coming next, even as I telegraph my own moves. They want to preemptively strike out at what they have been programmed to think is going to be leftist propaganda. Rest assured, I am not on the left and none of my detractors can show you, chapter and verse any leftist tactic where the truth from someone that grew up on Correll, MaryL and Deplorable Yankee's side of the tracks is put out there for the general public. There is no tactic... it's a simple, honest conversation.

BEFORE the current crop of APMs existed, there were constitutionalists, patriots, Christian Patriots, right wingers, conservatives, and some extremist groups that were what we called blisters. A blister is what shows up after the work is done. And so the presupposition was (and has been proven correct by recent United States Supreme Court holdings), that the 14th Amendment nullified all of our unalienable Rights and reduced to us slavery. Non-whites were allowed to become citizens and, in turn, started a subtle war of genocide against the Posterity of the founders / framers of our country and its Constitution (along with the foundational principles.) We had Christian Patriots, constitutionalists, etc. responsible for exposing the New World Order - One World Government and the evils that they were applying against the Whites in America. You had busing, affirmative action, racial preference hiring schemes, eminent domain abuses, the illegally ratified 14th and 16th Amendments to the Constitution, the militarization of the police, suspension of the Constitution, gun control, and many other issues that were being covered by the patriot community. The far left was in charge of the talking points made by today's APMs.

The far left came up with the nutty wall idea which gave birth to the APMs. The left flipped the right and most of them became entrenched in this warfare against the people from south of the border. Today, they parrot National Socialist talking points as if they were manna from Heaven. The reality is, APMs don't know what in the Hell they want apparently. They cannot accept the fact that there is but ONE kind of immigration. It is proper immigration, NOT legal v illegal. Immigration, in law is defined as:

"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Definition of IMMIGRATION: The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanentresidence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in

thelawdictionary.org

What about those who do not seek PERMANENT RESIDENCE? The APMs imply they must be citizens in order to be here. Permanent residence = citizenship. The APMs cannot show you, in the Constitution, where the federal government has any jurisdiction over foreigners that come here to engage in the free market. It is a state's right. The courts never had the authority to give any power to Congress to say or do anything differently. So, employers, landlords, buyers, sellers, etc. are under NO obligation to obey the current laws (THAT WERE DESIGNED TO DILUTE THE WHITE VOTE AND MAKE US A NONWHITE COUNTRY)

Do they want the people they think are "illegal" out of the country? So, can those who came in without documentation and later given citizenship get to stay? How does that play out with the 14th Amendment? Do they even know what that terminology means OR better, WHY it was enacted into law? Do they know the limitations of what the system can do? The courts have strict limits on what the legal and political system can and cannot do. And the APMs are so stupid that they think when I tell them the straight skinny, I'm some kind of "G D liberal." Are they aware of the fact that manning the border will not stop undocumented foreigners since the majority of them come in via proper channels? They act oblivious to these things. How do you solve the problem? Try having an honest discussion. They should understand who is behind their talking points and why:

Trump's racist roots?

Everybody has their area of expertise. What I'm going to share is not based upon Internet B.S. but what I know. At one time or another I met most of the principal characters and I only know of one man that is alive today who knows and writes about this subject. I'll do it in segments so you...

defendingthetruth.com

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You fly down Mezko way and overstay your return ticket and within a couple months or so you'll get a visit and an escort.
Down here it's about 3 months overstay but when you go to exit you better have $300 cash for your ignoring the Visa requirement. If you want to hang over the 90 days you can call immigration and tell them why(working on your place, medical-dental stuff, waiting on a cheaper flight) and they'll either give you a confirmation # or say u GTFO in under 72 hours

What mexicans do in their own country is of no concern to me- however, if you can produce evidence that their Declaration of Independence has a similar philosophy, then they too are hypocrites, just like many here- which does what?

Your refusal to discuss the reality of the issue of borders and illegal immigration, is not good.

He cannot discuss the reality of the issue with a poster like you who is out of touch with reality and afraid to engage in honest discourse. Maybe Gdjjr sees how these exchanges end with that multi quote B.S. and I can almost guarantee he isn't reading the exchanges between you and I - nor is anyone else. So, why engage in a waste of bandwidth?